Archives: Publications

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.

TOWN OF SOUTHBURY NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING AREA FEBRUARY 2009 REVISED MARCH 2009 MMI #2937-02 Prepared For: Under a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through Connecticut Department of Environmental Protections (DEP) Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 60 North Main Street, 3rd Floor Waterbury, Connecticut 06702-1403 Prepared By: M ILONE &M AC BROOM ,INC . 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 (203) 271-1773 www.miloneandmacbroom.com In Association With: Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. 72 Cedar Street Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 247-7200 www.fhiplan.com NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………… ……………….ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 1-1 1.2 Hazard Mitigation Goals ……………………………………………………………… …………………….. 1-3 1.3 Identification of Hazards and Document Overview ……………………………………………….. 1-5 1.4 Discussion of STAPLEE 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 ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. …….. 2-6 2.4 Climate ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ……. 2-11 2.5 Drainage Basins and Hydrology ……………………………………………………………… ………… 2-11 2.6 Population and Demographic Setting ……………………………………………………………… …. 2-16 2.7 Governmental Structure ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 2-22 2.8 Development Trends ……………………………………………………………… ………………………… 2-2 2 2.9 Critical Facilities and Sheltering Capacity ………………………………………………………….. 2-24 3.0 INLAND FLOODING 3.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 3-1 3.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 3-2 3.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 3-5 3.4 Existing Programs, Policies and Mitigation Measures ……………………………………………. 3-8 3.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 3-13 3.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 3-21 3.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 3-30 4.0 ICE JAMS 4.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 4-1 4.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 4-1 4.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 4-2 4.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 4-3 4.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 4-3 4.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ……………………………………. 4-5 4.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………… 4-6 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 5.0 HURRICANES 5.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… 5-1 5.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 5-1 5.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 5-6 5.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 5-9 5.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 5-10 5.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 5-11 5.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 5-13 6.0 SUMMER STORMS & TORNADOES 6.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 6-1 6.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 6-1 6.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 6-6 6.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 6-8 6.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 6-10 6.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 6-11 6.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 6-12 7.0 WINTER STORMS 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 ……………………………………………. 7-6 7.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 7-7 7.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ……………………………………. 7-8 7.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 7-10 8.0 EARTHQUAKES 8.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 8-1 8.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 8-1 8.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 8-3 8.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 8-5 8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 8-5 8.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ……………………………………. 8-8 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 9.0 DAM FAILURE 9.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… 9-1 9.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 9-1 9.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 9-7 9.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 9-9 9.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 9-10 9.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 9-12 10.0 WILDFIRES 10.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………. ……… 10-1 10.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ………………………….. 1 0-1 10.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………….. 10-3 10.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………. 10-5 10.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 10-5 10.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 10-8 11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 11.1 Additional Recommendations……………………………………………………………… ……………. 11-1 11.2 Summary of Specific Recommendations …………………………………………………………….. 11-2 11.3 Sources of Funding ……………………………………………………………… ………………………….. 11-7 12.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 12.1 Implementation Strategy and Schedule ……………………………………………………………… . 12-1 12.2 Progress Monitoring and Public Participation ……………………………………………………… 12-2 12.3 Updating the Plan……………………………………………………………… …………………………… .. 12-3 12.4 Technical and Financial Resources……………………………………………………………… …….. 12-4 13.0 REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………….. 13 -1 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) TABLES Table 2-1 Land Use by Area ……………………………………………………………… …………………… 2-5 Table 2-2 Drainage Basins ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 2-12 Table 2-3 Population Density by Municipality, Region, and State, 2000 …………………….. 2-17 Table 2-4 Critical Facilities in Southbury ……………………………………………………………… .. 2-24 Table 3-1 FIRM Zone Descriptions ……………………………………………………………… …………. 3-3 Table 5-1 Hurricane Characteristics ……………………………………………………………… …………. 5-6 Table 6-1 Fujita Scale…………………………………………………… ……………………………………….. 6-2 Table 6-2 Enhanced Fujita Scale ……………………………………………………………… ……………… 6-4 Table 6-3 Tornado Events in New Haven County Since 1950 …………………………………….. 6-7 Table 6-4 NOAA Weather Watches……………………………………………………………… …………. 6-9 Table 6-5 NOAA Weather Warnings ……………………………………………………………… ……….. 6-9 Table 7-1 NESIS Categories ……………………………………………………………… …………………… 7-3 Table 9-1 High Hazard Dams that Could Potentially Impact the Town of Southbury …….. 9-2 Table 9-2 Dams Damaged Due to Flooding from October 2005 Storms……………………….. 9-8 FIGURES Figure 2-1 Southbury Location Map ……………………………………………………………… …………. 2-2 Figure 2-2 Southbury in the CNVR ……………………………………………………………… …………… 2-3 Figure 2-3 Southbury Generalized Land Use ……………………………………………………………… 2-4 Figure 2-4 Southbury Bedrock Geology……………………………………….. …………………………… 2-8 Figure 2-5 Southbury Surficial Materials ……………………………………………………………… …. 2-10 Figure 2-6 Southbury Elderly Population……………………………………………………………… …. 2-19 Figure 2-7 Southbury Linguistically Isolated Households ………………………………………….. 2-20 Figure 2-8 Southbury Disabilities Map ……………………………………………………………… ……. 2-21 Figure 2-9 Southbury Critical Facilities Map ……………………………………………………………. 2-25 Figure 3-1 FEMA Flood Zones in Southbury……………………………………. ……………………….. 3-4 Figure 3-2 Flood Bridge Road Study Area ……………………………………………………………… .. 3-15 Figure 3-3 River Trail Study Area ……………………………………………………………… …………… 3-17 Figure 3-4 Pomperaug River Study Area ……………………………………………………………… …. 3-19 Figure 4-1 Location of Ice Jams in Southbury ……………………………………………………………. 4-4 Figure 9-1 High Hazard Dams in Southbury (Shepaug Dam)……………………………………….. 9-3 Figure 9-2 High Hazard Dams in Southbury (Paper Mill Pond Dam & Kettletown Brook Pond Dam) ……………………………………………………………… ….. 9-4 Figure 9-3 High Hazard Dams in Southbury (Middle Hill House Road Pond Dam & Pomperaug River Dam) ……………………………………………………………… …………… 9-5 Figure 9-4 High Hazard Dams in Southbury (Pierces Colonial Acres Pond Dam)…………… 9-6 Figure 10-1 Southbury Wildfire Risk Area ……………………………………………………………… … 10-2 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDED TABLES Appended Table 1 Hazard Event Ranking Appended Table 2 Hazard Effect Ranking Appended Table 3 Development Checklist APPENDICES Appendix A STAPLEE Matrix Appendix B Documentation of Plan Development Appendix C Record of Municipal Adoption NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Town of Southbury Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan 1. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires local communities to have a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-approved mitigation plan in order to be eligible to receive post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) grants and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program project grant funds. 2. In general, the Town of Southbury has three unique situations that can p otentially lead to difficult disaster response: the presence of Heritage Village, with its 2,500 age-restricted units and access limitations; the predominance of year-round homes in challenging riverside and hilly locations that were formerly summer cottages; and the tendency for more recent developments to rely on dead-end streets. 3. As a result of its unique land uses, the Town of Southbury has large vul nerable populations in Heritage Village and the Southbury Training School, as well as nationally-important businesses that may all be vulnerable to certain hazards. 4. Regarding the second of the three unique situations, many of the cottages in Southbury date back to the 1930s when Connecticut Light & Power sold numerous cottage home lots for $100 each. These cottage home lots were transformed into year-round dwellings mostly during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. These homes are now located in some of the larger problem areas in the Town in terms of overbank flooding and flooding caused by poor drainage. 5. The Department of Public Works is the principal municipal department that responds to problems caused by natural hazards. 6. The Town considers its police, fire, medical, governmental, major transportation facilities, and senior center (a designated shelter) to be its most important critical facilities, for these are needed to ensure that emergencies are addressed while day-to-day management of Southbury continues. Age-restricted, State facilities, life care centers, assisted living communities, a national defense satellite/communi cations facility, sewage treatment plants, the Public Works Department, and the Heritage Village Water Company wellfield are included with critical facilities, as these house populations of individ uals and utilities that would require special assistance during an emergency. 7. Southbury has several buildings available for shelters, including the Southbury Senior Center and the Southbury Fire House. The central locations of these buildings make them easily accessible from most locations in Town. Southbury encourages residents to shelter in place whenever possible. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-2 8. Many private roads and trails (including Hillside Road, Heritage Village and Berkshire Estates) are too narrow for emergency vehicular transit. They present the possibility of access problems during emergencies in the area. 9. In every season of the year, the Town of Southbury has experienced vario us degrees of flooding. It has in place a number of measures to prevent flood damage including zoning and subdivision regulations, the Southbury code, aquifer protection regulati ons, and ordinances preventing encroachment and development near floodways. The areas with the highest vulnerability to flood events are concentrated along the Pomperaug River. 10. The Town’s Police and Fire Departments regularly monitor the stage of the Pomperaug River and combine forces to provide advanced notice to residents in the floodplain su rrounding the river of potential flooding problems. 11. The Town of Southbury primarily attempts to mitigate flood damage and flood hazards by restricting building activities in flood-prone areas. This process is carried out through the Zoning Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Inland Wetlands Commission. The primary areas of concern are Flood Bridge Road, River Road, River Trail, Manor Road, and Pomperaug Trail. Secondary areas of concern are Hulls Hill Road/Jeremy Swamp Road Intersection, Spruce Brook Road near Route 172, Lakeside Road and Lee Farm Drive, Community House Road, Route 172 Bridge over the Pomperaug River, Route 172 at “Hay Fever Farm”, Little Fox Lane, and Flagg Swamp Road. 12. Based on the above guidelines and the existing roles of the IWC, the PC, the ZC, and the, Zoning Enforcement Officer, one specific preventive measure is recommended. A checklist should be developed that cross-references the bylaws, regulations, and c odes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to a proposed project. This will streamline the permitting process and ensure maximum education of a developer or applicant. 13. The following specific recommendations are offered for consideration for natural resource protection, and are subject to a favorable FEMA cost-benefit analysis: Apply for a grant to acquire property on a voluntary basis on Flood Bridge Road, River Road, River Trail, Manor Drive, and Pomperaug Trail. Stormwater controls such as drainage systems, detention dams and reservoirs, and culverts should be employed to lessen floodwater runoff in these areas. 14. The Pomperaug River is considered the third most-susceptible river in the state with regard to ice jams, after the Shetucket River and the Salmon River. 15. Ice jams have historically been concentrated in a small area of Southbury near the confluence of the Housatonic and Pomperaug Rivers. The neighborhoods which are und er highest threat by ice jams include those along Manor Road and Pomperaug Trail. 16. Programs, policies, and mitigation measures that are specifically applicable to ice jams are not addressed within Town of Southbury regulations. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-3 17. While only some of the areas of Southbury are susceptible to flood damage caused by hurricanes, wind damage can occur anywhere in the Town. 18. Wind loading requirements are addressed through the state building code. The Town of Southbury has adopted the Connecticut Building Code as its building code . 19. Tree limbs and trees may fall during heavy wind events, potentially damaging structures, utility lines, and vehicles. The Town of Southbury Department of Public Works performs annual tree maintenance near roadways. Connecticut Light & Power also performs tree maintenance, but landowners are primarily responsible for conducting tree maintenance on private property. 20. The Town of Southbury is less vulnerable to hurricane damage than coastal towns in Connecticut because it does not need to deal with the effects of storm surge, but the Town is vulnerable to hurricane damage from wind and flooding, and from any tornadoes accompanying the storm. As the residents and businesses of the State of Connecticut become more dependent on the internet and mobile communications, the impact of hurricanes on commerce will continue to increase. 21. The public should be made aware of evacuation routes and available shelters. A number of specific proposals for improved public education are recommended to prevent damage and loss of life during hurricanes. 22. The entire Town of Southbury is susceptible to summer storms (including heavy rain, flash flooding, wind, hail, and lightning) and tornadoes. 23. Continued location of utilities underground is an important method of reducing wind damage to utilities and the resulting loss of services. 24. The entire Town of Southbury is susceptible to winter storms. The Town ensures that all warning/notification and communications systems are ready before a storm, and ensures that appropriate equipment and supplies, especially snow removal equipment, are in place and in good working order. The Town also prepares for the possible evacuation and sheltering of some populations which could be impacted by the upcoming storm (especially the elderly and special needs persons). 25. The heavily treed landscape in close proximity to densely populated residential areas in the Town of Southbury poses problems in relation to summer storm and blizzard condition damage. Tree limbs and some building structures may not be suited to withstand high wind and snow loads. There is a high propensity of traffic accidents during such storms because, when coupled with slippery road conditions, poor sightlines and heavy glare can create dangerous driving conditions. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-4 26. Connecticut is at a low risk for experiencing a damaging earthquake, however, the entire Town of Southbury is considered susceptible. Areas of steep slopes can collapse during an earthquake, creating landslides. 27. With 32 registered dams and potentially several other minor dams in the Town or along its border, dam failure can occur almost anywhere in The Town of Southbury. Fortunately, a major dam failure is considered only a possible natural hazard event in any given year. One Class C (high hazard) dam and five Class B (significant hazard) dams are located within the Town. 28. The only Class C dam in the Town of Southbury, the Shepaug Dam, presents the highest damage potential to Town residents should it fail. Review of DEP files ind icated that the Pomperaug River Dam, a Class B dam, is currently in poor condition. 29. The Town should consider specifically including dam failure areas in its CodeRED emergency notification system. 30. Wildfires are more common in rural areas than in developed areas, as most fires in populated areas are quickly noticed and contained. The current proactive approach of going on the offense is believed to be effective for controlling wildfires. Despite having a considerable amount of forest/urban interface, the overall risk of wildfires occurring in the Town of Southbury is considered to be low. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose The term hazard refers to an extreme natural event that poses a risk to people, infrastructure, or resources. In the context of natural disasters, pre-disaster hazard mitigation is commonly defined as any sustained action that permanently reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people, property, and resources from natural hazards and their effects. The primary purpose of a natural hazard pre-disaster mitigation plan (HMP) is to identify natural hazards and risks, existing capabilities, and activities that can be undertaken by a community or group of communities to prevent loss of life and reduce property damages associated with the identified hazards. This HMP is prepared specifically to identify hazards in the Town of Southbury, Connecticut (“Southbury” or “Town”). The HMP is relevant not only in emergency management situations, but also should be used within the Southbury’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 signed 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 and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program project grant funds. Once a community has a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan, the community is then eligible to apply for PDM project funds for mitigation activities. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-2 Mitigation Funding Note that starting in 2008 applications for hazard mitigation grant funding are administered under the Unified Hazard Mitigation Assistance program. More information on this and the following programs can be found at FEMA’s website, http://www.fema.gov/ The subject natural hazard pre-d isaster mitigation plan was developed to be consistent with the requirements of the HMGP, PDM, and Flood Management Assistance (FMA) programs. These programs are briefly described below. Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program The Pre-Disaster Mitigation program was authorized 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, territories, tribal governments, communities, and universities for hazard mitigation planning and implementation of mitigation projects prior to disasters, providing an opportunity to reduce the nation’s disaster losses through pre-disaster mitigation planning and the implementation 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 the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The HMGP provides grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures 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 the HMGP is to ensure that a ny opportunities NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-3 to take critical mitigation measures to protect life and property from future disasters are not “lost” during the recovery and reconstruction process following a di saster. 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 goal 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, homes, and other structures insurable under the NFIP. The long-term goal of FMA is to reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP through mitigation activities. Three types of grants are available under FMA. These are Planning, Project, and Technical 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, cultural 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 so urces for hazard mitigation projects. Certain funding sources, such as the 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 SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-4  Identify mitigation initiatives to be implemented if and when funding becomes available. This HMP will identify a number of mitigation recommendations, which can then be prioritized and acted upon as funding allows.  Connect hazard mitigation planning to other community planning efforts. This HMP can be used to guide Southbury’s development through inter-departmental and inter-municipal coordination.  Improve the mechanisms for pre- and post-disaster decision making effort s. This plan emphasizes actions that can be taken now to reduce or prevent future disas ter damages. If the actions identified in this plan are implemented, damage from future hazard events can be minimized, thereby easing recovery and reducing the cost of repairs and reconstruction.  Improve the ability to implement 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 f loods 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 ability to implement and maintain mitigation strategies.  Complement future Community Rating System (CRS) efforts. Implementation of certain mitigation measures may increase a community’s rating, and thus the benefits that it derives from FEMA. Southbury does not participate in the CRS at the present time. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-5 1.3 Identification of Hazards and Document Overview As stated in Section 1.1, the term hazard refers to an extreme natural event that poses a risk to people, infrastructure, or resources. Based on a review of the Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and correspondence with local officials, the following have been identified as natural hazards that are most likely to affect Southbury:  Inland Flooding  Ice Jams  Hurricanes and Tropical Storms  Summer Storms (including lightening, heavy winds, hail, downbursts, and tornadoes)  Winter Storms and Nor’easters  Earthquakes  Dam Failure  Wildfires This document has been prepared with 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, a winter storm, or ice jams. Thus, Appended Tables 1 and 2 provide summaries of the hazard events and hazard effects that impact Southbury, and include criteria for characterizing 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 effects 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 discussion of Southbury’s community profile, including the physical setting, demographics, development trends, governmental NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 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 ; and Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives, and if necessary, a Summary of Recommendations. These are described below.  Settingaddresses 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 is currently undertaking to mitigate the given hazard. These may take the form of ordinances and codes, structural measures such as dams, or public outreach initiatives.  Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment focuses on the specific areas at risk to the hazard. Specific land uses in the given areas are identified. Critical buildings and infrastructure that would be affected by the hazard are identified.  Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives identifies mitigation alternatives, including those that may be the least cost effective or inappropriate for Southbury. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-7  Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives provides a summary of the recommended courses of action for Southbury that are included in the STAPLEE analysis described below. This document concludes with a strategy for implementation of the Hazard Management Plan, including a schedule, a program for monitoring and updating the plan, and a discussion of technical and financial resources. 1.4 Discussion of STAPLEE Ranking Method To prioritize recommended mitigation measures, 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 Southbury? Is there equity issues involved that would mean that one segment of the Town could be treated unfairly?  Technical : Will the proposed strategy work? Will it create more problems than it will solve?  Administrative : Can Southbury implement the strategy? Is there someone to coordinate and lead the effort?  Political : Is the strategy politically acceptable? Is there public support both to implement and maintain the project?  Legal : Is Southbury authorized to implement the proposed strategy? Is there a clear legal basis or precedent for this activity? NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-8  Economic: What are the costs and benefits of this strategy? Does the cost seem reasonable for the size of the problem and the likely benefits?  Environmental : How will the strategy impact the environment? Will the strategy need environmental regulatory 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 strategy 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 scores are determined to be of more importance, economically, socially, environmentally and politically and, hence, prioritized over those with lower scoring. 1.5 Documentation of the Planning Process Southbury is a member of the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV), the responsible regional planning body for Southbury and twelve other member municipalities: Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Cheshire, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Oxford, Prospect, Thomaston, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott, and Woodbury. The municipalities of Cheshire, Oxford, Prospect, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolc ott and Woodbury have existing mitigation plans, and hazard mitigation plans are being concurrently developed for the remaining municipalities. Ms. Virginia Mason of the COGCNV coordinated the development of this Hazard Mitigation Plan. The COGCNV applied for the grant from FEMA through the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The adoption of this plan in the Town of Southbury will also be coordinated by the COGCNV. The following individuals from the Town of Southbury provided information, data, studies, reports, and observations; and were involved in the development of the Plan: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-9  H. William Davis, Jr., First Selectman  Mr. Mark A. R. Cooper, former First Selectman  Ms. Jennifer Naylor, Assistant to First Selectman  Ms. DeLoris S. Curtis, AICP, Town Planning Department Administrator  Mr. Thomas F. Crowe Jr., P.E., Director of Public Works  Mr. Richard Lyle, Assistant Fire Chief/LEPC  Mr. George Slaiby, Town Emergency Management Department An extensive data collection, evaluation, and outreach program was under taken to compile information about existing hazards and mitigation in the Town, as well as to identify areas that should be prioritized for hazard mitigation. The following is a list of meetings that were held to develop this Hazard Mitigation Plan:  An Initial Data Collection Meeting with Town Officials was held February 6, 2008 . This meeting addressed the scope of services necessary to develop this HMP. I nitial input was provided by the project team, necessary documentation was collected, and problem areas within the Town were discussed.  A field inspection was performed February 13, 2008. Observations were made by the project team of numerous flooding areas, ice jam areas, and other problem areas within the Town.  A public information meeting was held March 19, 2008 at 6:30 P.M. at the Southbury Fire House. Preliminary observations and findings were presented and public comments solicited. Representatives from the project team, the Town and the public were in attendance. Residents were invited to attend the public meeting via newspaper announcements. There were approximately eight residents of the Town that attended the meeting, NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-10 providing valuable comments with regard to flooding in the Town. A total of 14 municipal agencies and civic organizations were invited via a mailed copy of the press release that announced the public information meeting. These included: The Tribury Chamber of Commerce  United Water of Greater Waterbury  American Red Cross  Lake Lillinonah Authority  Lake Zoar Authority  Southbury Business Association  Southbury Economic Development Commission  Southbury Land Trust  Southbury Planning Commission  Southbury Zoning Commission  Southbury Land Use Office  Pomperaug Health District  Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition Refer to Appendix B for copies of the newspaper announcement, letters to the agencies and organizations listed above, and an article that was printed after th e meeting. Of the listed organizations, none were represented at the meeting. It is important to note that COGCNV manages the Central Naugatuck Valley Emergency Planning Committee. This committee has begun coordinating emergency services in the region. Fire, Police, EMS, Red Cross, emergency management directors, and other departments participate in these efforts. In June 2004, over 120 responders pa rticipated in the region’s first tabletop exercise on biological terrorism. Area health directors, hospitals, and other health care professionals also meet monthly with the Health and Medical Subcommittee to share information, protocols, and training. Thus, local NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-11 knowledge and experience gained through the Emergency Planning Committee activities has been transferred by the COGCNV to the pre-disaster mitigation planning process. Additional opportunities for the public to review the Plan will be implemented in advance of the public hearing to adopt this plan, tentatively scheduled for March 2009, contingent on receiving conditional approval from FEMA. The draft that is sent for FEMA review will be posted on the Town website (http://www.southbury-ct.gov/) and the COGCNV website (http://www.cogcnv.org/) to provide opportunities for public r eview and comment. Such comments will be incorporated into the final draft when applicable. Upon receiving conditional approval from FEMA, 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 and the announcement of the pub lic 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 plan, these will be submitted to FEMA as page revisions with a cover letter explaining the changes. It is not anticipated that any major modifications will occur at this phase of the project. Appendix B also contains copies of meeting minutes, field notes and observations, the public information meeting presentation, and other records that document the development of this Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-1 2.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE 2.1 Physical Setting The Town of Southbury is located in New Haven County at the intersection of Interstate 84 and Route 67. It is bordered by the towns of Roxbury and Woodbury to the north, Middlebury and Oxford to the east, Newtown to the south, and Bridgewater to the west. Refer to Figure 2-1 for a location map and Figure 2-2 for a region map. The Town is located in the lower portion of the Pomperaug River watershed, with the river flowing through the center of Town and adjacent to several residential areas. The Housatonic River and its two impoundments, Lake Zoar and Lake Lillinonah, comprise the entire southern border of the Town. Likewise, the Shepaug River forms the western border with Bridgewater, and the Eightmile River forms portions of the eastern borders with Middlebury and Oxford. The Town is comprised of suburban neighborhoods, rural country areas, and historic districts nestled within and among its many river valleys and hills. 2.2 Existing Land Use The Town of Southbury encompasses 40 square miles. Table 2-1 provides a summary of land use in Southbury by area. Refer to Figure 2-3 for a map of generalized land use. § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦91 § ¨ ¦91 § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦395 " )2 " )9 " )15 " )15 " )8 " )44 Southbury CONNECTICUT Figure 2-1: Southbury Location Map COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² 01020 Miles Legend To w n B o u n d a r y Interstate Highways Other Highways Southbury For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not be exact. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, DEP June 2008 § ¨ ¦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 NewtownBristol Hamden Litchfield Morris Roxbury BethanySouthington Plymouth Washington Monroe Seymour Woodbridge North Haven Harwinton Burlington Farmington Plainville War ren SheltonAnsonia Wallingford Derby Meriden New Haven Bridgewater East Haven COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² 024Miles Figure 2-2: Southbury in the CNVR Middlebury Middlebury Wa te r bu r y Wa te r bu r y Wolcott Wolcott Oxford Oxford Beacon Falls Beacon Falls Southbury Southbury Woodbury Woodbury Bethlehem Bethlehem Wa te r to wn Wa te r to wn Thomaston Thomaston Naugatuck Naugatuck Prospect Prospect Cheshire Cheshire Legend To w n B o u n d a r y Major Roads Southbury CNVR For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not be exact. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, DEP June 2008 Figure 2-3: Southbury Generalized Land Use 00.51 Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 " )172 " )67 § ¨ ¦84 Legend Town Boundary selection Major Roads Local Roads AG Agriculture CFInstitutional CMCommercial INIndustrial RCRecreational RLResidential – Low Density less than 2 dew lling units per acre RMResidential – Medium Density 2-8 dwe lling units per acre RHResidential – High Density 8 or more dwelling units per acre RXResource Extraction TUTransportation & Utilities UL Undeveloped Land WWat er For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not be exact. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, DEP “Land U se”, C O GC NV June 2008 " )188 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-5 Table 2-1 Land Use by Area Land Use Area (acres) Pct. Residential – Low Density 10,085 39% Vacant 6,459 25% Recreational 3,129 12% Agricultural 2,388 9% Residential – Medium Density 1,296 5% Water 734 3% Institutional 430 2% Utilities/Transportation 419 2% Commercial 306 1% Industrial 212 1% Mining 143 1% Total 25,601 100% Source: Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley, 2000 The Town of Southbury is centered on a linear commercial and institution al district running northeast-southwest along Main Street and along the north side o f Interstate 84, extending from Route 67 to Route 172. Many of the municipal facilities and various commercial plazas are located in and near this corridor. Outside of this central developed corridor, low density residential areas are interspersed with agricultural areas. However, the Town of Southbury contains several unique land uses, including the following:  A very large age-restricted condominium complex known as Heritage Village is located north of the Town center. This complex, reportedly New England’s largest retirement community, is comprised of more than 2,500 housing units and has a population of more than 4,000.  The Town hosts a national defense communications technology vendor, Vizada Americas (formerly Telenor Satellite Communications), located at the far west end of River Road near the Shepaug Dam. This facility provides service to NASA as well as other clients.  A large IBM campus is located on the south side I-84 near the junction of I-84 and Route 67. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-6  The Southbury Training School, a large state institutional facility, is located on 1,600 acres in the northwest part of Town on Route 172. The school was built in the late 1930s as home for individuals with mental retardation. Over 500 individuals reside at the facility, and more than 1,500 people are employed there. As a result of these unique land uses, the Town of Southbury has large vulnerable populations in Heritage Village and the Southbury Training School, as well as nationally- important businesses that may all be vulnerable to certain hazards. Much of the Town is comprised of protected open space, including an Audu bon center and multiple state parks. 2.3 Geology Geology is important to the occurrence and relative effects of natural h azards such as earthquakes. Thus, it is important to understand the geologic setting a nd variation of bedrock and surficial formations in Southbury. The following discussion highlights Southbury’s geology at several scales. In terms of North American bedrock geology, the Town of Southbury is located in the northeastern part of the Appalachian Orogenic Belt, also known as the Appalachian Highlands. The Appalachian Highlands extend from Maine south into Mississippi and Alabama and were formed during the orogeny 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 bedrock geology, the Town of Southbury is divided between two geologic provinces. Bedrock intrusions belonging to the Mes ozoic Basin lie under the north-central part of the Town, while bedrock belonging to the Eugeosyncline Sequence underlies the remainder of the Town. Mesozoic Basin rocks contain NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-7 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. characteristic sedimentary conglomerates, sandstones, and mudrocks that usually bear a red or brownish appearance from an abundance of iron oxide minerals (chiefly hematite and limonite). Eugeosynclinal rocks are typically more deformed, metamorphosed, and intruded by small to large igneous plutons. The bedrock beneath the Town of Southbury is part of two terranes. The majority of the Town is underlain by the Newark Terrane which formed when Pangea split apart. This area is lies within the Mesozoic Basin geologic province described above. The northwestern portion of Southbury is underlain by 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 geologic province described above. The Town of Southbury’s bedrock consists of three general lithologies: v olcanic and intrusive igneous silicate gneisses and basalts, sedimentary arkose, and metasedimentary and metaigneous schists. The bedrock intrusions trend northeast-southwest thr ough the Town. Refer to Figure 2-4 for a depiction of the bedrock geology in the Town of Southbury. The north-central portion of the Town is underlain by the New Haven Arkose, Portland Arkose, and associated rocks (Holyoke Basalt, Talcott Basalt, Shuttle Meadow Formation, East Berlin Formation, and Hampden Basalt) of the Newark Terrane. The arkoses are thick sequences of sedimentary rock striking north-northeast and dipping approximately 15° to the east. OC r Ot Oc Jp OC r Oc Ot Or Ot b TRnh Oc Ot Ot Or Or Jho TRnh OC r TRnh Jho Jeb OC r Jeb Jho Jha Jeb Jeb Jho TRnh Jp Jho DSt Jta Jsm Jho Jha Jho Jha Jha Jsm Jeb Jp Jp Jha Jho Jha Jha Jta Jeb Jho Jsm Jeb Jsm Jta Jeb Jta Jta Jha Jho Jp Jsm Jha Jta Jeb Jeb Jha Jta Jta Jsm Jsm Jeb Ps Cwb Jsm TRnh Dlp Jsm Jp Figure 2-4: Southbury Bedrock Geology 00.51 Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 " )172 " )67 § ¨ ¦84 For ge ne ral pla nni ng pur po ses on ly. De lin eat ion s may no t be e xac t. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, “Bedr ock”, DEP June 2008 Legend Major Roads Local Roads Housatonic River Bedrock Cwb DSt Dlp Jeb Waterbury Gneiss Straits Schist Lamprophyre East Be rl in Formatio n Jha Jho Jp Jsm Jta OCr Rowe Schist Shuttle Meadow Formation Portla nd Arkose Holyoke Basalt Talcott Basalt Hampden Basalt Oc Or Ot Otb Ps TRnh Collinsville Formation Basal Taine Mtn Formation Ratlum Mtn Schist Taine Mtn Formation Syenite New Haven Arkose " )188 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-9 The entire midsection of the Town of Southbury is highly fractured and f aulted, and the Newark Terrane rocks are bounded to the west and east by faulted contact s. At least twice in the late Pleistocene, continental ice sheets moved across Connecticut. As a result, surficial geology of the Town is characteristic of the depo sitional environments that occurred during glacial and postglacial periods. Refer to Fig ure 2-5 for a depiction of surficial geology. Large areas of the Town are covered by glacial till. Tills contain an u nsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders deposited by glaciers as a ground moraine. Sections of the Town lying along the rivers consist primarily of stratified sand and gravel (“stratified drift”) and alluvium deposits associated with these rivers. The stratified drift deposits accumulated by glacial meltwater streams during the outwash period following the latest glacial recession. Major str atified drift deposits are aligned along the Shepaug River, Pomperaug River, Transylvania Brook, Housatonic River, and Eightmile River. The amount of stratified drift present in the Town is important for several reasons:  The stratified drift in Southbury provides productive aquifers currently used by the Heritage Village Water Company and the Southbury Training School to provide drinking water via highly productive wells.  With regard to flooding, areas of stratified materials are generally coincident with floodplains. This is because these materials were deposited at lower elevations by glacial streams, and these valleys later were inherited by the larger of our present-d ay streams and rivers. The Pomperaug River corridor is a good example.  The amount of stratified drift also has bearing on the relative intensity of e arthquakes. This topic will be discussed in Section 8.0. T T T SG W T TT F T S TT SG TT TT SG TT S/ F TT TT TT SG G TT TT G SG /S A/ F SG TT TT SG /F T A/ F A/F/SG SG S/ F TT SG /S S TT G S TT G S/ F W TT SG SG SG /S S/ F T SW A/ F SG SG SG S A/ SG SG /S/ F A/ SG SG /F SG TT SG SG /S SG S A/S/F SG /F S/ F SG /S/ F SG SG SG /F T A/S/F S A/ SG T W SG SG SG SW A/ SG T SG /F SG A/ F SG S SW/F/S SG A/ SG T T SW S A/ SG A/F/SG A/ SG A/ F SG A/ SG A/F/SG S/ F T A/ F W SG S T A/ SG A/ SG SG /S/ F Figure 2-5: Southbury Surficial Materials 00.51 Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 " )172 " )67 § ¨ ¦84 For ge ne ral pla nni ng pur po ses on ly. De lin eat ion s may no t be e xac t. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, “Surfi cial Material s”, DEP June 2008 Surficial Materials G S S/F SG SG/F SG/S Sand and Gravel Overlying Sand Overlying FinesSand and GravelGravel Sand and Gravel Overlying Sand Sand Sand Overlying Fines A/F A/F/SG A/S/F A/SG F Alluvium Overlying Fines Overlying Sand and Gravel Alluvium Overlying Fines Alluvium Overlying Sand Overlying Fines Alluvium Overlying Sand and Gravel Fines SW SW/F/S T TT W SG/S/F Till Thick Till Sand and Gravel Overlying Sand Overlying Fines Wa terSwamp Overlying Fines Overlying Sand Swamp Legend Major Roads Local Roads " )188 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-11 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 Southbury has an agreeable climate, characterized by moderate but distinct seasons. The average mean temperature is approximately 48 degrees Fahrenheit, with summer temperatures in the mid-80s and winter temperatures in the upper 20s to mid-30s. Extreme conditions raise summer temperatures to near 100 degrees and winter temperatures to below zero. Median snowfall is approximately 43 inches per year as averaged between the weather stations in Thomaston, Litchfield, Woodbury, and Waterbury (NCDC, 2007). Median annual precipitation is 44 inches, spr ead evenly over the course of a year. By comparison, average annual state-wide precipitation based on more than 100 years of record is nearly the same, at 45 inches. However, average annual precipitation in Connecticut has been increasing by 0.95 inches per decade since the end of the 19 th century (Miller et. al., 2004; NCDC, 2005). Likewise, total annual precipitation in the Town has increased over time. The continued increase in precipitation only heightens the need for hazard mitigation planning, as the occurrence of floods may change in accordance with the greater precipitation. 2.5 Drainage Basins and Hydrology The Town of Southbury is drained by seven defined drainage basins corres ponding with the Housatonic River, Shepaug River, Hesseky Brook, Pomperaug River, Eightmile River, Transylvania Brook, and Kettletown Brook. These subregional drai nage basins are part of the Housatonic Main Stem, Shepaug River, and Pomperaug River regional basins which either directly, in the case of the Housatonic River Main Stem, or ultimately NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-12 drain into the Housatonic River. The subregional drainage basins are de scribed below and summarized in Table 2-2. Table 2-2 Drainage Basins Drainage Basin Area (sq. mi) Percent of Town Housatonic River 8.30 20.75 Shepaug River 3.12 7.80 Hesseky Brook 0.35 0.88 Pomperaug River 14.77 36.92 Eightmile River 5.05 12.63 Transylvania Brook 4.61 11.53 Kettletown Brook 3.80 9.50 Total 40.00 100.0 Source: Drainage Basins, 2008 CT DEP GIS Data for Connecticut Housatonic River The Housatonic River has its headwaters in western Massachusetts near th e Town of Pittsfield. It flows almost 150 miles southward through Massachusetts and Connecticut before flowing into Long Island Sound between the City of Milford and th e Town of Stratford. While approximately 624 square miles of land drain directly into the Housatonic River, regionally it is responsible for draining approximately 1,950 square miles of land across New England. The river has a history of contamination from industrial sources and still has resident levels of PCBs in some areas. In addition, it has been impounded in Connecticut in several places for hydroelectric power generation. While all the land in Southbury eventually drains into the Housatonic Ri ver, only 8.30 square miles, representing 20.8% of the Town’s land area, does so directly. Starting at its confluence with the Shepaug River, the Housatonic forms Southbury’s border with Newtown to the south. In this same stretch of river there are a number of tributaries that feed into the Housatonic River. Cavandaug Brook, Little Pootatuck Brook , Pole Bridge Brook, Lee Brook, and a number of unnamed tributaries all feed into the Housatonic NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-13 River from within its drainage basin. The Shepaug River, Pootatuck River, Pomperaug River and Kettletown Brook are all watercourses that correspond with other drainage basins that feed into the Housatonic River in this stretch along Southbury’s southern boundary. Two densely populated neighborhoods are located along the Housatonic Riv er, near the end of the Pomperaug River and near the end of Lee Brook. These were cottage communities that now have numerous year-round residents. Shepaug River In its entirety, the Shepaug River drains 70.94 square miles of land stretching from a location at the border between the Town of Cornwall and the Town of Goshen to the river’s confluence with the Housatonic River. The Shepaug River is dammed on the border between the Town of Warren and the Town of Litchfield, forming the Shepaug Reservoir which is operated by the City of Waterbury. Upstream of the Shepaug Reservoir, the Shepaug River has two branches. The West Branch of the Shepaug River pertains to its own subregional drainage bas in, and was dammed to form the Upper Shepaug Reservoir. The East Branch of the Shepaug River is considered to be part of the same Shepaug River Basin, and is joined by a number of tributaries to the north before it flows into the Shepaug Reservoir. The western portion of Southbury is a part of the Shepaug River drainage basin. This small area covers only 3.12 square miles, or 7.8% of the Town’s land area. Most of the area drains into the Shepaug River via Upper Purchase Brook, which meets the Shepaug River prior to its confluence with the Housatonic River. This part of S outhbury is very sparsely populated. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-14 Hesseky Brook The drainage basin that corresponds to Hesseky Brook is by far the smallest in Southbury. Located along the Town’s northern boundary, this area drains 0.35 square miles of land, or 0.9% of the Town’s land area. The area drains to the north into Hesseky Brook, which passes through Transylvania Pond, Radey Pond, and Hesseky M eadow Pond before turning to the east and joining the Pomperaug River in the T own of Woodbury near the junction between Routes 317 and 6. Hesseky Brook is j oined by a number of unnamed tributaries, as well as Good Hill Brook, which flows to the southeast into Hesseky Meadow Pond. In all, the Hesseky Brook drainage basin cove rs 6.22 square miles of land in the Towns of Southbury, Woodbury and Roxbury. Pomperaug River The Pomperaug River originates at the confluence of the Weekeepeemee and Nonnewaug Rivers in the Town of Woodbury. The river winds southward through Woodb ury, converging with Hesseky Brook near the intersection of Routes 317 and 6. Downstream of this confluence, the Pomperaug River is joined by South Brook, which drains the Woodbury Reservoir. Just after crossing into Southbury, the Pomperaug River is met by Stiles Brook from the southeast. Further downstream it converges with several unnamed tributaries before meeting Transylvania Brook along East Flat Hill Road. After that point, the Pomperaug River continues southward and flows into the Housatonic River along Southbury’s southern border. In all, the Pomperaug River Basin drains 21.39 square miles of land across Southbury and Woodbury. The drainage basin pertaining to the Pomperaug River is the largest in Southbury, covering 14.77 square miles, or 36.9% of the Town’s total land area. It contains most of the critical facilities and most densely developed neighborhoods in the Town. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-15 Eightmile River Eightmile River has its headwaters in Lake Quassapaug in western Middlebury. South of Lake Quassapaug, Eightmile River enters Kelley Pond. Beginning just to the south of Kelley Pond, Eightmile River makes up much of the eastern border of Southbury. Several tributaries located within Southbury enter Eightmile River throughout this stretch. An unnamed tributary enters the river in a wetland along Judd Road. Another unnamed tributary enters the river to the south near its crossing with Inters tate 84. Walnut Hill Brook meets Eightmile River just upstream of Route 67. One final watercourse, Jeremy Brook, enters Eightmile River from the Southbury side at the end of the section of the river that makes up Southbury’s eastern border. Eightmile River drains the easternmost 5.05 square miles of Southbury or 12.6% of the Town’s land area. After leaving Southbury and entering Oxford, Eightmile River is joined by a number of watercourses, including Sevenmile Brook, Sixmile Brook, and several unnamed tributaries, before meeting the Housatonic River in Oxford. In all, the Eightmile River basin drains 17.44 square miles across the Towns of Oxford, Southbury, Middlebury, and Woodbury. Transylvania Brook The Transylvania Brook watershed drains 4.61 square miles, or 11.5% of Southbury’s total land area in the north-central section of the Town. It has its headwaters in the Town of Roxbury near the border with the Town of Woodbury. From its headwaters, Transylvania Brook flows southward through Roxbury then Woodbury before crossing the border into Southbury near the junction of Routes 67 and 172. As the Brook travels southward it converges with several tributari es before entering Gravel Pit Pond along the side of Route 172. Just south of the pond, Transylvania Brook NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-16 passes by the Southbury Training School’s wastewater treatment plant, the only point source discharge into the Brook. Downstream of this facility, Transylvania Brook continues southward and eventually converges with the Pomperaug River. In all, the Transylvania Brook basin drains 7.21 square miles of land across the Towns of Southbury, Roxbury, and Woodbury. Kettletown Brook The Kettletown Brook watershed drains 3.80 square miles, or 9.5% of Southbury’s total land in the Town’s southeastern corner. Kettletown Brook’s headwaters are located near Georges Hill Road in Southbury. In this area, there are several small streams and ponds that flow together to form Kettletown Brook. From this location, the Brook flows southward in the vicinity of Kettletown Road for about a mile before turning to the southwest. Kettletown Brook converges with several more unnamed tributaries before flowing into the Housatonic River at Ket tletown State Park. In all, Kettletown Brook drains 4.87 square miles of land in the Towns of Southbury and Oxford. 2.6 Population and Demographic Setting The total CNV Region estimated 2005 population is 281,895 persons. The total land area is 309 square miles, for a regional population density of 912 persons per square mile. Southbury has a population density of 504 individuals per square mile. By comparison, Waterbury has the highest population density in the region with 3,757 in dividuals per square mile; Bethlehem has the lowest population density in the region with 185 individuals per square mile. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-17 Table 2-3 Population Density by Municipality, Region and State, 2005 Municipality Total Population Land Area (square miles) Population Density Beacon Falls 5,700 9.77 583 Bethlehem 3,577 19.36 185 Cheshire 28,833 32.90 876 Middlebury 7,132 17.75 402 Naugatuck 31,872 16.39 1,945 Oxford 12,309 32.88 374 Prospect 9,264 14.32 647 Southbury 19,686 39.05 504 Thomaston 7,916 12.01 659 Waterbury 107,251 28.55 3,757 Watertown 22,329 29.15 766 Wolcott 16,269 20.43 796 Woodbury 9,757 36.46 268 CNV Region 281,895 309.02 912 Connecticut3,495,753 4,844.80 722 Source: United States Census Bureau , 2005 Population Estimates Southbury is ranked 56 th out of 169 municipalities in Connecticut in terms of population, with an estimated population of 19,686 in 2006. The Town is the 79 th most densely populated municipality in the state. The population of Southbury increased by 51% between 1960 and 1970, and increased again by a large percentage of 80% between 1970 and 1980, representing the last surge in development in recent history. Growth then dropped to 12% from 1980-1990 and remained steady at 17% in the decade 1990-2000. Growth from 2000 to 2006 w as 6%. Based on analysis by the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, population growth in the region outside of Waterbury is estimated to be about 10% from 2005 to 2025, while the state of Connecticut is expected to grow about 5 % during this same timeframe. According the Connecticut Economic Resource Center, the median sales price of owner-occupied housing in the Town of Southbury in 2006 w as $426,500, which is higher than the statewide median sales price of $275,000. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-18 Southbury has very large populations of people who are elderly and disab led, although very few who are linguistically isolated. These are depicted by census block on Figures 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8. The populations with these characteristics have numerous implications for hazard mitigation, as they may require special assistance or different means of notification before disasters occur. In general, the Town of Southbury has three unique situations that can p otentially lead to difficult disaster response: 1. the presence of Heritage Village, with its 2,500 age-restricted units an d access limitations; 2. the predominance of year-round homes in challenging riverside and hilly locations that were formerly summer cottages; and 3. the presence of existing subdivisions with only one point of egress. With regard to the first, Heritage Village has its own security but not its own police and rescue teams. It relies on the Town of Southbury for these services. The adjacent Traditions development of 150 units is similar although smaller, but it relies on a one way entrance/exit and an emergency access connection to Heritage Village. With regard to the second, many of the cottages in Southbury date back to the 1930s when Connecticut Light & Power sold numerous cottage home lots for $100 each. These cottage home lots were transformed into year-round dwellings mostly during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. These homes are now located in some of the larger problem areas in the Town in terms of overbank flooding and flooding caused by poor drainage. The presence of existing dead end streets cannot be easily corrected, bu t the Town has revised its subdivision regulations such that new subdivisions are not a llowed to have dead-end streets. 241 75 309 83 166 83 100 385 711 2688 Figure 2-6: Southbury Elderly Population 00.51 Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 " )172 " )67 § ¨ ¦84 * Numbers on map represent total population aged 65 or older in each block group Legend Major Roads Percentage of Persons Aged 65 or older Block Group BoundaryTown Boundary 30.1 – 100% 20.1 – 30.0% 10.1 – 20.0% 0.0 – 10.0 % " )188 For g ene ra l plan ning p urp os es on ly . Delinea tion s may n ot b e exa ct. Source : “Road s”, c 19 84 – 20 08 Te le Atlas , Re l. 04/08 . “Town Boundary”, DEP “Elderly”, “B lo ck Group s”, 2 000 C ens us Augu st 2 008 Census Block includes Heritage Village Retirement Community 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 26 Figure 2-7: Southbury Linguistically Isolated Households 00.51 Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 " )172 " )67 § ¨ ¦84 Data based on block group geography. A linguistically isolated household is one in which no member 14 years old and over (1) s peaks only Englis h or (2) speaks a non-English language and speaks English “very well.” In other words, all members 14 years old and over have at least some difficulty with English. * Numbers on map represent total households that are linguistically isolated in each block group Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Block Group Boundary Percentage of Households Linguistically Isolated 0.0 – 4.9 % 5.0 – 9.9 % 10.0 – 14.9 % greater than 15% For g ene ra l plan ning p urp os es on ly . Delinea tion s may n ot b e exa ct. Source : “Road s”, c 19 84 – 20 08 Te le Atlas , Re l. 04/08 . “Town Boundary”, DEP “Ling uistic ally Is olated”, “Block Grou ps”, 200 0 Cen sus Augu st 2 008 " )188 3202 228 171 206 139 288 596 273 141 1367 Figure 2-8: Southbury Disabilities Map 00.51 Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 " )172 " )67 § ¨ ¦84 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 Block Group BoundaryTown Boundary Legend Total Disabilities Tallied of People Aged 5 and Older > 600 0 – 200 201 – 400 401 – 600 For g ene ra l plan ning p urp os es on ly . Delinea tion s may n ot b e exa ct. Source : “Road s”, c 19 84 – 20 08 Te le Atlas , Re l. 04/08 . “Town Boundary”, DEP “Disability”, “Block Groups”, 2000 Census Augu st 2 008 " )188 Census Block includes the CT Department of Developmental Services Southbury Training School NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-22 2.7 Governmental Structure The Town of Southbury is governed by a Selectman-Town Meeting form of government in which legislative responsibilities are shared by the Board of Selectmen and the Town Meeting. The First Selectman serves 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 Commission, the Zoning Commission, the Conservation Commission, the Inland Wetland Commission, the Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition, the Lake Lillinonah Authority, the Lake Zoar Authority, the LEPC, the Building Official, the Fire Department, the Police Department, Emergency Medical Services, and the Highway Department/Public Works. The Department of Public Works is the principal municipal department that responds to problems caused by natural hazards. Complaints related to Town maintenance issues are routed to the Department of Public Works. These complaints are usually received via phone, fax, mail, or email and are recorded in a logbook. The complaints are investigated as necessary until remediation surrounding the individual complaint is concluded. 2.8 Development Trends Southbury was settled in the late 1600s as part of the Town of Woodbury. Southbury was officially incorporated in 1787. The Town’s origins were largely agrarian; industry developed in the 1800s which utilized water power from the Pomperaug and Housatonic Rivers, including mills, shoe making shops, tanneries and distilleries. Carpet and hat making centered in South Britain, a village located on the Pomperaug River in the NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-23 western section of Southbury. Much of the industry migrated to the City of Waterbury as that area became an economic center. The population boom in Southbury in the 1960s and 1970s was largely a result of the completion of I-84, connecting Southbury with nearby employment centers in the City of Danbury, the City of Waterbury and the City of Hartford. Heritage Village also opened in that timeframe. The IBM facility, which employs 2,500 people, opened in 1987. Cul-de-sacs in new developments are discouraged, while the connectivity of roads is encouraged. Subdivisions featuring cul-de-sacs offer a single access point for emergency services, lengthening emergency response times and rendering those residential areas vulnerable if access is cut off by flooding or downed tree limbs. In addition, new subdivisions must have two points of egress by ordinance. The road widths of those roadways associated with new subdivisions are required to be at least 26 feet unless the subdivision has less than 20 lots. In this case, 22 foot road widths ha ve been considered acceptable. The Town of Southbury requires a 50-foot right of way for local residential streets with a hammerhead located at the end of dead end streets, and dead end streets can have only 20 homes or fewer. In addition, utilities serving new developments must be installed underground wherever possible. Exceptions due to shallow bedrock are gr anted on a case-by-case basis. In the 1990s, the average number of housing units a pproved in Southbury was about 95 per year. The Town of Southbury has created an ordinance which prohibits dwellings from being constructed in the floodplain, and development on steep slopes is also prohibited within the Town. Age-restricted housing is no longer allowed to be constructed in Southbury. Based on the Town’s 2001 Plan of Conservation and Development, efforts are being made to preserve Southbury’s small-town charm and limit the impact of future development through an ongoing open space acquisition program. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-24 2.9 Critical Facilities and Sheltering Capacity The Town considers its police, fire, medical, governmental, 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 Southbury continues. Age-restricted, State facilities, life care centers, assisted / disabled living communities, a national defense satellite/communications facility, sewage treatment plants, and the Heritage Village Water Company wellfield are included with critical facilities, as these house populations of individuals and utilities that would require special assistance or ar e needed during an emergency. A list of critical facilities is provided in Table 2-4. A map of critical facilities is shown in Figure 2-9. Shelters, transportation, communicat ions, and utilities are described in more detail below. Table 2-4 Critical Facilities in Southbury Type Name Address Located in Floodplain? Active Adult Condominiums Heritage Village Heritage Village No Clustered Housing Traditions Route 172 No Connecticut Department of Development Services Southbury Training School 1461 S Britain Road No Assisted Living Community Kensingto n Green 655 Main St. South No Disabled / Low Income Housing Grace Meadows Route 67 No Life Care Community East Hill Woods 611 East Hill Road No Life Care Community Pomperaug Woods 80 Heritage Road No Sewer Southbury Training School STPWhale Pass/S. Britain Road Yes Sewer Heritage Village STP Heritage Village No Sewer Pomperaug Woods STP Pomperaug Woods No SewerIBM (Southbury) STP 150 Kettletown Road No WaterHeritage Village Water Company Wellfield Heritage Village 100-year Fire Department & Shelter Southbury Fi re Dept. 461 Main Street South No Police Department Southbury Police Dept. 421 Main Street South No National Defense and Communications Vizada Americas Satellite Services Facility 2120 River Ro ad 500-year Senior Center Southbury Senior Center 561 Main Street South No Rochambeau Middle School Shelter 100 Peter Road No Source: Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley; To wn of Southbury ®t G F ? G F ? ®t k V T D © © 9 "M "M Figure 2-9: Southbury Critical Facilities 00.51Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 " )172 " )67 § ¨ ¦84 For gen eral pla nning purpos es only . Delin eations may n ot be e xact. Source : “R oads”, c198 4 – 200 8 Tele Atlas, R el. 04/ 08. “To wn Bou ndary”, DE P “Fa cilities”, So uthbury August 2008 Heritage Village Traditions Pomperaug Woods Heritage Village Sewage Treatment Facility East HillWoods Fire Station Police Station Southbury Fire House Town Hall Kensington Green State Police Satellite Communications Facility Grace Meadows " )188 Southbury Training School Heritage Valley WaterCo. Wellfield Legend Major Roads Local Roads Town Boundary ² ³GRochambeau Middle School/Shelter Location ² ³G Wellfield 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations Wa t e r Streams ®t Assisted Living Facilities G F Life Care Centers k Southbury Training School ? Condominium Communities D Satellite Communications Facility V T Rochambeau Middle School/ Shelt er LocationSewage Treatment Facility NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-26 Shelters Emergency shelters are considered to be an important subset of critical facilities, as they are needed most in emergency situations. Southbury has two American Red Cross approved shelter facilities. The first is the community center in Heritage Village which is available to that population, and the second is Rochambeau Middle School. These buildings have been designated as public shelter facilities by meeting specific American Red Cross guidelines. However, the facilities at Rochambeau Middle School are considered by the Town to be insufficient to shelter the remainder of Southbury’s growing population. Thus, Southbury has two buildings that can be used as emergency shelters. The first is the Senior Center located at 561 Main Street South. The second shelter, the Southbury Fire House, is located at 461 Main Street South. The central locations of bo th these shelters make them easily accessible from most locations in Town. In addition, the Walzer Family Jewish Community Campus, home to both the B’nai Israel and Beth El congregations, is located in Southbury at 444 Main Street. It is report edly the largest Jewish center in New England and potentially could be used to house addi tional shelterees during an extreme natural hazard event. In case of an extended power outage, it is anticipated that 10-20% of the population would relocate, although not all of those relocating would necessarily u tilize the shelter facilities. Many communities only intend to use these facilities on a t emporary basis for providing shelter until hazards such as hurricanes diminish. Southbury encourages residents to shelter in place whenever possible. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-27 Transportation The Town of Southbury does not have any hospitals or medical centers. Instead, residents use the nearby facilities in the City of Danbury and the City of Waterbury. As a means of accessing these facilities, the Town has convenient access on Interstate 84 west to Danbury and east to Waterbury. Evacuation routes are regionally defined by the Regional Evacuation Plan . No local evacuation plan exists. During a major evacuation, Interstate 84 would presumably be the most effective means of evacuating Southbury. However, Routes 172, 67, and 6 are the main arterial roads and would also offer evacuation routes. On a small scale, evacuation routes are reportedly determined on a case-case basis. There is frequent need to evacuate residents along Pomperaug Trail and Flood Bridge Road. Prior to a flood, both the Town Police and the Town Fire Departments warn the residents of the danger. Both departments monitor the level of the Pomperaug River. Berkshire Road is a long dead end and, because of its close orientation with the Pomperaug River, is noted as high priority to create connectivity with othe r roadways. This is important for emergency vehicles and options for transit if evacuation is needed. Finally, many private roads and trails (including Hillside Road, Heritage Village and Berkshire Estates) are too narrow for emergency vehicular transit. They present the possibility of access problems during emergencies in the area. Communications The Town of Southbury has established the CodeRED Emergency Notification System in an effort to streamline emergency notifications to residents of the Town. This system allows Town of Southbury personnel to telephone all or targeted areas of the Town in NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-28 case of an emergency situation that requires immediate action. The system is capable of dialing 50,000 phone numbers per hour. It then delivers a recorded message to a person or an answering machine, making three attempts to connect to any number. The Town has also created an Emergency Management Department and, for long-term planning, the Town has a Local Emergency Preparedness Commission who accomplishes tasks related to emergency planning. Utilities Water service is a critical component of hazard mitigation, especially with regard to fighting fires. It is also necessary for everyday residential, commercial, and industrial use. The Heritage Village Water Company provides potable and fire fighting water to the majority of the central and northeastern section of Town, while the Aquarion Water Company provides the same services to a relatively small section of the extreme south- central portion of Town and Southbury Training School provides water service to itself. The Fire Department uses alternative water supplies to fight fires in the less developed areas of Southbury, including fire ponds and underground water tanks. D epending upon the circumstances at the time of a fire emergency, the Fire Department transports as much water in its response vehicles as is allowed. This is discussed further in Section 10.0. Sewer service is an often overlooked critical facility. The Southbury Training School, Heritage Village, and Pomperaug Woods Sewage Treatment Plants are located in the north-central section of Town, and the IBM Southbury Sewage Treatment Plant is located centrally in Southbury. These sewage treatment plants serve portions of the Town where large concentrations of residents or working populations are found. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 2-29 Public Works Department The Public Works Department is a critical municipal department related to hazard mitigation because it maintains, repairs, and constructs stormwater systems and roadways. The Department is responsible for maintaining stormwater systems for proper drainage and flood mitigation, as well as clearing snow and ice and maintaining access for emergency vehicles. Likewise, the Public Works Department believes that establishment of working inter- municipal agreements with other public works departments in nearby communities would allow for sharing of resources when disasters affect one community more than others. This Plan therefore recommends that these types of agreements be pursued. Potential Impacts from Natural Hazards By virtue of their locations near watercourses, public water supply well fields and wastewater treatment plants are often in or near floodplains. The Southbury Training School Sewage Treatment Plant is located in the 100-year floodplain, but reportedly does not have regular issues with flooding. The three other sewage treatment plants in Southbury are located outside of floodplains. The Heritage Village Water Company wellfield is located in the 100-year floodplain of the Pomperaug River and the water utility must take precautions to prevent contamination from floodwaters. In general, municipal facilities and shelters are sited outside floodplains and are centrally- located to be as accessible as possible to the majority of the population. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-1 3.0 INLAND FLOODING 3.1 Setting According to FEMA, most municipalities in the 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 (SFHA) and delineated as pa rt of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Flood-prone areas are addressed through a combination of floodplain management criteria, ordinances, and community assistance programs sponsored by the NFIP and individual municipalities. Many communities also have localized flooding areas outside the SFHA. T hese 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, obstructed drainageways, sewer backup, or overbank flooding from small streams. Flooding is a substantial natural hazard in the Town of Southbury. The Pomperaug River and the Housatonic River pass through and border the Town, respectively. The seven primary drainage basins in the Town are the Housatonic River, the Shepaug River, the Hesseky Brook, the Pomperaug River, Eightmile River, Transylvania Brook, and Kettletown Brook. A thorough discussion of these drainage areas was included in Section 2.5. Prior to various regulations, cottages and homes were constructed on floodplains along the Pomperaug River and Housatonic River. Some of these homes and cottages are regularly flooded during sustained precipitation events. Additionally, some homes along the Pomperaug River experience flooding during ice jam events, as explained in Section 4.0. Localized nuisance flooding along tributaries and, more commonly, along roadways NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-2 Floodplains are lands along watercourses that are subject to periodic flooding; floodways are those areas within the floodplains that convey floodwaters. Floodways are subject to water being carried at relatively 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. resulting from inadequate drainage and other factors is also an inland flooding issue that the Town regularly faces. 3.2 Hazard Assessment Flooding represents the most common and costly natural hazard in Connect icut. The state typically experiences floods in the early 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, winter storms, and ice jams. Flooding can also occur as a result of dam failure, which is discussed in Section 9.0, 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 located within a 100-year flood zone ha s 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, furni ture, and other sentimental papers and artifacts. In addition, floodwaters can prevent NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-3 emergency and commercial egress by blocking streets, deteriorating municipal drainage systems, and diverting municipal staff and resources. Furthermore, damp conditions trigger the growth of mold and mildew in flooded buildings, contributing to allergies, asthma, and respiratory infections. Snakes and rodents are forced out of their natural habitat and into closer contact with people, and ponded water following a flood presents a breeding ground for mosquitoes. Gasoline, pesticides, and other aqueous pollutants can be carried into areas and b uildings by flood waters and soak into soil, building components, and furniture. SFHAs in Southbury are delineated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Studies (FIS). An initial Flood Hazard Boundary Map was identified on February 8, 1974. The FIRM delineates areas within Southbury that are v ulnerable to flooding and was originally published on March 28, 1980. The FIS was or iginally published on March 28, 1980 and has not been updated. The Town’s FIR M was last updated on December 11, 1981. Refer to Figure 3-1 for the areas of Southbury susceptible to flooding based on FEMA flood zones. Table 3-1 describes the various zones depicted on the FIRM panels for Southbury. 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 IncludedAn area that is located within a community or county that is not mapped on any published FIRM. X An area that is determined to be outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains. X500 An area inundated by 500-year flooding; an area inundated by 100-year flooding with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; or an area protected by levees from 100-year flooding. Figure 3-1: FEMA Flood Zones in Southbury 00.51Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 " )172 " )67 § ¨ ¦84 For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not be exact. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, “Hydrography”, “Flood Zones”, DEP August 2008 X500 Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads Wat er Waterbodies Flood Zone A AE D " )188 Pomperaug River Housatonic River NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-5 In some areas of Southbury, flooding occurs from heavy rains with a much higher frequency than those areas mapped by FEMA. This nuisance flooding occurs from heavy rains, and often in different areas than those depicted on the FIRM panels. These frequent flooding events occur in areas with insufficient drainage; where conditions may cause flashy, localized flooding; and where poor maintenance may exacerbate drainage problems. These areas are discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.5. During large storms, the recurrence interval level of a flood discharge on a tributary ten ds to be greater than the recurrence interval level 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 the downstream channel to convey floodwaters. Dams and other flood control structures can also reduce the magnitude of peak flood flows. Such dams are located on the Shepaug River and the Housatonic River. The recurrence interval level of a precipitation event also generally differs from the recurrence interval level of the associated flood. For example, on January 27, 1996, heavy rains totaling one to two inches led to flooding along the Pomperaug River near Southbury, which led to impassable roads and evacuations along Flood Bridge Road. Flood events can also be mitigated or exacerbated by in-channel and soil conditions, such as low or high flows, the presence of frozen ground, or a deep or shallo w water table, as can be seen in the following historic record. 3.3 Historic Record In every season of the year, the Town of Southbury has experienced vario us degrees of flooding. Melting snow combined with early spring rains have caused frequent spring flooding. Numerous flood events have occurred in late summer to early autumn resulting from storms of tropical origin moving northeast along the Atlantic coast. Winter floods result from the occasional thaw, particularly during years of heavy snow, periods of NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-6 rainfall on frozen ground, and the development and jamming of ice masses along the Pomperaug River. Other flood events have been caused by excessive rainfall s upon saturated soils, yielding greater than normal runoff. The flood of record at the USGS gauge on the Pomperaug River in Southbur y was recorded on August 19, 1955, when the instantaneous discharge reached 29 ,400 cubic feet per second with a stage of 21.8 feet. The August 1955 flood resulted in the total loss of 36 lives in the region and caused over $193 million dollars in physic al damages in the State. According to the NCDC Storm Events Database, there have been seven urban/small stream flooding events, 23 flash flood, and 32 flooding events in New Haven County since August of 1993. The following are examples of floods in and around the Town of Southbury as described in the NCDC Storm Events Database, and based on correspondence with municipal officials.  August 21, 1994: Torrential rainfall (one to five inches) in New Haven County for a three hour period produced a damaging flash flood event. Over the preceding ten days, three to five inches of rain had fallen on the region. Extensive damage occurred to road systems and bridges due to runoff from the region’s small streams. Damage from the flash flood event totaled $2.4 million. Due to flooding along the Pomperaug River, a state of emergency was declared in Southbury where roads were closed and minor damage was reported.  January 27, 1996: The Pomperaug River began to flood as heavy rains (one to two inches) fell in northern New Haven County. In the Town of Southbury, numerous roads became impassable and some residents along Flood Bridge Road were evacuated from their residences. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-7  April 16, 1996: Heavy rain and strong southeast winds moved across New Haven County as rainfall continued for a period of twelve hours. The twelve hour event produced a range of total rainfall amounts between 2.83 inches (reported in the Town of Oxford) to 6.10 inches (reported in the Town of East Haven). A to tal of 547 homes and 28 businesses were damaged from the storm. The total un-insured flood damage was approximately $1.5 million according to preliminary damage assessments by the Connecticut Office of Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.  September 16, 1999: Torrential rainfall preceding the remnants of Tropical Storm Floyd caused widespread urban, small stream, and river flooding. In New Haven County, rainfall amounts were as high as 6.18 inches at Ansonia. 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.  October 7-15, 2005: The sustained heavy rainfall of October 2005 caused widespread flooding including dam failures throughout Connecticut (See Section 9.3). The Pomperaug River in Southbury peaked at over 1,900 cubic feet per second on October 15, after rising over five feet in stage over the previous week. The Po mperaug Trail and River Trail neighborhoods experienced varying degrees of flooding, with the structure at 155 River Trail suffering major structural and foundation damage.  April 23, 2006: Small creeks in the Town of Southbury flooded as a result of 3.48 inches of rainfall. Road closures, evacuations, injuries and deaths wer e reported as a result of the rain event.  April 15-16, 2007: The nor’easter of April 2007 caused a flood on the Pomperaug River with a peak flow of 7,000 cfs, on the order of the 10-year flood e vent. Homes on Flood Bridge Road were inundated and yards on River Trail were floode d. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-8 3.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures The Town of Southbury has in place a number of measures to prevent flood damage. These include regulations, codes, and ordinances preventing encroachment and development near floodways. Developments in floodplains are no longer allowed as the Town has approved an ordinance which prohibits further development within these areas. The Town of Southbury Zoning Enforcement Officer serves as the NFIP administrator and oversees the enforcement of NFIP regulations with the assistance of the Building Official and Emergency Management Director. The Town has completed at least one update to its flood hazard regulations (as noted above), and currently has no plans to enroll in the Community Rating System. The Town Planning and Zoning Com mission uses the 100-year flood lines from the FIRM and FIS delineated by FEMA as the official maps and report for determining special flood hazard areas. Ordinances require that all structures in flood hazard areas have their lowest floor be above established flood elevations. Site plan standards require that all proposals be consisten t 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 Southbury Inland Wetlands Commission also reviews new developments and existing land uses on and near wetland courses. Regulations, codes, and ordinances that apply to flood hazard mitigation in conjunction with and in addition to NFIP regulations include:  Flood Damage Prevention and Control Ordinance (Section 6 of Southbury Code). This section of the Town code promotes the public health, safety and general welfare and minimizes public and private losses due to flood conditions by establishing standards and elevations for construction and renovations in flood hazard areas. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-9  Flood Plain District (Section 5 of Southbury Zoning Regulations). This section defines the boundaries of the flood plain district and states that no building or structure within the boundaries of the district may be constructed, moved, or substantially improved without a Flood Hazard Area Permit obtained from the Building Official of the Town of Southbury in accordance with the Flood Damage Prevention and Control Ordinance listed above. This requirement has terms which the project must meet in order to be in compliance with the ordinance. New construction is prohibited within the 100-year floodplain.  Drainage (Section 7.2.6 of Southbury Zoning Regulations). This section outlin es the Town’s provision to manage storm water, which includes the collection and disposal thereof in an attempt to:  avoid storm water flow across sidewalks;  protect water courses and wetlands from pollution, erosion and sedimenta tion;  avoid an amount of discharge and time of concentration of flow beyond th e capacity of downstream drainage channels; and  avoid downstream flooding. This section also calls for the improvement of existing watercourses, channels, and additional drainage systems on lots or downstream of lots.  Drainage (Section 7.2.6 of Southbury Zoning Regulations). This section outlin es the design standards for stormwater and other non-sanitary drainage facilities, including location, suitable receiving water bodies, design specifications for pip es, manholes, and culverts, and the use of underdrains.  Wetlands and Water Courses (Section 7.2.7 of Southbury Zoning Regulations). This section calls for site development plans to provide protection of all wetlands and NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-10 watercourses, which includes floodplains in their natural state, unless prior modification approval has been given.  Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control (Section 7.2.16 of Southbury Zoning Regulations). This section calls for a provision be made for soil erosion and sediment control in accordance with the standards of the Town of Southbury Soil Erosion Sediment Control Ordinance.  Setbacks and Slopes (8.7.4 of Southbury Zoning Regulations). This section states that no earth removal or placement shall occur within 50 feet of an abutting property line without written approval from abutting property owner. However, this practice may occur at approximate grade and within 50 feet of an abutting street line. Finished slopes cannot exceed 25% grade or some lesser slope that is necessary to provide stability, safety, and the opportunity for future reuse and development.  Natural Features (Section 4.8 of Southbury Subdivision Regulation) specifies that a subdivision should avoid filling or excavation or other encroachment upon wetlands, water courses, floodplains, and other land subject to potential flooding .  Terrain (Section 4.9.1 of Southbury Subdivision Regulation) specifies that each lot shall be capable of accommodating [permitted buildings]…with driveway access, parking spaces and suitable sites for on-site sewage disposal and water supply, without disturbing wetlands and water courses.  Special Flood Hazard Areas/Floodways (Section 4.23 of Southbury Subdivision Regulation) specifies that when a subdivision includes land in a Special Flood Hazard Area or floodway, the lots, streets, drainage and other improvements shall be reasonably safe from flood damage and shall capable of use without danger from flooding. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-11  Aquifer Protection Area Regulations. The Southbury Training School and Heritage Village Water Company each operate a public water supply wellfield in the Town of Southbury. The Southbury Training School wellfield is located along Tra nsylvania Brook within its delineated floodplain. Likewise, the Heritage Village Water Company wellfield is located along the Pomperaug River within its delineated floodplain.  The Southbury Training School wellfield has a final DEP-approved aquifer protection area (APA). The Southbury Water Pollution Control Authority has been designated the official Aquifer Protection Agency. As such, the Authority has developed APA Regulations. These regulations are a zoning overlay a nd control land use and development in the affected part of the Town located within the APA. Therefore, the APA Regulations indirectly provide a level of protection against development of certain commercial and industrial properties in or near floodplains in this portion of Southbury.  The Heritage Village Water Company wellfield has a preliminary aquifer protection area (APA). After formal APA mapping has been developed by Heritage Village Water Company, the Town will be required to apply the APA regulations as a zoning overlay in this part of Southbury, potentially affecting a much more developed area as compared to the Southbury Training School APA. Therefore, the APA Regulations will indirectly provide a level of protec tion against development of certain commercial and industrial properties in or near floodplains in this central location in Southbury. Structural and Maintenance Projects The Town of Southbury Public Works Department is in process of receiving a $204,000 grant to stabilize the banks of the Pomperaug River in June of 2008. The location of the bank stabilization project is along a stretch of the Pomperaug River near River Trail that NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-12 regularly experiences erosion and flooding during sustained rainfall eve nts. The Town’s objective for the streambank stabilization project is to preserve several private properties that have become threatened by erosion over a period of time, although flooding may not be directly addressed. A project with a similar objective was undertaken in 2007 in the neighboring Town of Woodbury. There are ongoing discussions among Town residents about the possibilities of raising homes above established flood elevations or moving homes entirely out of floodplains in several areas within Town, with focus on the Pomperaug River. The Town has yet to consider involvement in this issue. To date, homes in Southbury have not been elevated with assistance from the Town or FEMA. The Southbury Public Works Department is in charge of the maintenance of the Town’s drainage systems, and performs clearing of public streets, bridges, culverts, and other structures as needed. Drainage and other flooding related complaints are typically routed to the Public Works Department. The Department records these complaints and uses the documents to identify potential problems and plan maintenance and upgrades to infrastructure prior to extensive precipitation events. Emergency Services The Town’s Police and Fire Departments regularly monitor the stage of the Pomperaug River and combine forces to provide advanced notice to residents in the floodplain surrounding the river of potential flooding problems. The Town can access the Automated Flood Warning System to monitor precipitation totals. The Connecticut DEP installed the Automated Flood Warning System in 1982 to monitor rainfall totals as a mitigation effort for flooding throughout the state. The National Weather Service issues a flood watch or a flash flood watch for an area when conditions in or near the area are favorable for a flood or a flash flood, respectively. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-13 The Town of Southbury 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. 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 ar ea when parts of the area are either currently flooding, highly likely to flood, or when flooding is imminent. As explained in Section 2.9, the Town of Southbury has instituted the CodeRED Emergency Notification System. This system allows the Town to telephone all or targeted areas of the Town in case of an emergency situation that requires immediate action. The system is capable of dialing 50,000 phone numbers per hour. It then delivers a recorded message to a person or an answering machine, making three attempts to connect to any number. In summary, the Town of Southbury primarily attempts to mitigate flood damage and flood hazards by restricting and prohibiting by Town ordinance various b uilding activities in flood-prone areas. This process is carried out through the Zoning Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Inland Wetlands Commission. All watercourses are to be encroached minimally or not at all to maintain the existing flood carrying capacity. When regulations cannot address existing structures, the Town’s focus is on emergency preparation and notification. 3.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment This section discusses specific areas at risk to flooding within the Town. Major land use classes and critical facilities within these areas are identified. According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, 1,596 acres of land in Southbury are located within the 100- year flood boundary. Based on correspondence with the State of Connecticut NFIP Coordinator, ten repetitive loss properties are listed in the Town of Southbury. Two are no longer considered by FEMA to be repetitive loss properties and one is a duplicate NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-14 listing, such that seven are considered active repetitive loss properties. One of the seven properties is also classified as a Severe Repetitive Loss property. Details are provided on the next page. Additionally, indirect and nuisance flooding occurs near streams and rivers throughout Southbury due to inadequate drainage and other factors. Specific areas susceptible to flooding were identified by Town personnel and observed by Milone & MacB room, Inc. staff during field inspections as described in Section 1.5. There are two major waterways in the Town of Southbury. The Housatonic River forms the southern Town boundary at Lakes Zoar and Lillinonah. The second major waterway, the Pomperaug River, flows generally from north to south through the center of the Town. The secondary waterways include Eightmile River, Jeremy Brook, Bullet Hill Brook and Transylvania Brook. These four watercourses and the remaining small watercourses are streams and brooks which are significant for water supp ly, conservation purposes, and play a role in flooding events, but are not sufficient recreational resources. The areas with the highest vulnerability to flood events are concentrated along the Pomperaug River. Other areas are vulnerable due to large amounts of rainfa ll in conjunction with snowmelt, ice jams, and due to undersized road culverts and/or storm drains. The areas listed below were collected from residents at the pub lic information meeting and from Town personnel at the public information meeting and the data collection meeting. Primary Areas of Concern Flood Bridge Road and River Hill Road – Approximately 20 homes and cottages located along Flood Bridge Road, north of Flood Bridge Road, and along t he lower portion of River Hill Road at Branch Road experience flooding during sustained storm events, including as recently as April 2007. Figure 3-2 depicts CT DEP H:Figure3-2.mxd 2937-02 Southbury Natural Hazard Pre-disaster Mitigation Plan Southbury, CT Flood Bridge Road Study Area Figure 3-2 LOCATION: Date: Oct. 2008 Scale: 1:4,800 SHEET: 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 (203) 271-1773 Fax: (203) 272-9733 www.miloneandmacbroom.com Pomperaug River Main Street S. Flood Bridge Rd. 84 Branch Rd. River Hill Rd. Home at 111 Flood Bridge Rd. Cottages & Homes of Concern Cottages & Homes of Concern Map By: BAM MMI#: MXD: SOURCE: Legend FEMA Flood Zones Zone AE Zone X500 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-16 this area. These homes are located within the 100 and 500-year floodplains of the Pomperaug River, and some are believed to be adjacent to the floodway. Three properties addressed on Flood Bridge Road are listed as Repetitive Loss properties as follows: 111 Flood Bridge Road  175 Flood Bridge Road  Flood Bridge Road off Main Street (no number provided) The property at 111 Flood Bridge Road is a Severe Repetitive Loss proper ty, with total payments under NFIP of $129,492 as of August 2008 and an average payment per flood event of more than $18,000. The owner of the home at 111 Flood Bridge Road has expressed interest in being bought out by the Town.  River Trail – Homes located along River Trail experience flooding during sustained storm events, including as recently as April 2007. These homes are located within the 100-year floodplain of the Pomperaug River. Figure 3-3 depicts this area. Four properties addressed on River Trail are listed as Repetitive Loss properties as follows:  95 River Trail  105 River Trail  145 River Trail  155 River Trail Residents of the River Trail neighborhood are not interested in being bought out and relocating. However, one resident reports that his basement floods and is therefore vented, and his foundation has been damaged. The first floor is believed to be six inches above flood levels. Another resident recently spent $14,000 to r epair flood damages in April 2007; flood levels in her house have reached a depth of three feet on CT DEP H:Figure3-3.mxd 2937-02 Southbury Natural Hazard Pre-disaster Mitigation Plan Southbury, CT River Trail Study Area Figure 3-3 LOCATION: Date: Oct. 2008 Scale: 1:4,800 SHEET: 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 (203) 271-1773 Fax: (203) 272-9733 www.miloneandmacbroom.com Pomperaug River Old Field Rd. Cedarland Rd. Northern Trail Main Street S. Homes of Concern River Trail Map By: BAM MMI#: MXD: SOURCE: Legend FEMA Flood Zones Zone AE Zone X500 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-18 the first floor. River Trail has a dead end and only one entrance/exit at Old Field Road. During a flooding event, this can be problematic for evacuations.  Lower Pomperaug River – Manor Road and Pomperaug Trail – The approximately 30 homes located along Manor Road on the east side of the river, and Pomperaug Trail on the west side of the river, are within or adjacent to the 100-year fl oodplain and are often flooded by the overtopping of Pomperaug River’s banks. Figure 3-4 depicts this area. Flooding typically takes place during sustained precipitation events in the early spring, late summer/early fall or winter when the ground is covered with snow and ice. Additionally, Pomperaug Trail and Manor Road are under constant threat of flooding associated with ice jams, discussed in Section 4.0. These roads are long and have dead ends, having only one entrance/exit. During a flooding event, this can be problematic for evacuations.  River Road – Various sections of the road are closed at times throughout the course of the year due to flooding issues including the clogging of culverts, u ndersized culverts, and the overtopping of small unnamed streams that flow into the Housatonic River from Flat Hill. Between South Flat Hill Road and Purchase Brook Road, flooding of River Road occurs on a normal basis. Sections of this road have experienced roadway subsidence and the development of sinkholes. The Town covers the costs associated with repairs to the roadway. River Road provides the primary access to the satellite communications facility. In addition, River Road becomes a detour route or informal bypass whenever the section of I-84 between Exits 13 and 11 is closed. Therefore, the road is very important to the Town and the region. CT DEP H:Figure3-4.mxd 2937-02 Southbury Natural Hazard Pre-disaster Mitigation Plan Southbury, CT Lower Pomperaug River Study Area Figure 3-4 LOCATION: Date: Oct. 2008 Scale: 1:6,000 SHEET: 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 (203) 271-1773 Fax: (203) 272-9733 www.miloneandmacbroom.com Pomperaug River River Road Oakdale Dr. 84 6 Manor Rd. Pomperaug Trail Homes of Concern Homes of Concern Manor Rd. Map By: BAM MMI#: MXD: SOURCE: Legend Town Boundary FEMA Flood Zones Zone AE Zone X500 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-20 Secondary Areas of Concern  Hulls Hill Road/Jeremy Swamp Road Intersection – The intersection is at a low elevation and road closures are common due to flooding in the roadway. Flooding at this intersection occurs due to the overtopping of the Jeremy Brook watercourse. The culvert currently in place is insufficient in capacity for large scale rain events. Serious flooding has occurred in the past and residents have been evacua ted when large scale precipitation events have become imminent or have been ongoing.  Spruce Brook Road Near Route 172 – This area experiences mainly road flooding during large scale precipitation events. However, there has been residential damage reported to the Town. The road and residents in the area may benefit from an increase in the elevation and replacement of the existing bridge over Transylvania Brook.  Lakeside Road and Lee Farm Drive – Flooding occurs in association with the insufficient capacity and clogging of storm drainage systems. This is a densely- populated area along Lee Brook and near the Lake Zoar shoreline. The cl ogging of the storm systems has historically caused nuisance flooding for residences.  Community House Road – This roadway has a history of flooding during heavy rain storms. Bullet Hill Brook, the minor watercourse which the roadway is oriented along, sometimes overtops during these events.  Route 172 Bridge over the Pomperaug River – Due to the low elevation of the bridge at this location, flooding is a common occurrence during large scale rain events.  Route 172 at “Hay Fever Farm” – The road becomes inundated during large scale rainfall events. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-21  River Road between Purchase Brook Road and South Flat Hill Road – Whenever flooding is expected, the road is shut-down and the traffic is re-routed . This is a common occurrence during the rainy season of the spring.  Little Fox Lane – This roadway has one way in/out and has historically had nuisance flooding associated with an unnamed watercourse.  Flagg Swamp Road – This is a dirt road that extends from Southbury to Roxbury. This road is orientated along the watercourse associated with Flagg Swamp, and nuisance flooding can occur. 3.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives A number of measures can be taken to reduce the impact of a flood event. These include measures that prevent increases in flood losses by managing new development, measures that reduce the exposure of existing development to flood risk, and measures to preserve and restore natural resources. These are listed below under the categories of prevention, property protection ,structural projects ,public education and awareness ,natural resource protection , and emergency services . 3.6.1 Prevention Prevention of damage from flood losses often takes the form of floodplain regulations and redevelopment policies. These are usually administered by building, zoning, planning, and/or code enforcement offices through capital improvement programs and through zoning, subdivision, and wetland regulations and ordinances. It is important to promote coordination among the various departments that are responsible for different aspects of flood mitigation. Coordination and cooperation NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-22 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 regulate development in flood hazard areas. Flood hazard areas should reflect a balance of development and natural areas. Floodplain Development Regulations : Development regulations encompass subdivision regulations, building codes, and floodplain ordinances. Site plan and new subdivision regulations should include the following:  Requirements that every lot have a buildable area above the flood level;  Construction and location standards for the 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 foundation of structures will withstand flood forces and that all portions of the building 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 subdivision and building codes. These could be included in the ordinances for zoning and building codes, or could be addressed in a sep arate ordinance. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-23 According to the FEMA, communities are encouraged to use different, more accurate base maps to expand upon the FIRMs published by FEMA. This is because many FIRMs were originally created using United 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 allowed under NFIP regulations as long as the new map covers a larger floodplain than the FIRM. Reductions in floodplain area can only be accomplished through revised FEMA-sponsored engineering studies or Letters of Map Change (LOMC). It should be noted 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 12. Stormwater Management Policies : Development and redevelopment policies to address the prevention of flood losses must include effective 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 filte r strips, and permeable paving blocks. Generally, post-development stormwater should 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 overall 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 that typically results when detention measures are used. By detaining stormwater in close proximity of the stream in the lower reaches NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-24 of the overall watershed, the peak discharge from 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 geography, Southbury contains a range of upper to 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 prior to, during, and following precipitation events in order to maintain efficiency and functionality. Maintenance should include programs to clean out blockages caused by overgrowth and debris. Culverts should be monitored, and repaired and improved when necessary. The use of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology can greatly aid the 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 officials, including workshops, can be helpful in preparation for dealing with the massive upheaval 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 Southbury Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission (IWC) administers the wetland regulations, the Town of Southbury Zoning Commission (ZC) administers the Zoning regulations, and the Town of Southbury Planning Commission (PC) administers the Subdivision regulations. The regulations simultaneously restrict development in floodplains, wetlands, and other flood prone areas. The Zoning Enforcement Officer and the IWC (or their agents) are charged with ensuring that NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-25 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. development follows the floodplain management regulations and inland wetlands regulations. Based on the above guidelines and the existing roles of the IWC, the PC, the ZC, and the, Zoning Enforcement Officer, one specific preventive measure is recommended. A checklist should be developed that cross-references the bylaws, regulations, and codes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to a proposed project. This will streamline the permitting process and ensure maximum education of a developer or applicant. This could be provided to an applicant at any Town department. An example is included as Appended Table 3. 3.6.2 Property Protection Steps should be taken to protect 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 barriers, dry floodproofing, and wet floodproofing techniques. Barriers include levees, floodwalls, and berms, and are useful in areas subject to shallow flooding. These structural projects are discussed in Section 3.6.6 below. For dry floodproofing, walls may be coated with compound or plastic sheathing. Openings such as windows and vents should be either permanently closed or covered with removable shields. Flood protection should only be two to three feet above the top of the foundation NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-26 because building walls and floors cannot withstand the pressure of deepe r water. Wet floodproofing should only be used as a last 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 Southbury residents to prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding. The Zoning Enforcement Officer should consider outreach and education in these areas. It is possible that homeowners on Flood Bridge Road, River Hill Road, River Trail, Manor Drive, and Pomperaug Trail could benefit from floodproofing. 3.6.3 Emergency Services A natural hazard pre-disaster mitigation plan add resses actions that can be taken before a disaster event. In this context, emergency serv ices that would be appropriate mitigation measures for flooding include:  Forecasting systems to provide information on the time of occurrence and magnitude of flooding;  A system to issue flood warnings to the community and responsible officials; 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 emergency flood-water control.  Implementing an emergency notification system that combines database and GIS mapping technologies to deliver outbound emergency notifications to geographic areas; or specific groups of people, such as emergency responder teams. It is recognized that CodeRED provides this service. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-27 Based on the above guidelines, a number of specific proposals for improved emergency services are recommended to prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding. These are common to all hazards in this plan, and are listed in Section 11.1. 3.6.4 Public Education and Awareness The objective of public education is to provide an understanding of the nature of flood risk, and the means by which that risk can be mitigated on an individual basis. Public information materials should encourage individuals to be aware of flood mitigation techniques, including discouraging the public from changing channel and detention basins in their yards, and dumping in or otherwise altering watercourses and storage basins. Individuals should be made aware of drainage system maintenance programs and other methods of mitigation. The public should also understand what to expect when a hazard event occurs, and the procedures and time frames necessary for evacuation. Based on the above guidelines, a number of specific proposals for improved emergency services are recommended to prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding. These are common to all hazards in this plan, and are listed in Section 11.1. 3.6.5 Natural Resource Protection Floodplains can provide a number of natural resources and benefits, including storage of flood waters, open space and recreation, water quality protection, erosi on control, and preservation of natural habitats. Retaining the natural resources and functions of floodplains can not only reduce the frequency and consequences of floodi ng, but also minimize stormwater management and non-point pollution problems. Through natural resource planning, these objectives can be achieved at substantially red uced overall costs. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-28 Measures for preserving floodplain functions and resourcestypically 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. Projects that improve the natural condition of areas or restore diminished or destroyed resources can re-establish an environment in which the functions and values of these resources are again optimized. Administrative measures which assist such projects include the development of land reuse policies focused on resource restoration and review of community programs to identify opportunities for floodplain restoration. Based on the above guidelines, the following general natural resource protection mitigation measures are recommended to help prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding:  Pursue the acquisition of additional open space properties.  Selectively pursue conservation objectives listed in the Plan of Conserv ation and Development or more recent planning studies and documents.  Continue to regulate development in protected and sensitive areas, including steep slopes, wetlands and floodplains. The following specific recommendations are offered for natural resource protection:  Subject to a favorable FEMA cost-benefit analysis, apply for a grant to acquire the property at 111 Flood Bridge Road.  Consider purchasing residences along Flood Bridge Road, River Hill Road, River Trail, Manor Drive, and Pomperaug Trail. These homes must also qualify for NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-29 purchase based on the FEMA cost-benefit analysis. It is understood that owners along River Trail are not currently interested in relocation. 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 tempo rary storage of stormwater runoff. Barriers such as levees, floodwalls, and dikes ph ysically control the hazard to protect certain areas from floodwaters. Channel alterations can be made to confine more water to the channel and accelerate flood flows. Care should be taken when using these techniques to ensure that problems are not exacerbated in other areas of the impacted watersheds. Individuals can protect private property 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 flooding:  Increase the conveyance capacity of the culvert for Jeremy Brook under Hulls Hill Road at the intersection with Jeremy Swamp Road.  Upgrade the drainage systems along, and the cross culverts beneath, River Road in order to prevent flooding in multiple locations due to clogging of storm drains and the incapacity of culverts.  Install and repair storm drains and drainage systems on Lakeside Road and Lee Farm Road.  Increase the elevation and replace the bridge over Transylvania Brook at Spruce Brook Road. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-30  Work with CTDOT to elevate portions of Route 172 and replace the Route 172 bridge over the Pomperaug River in order to mitigate flooding problems along this state roadway. 3.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives The proposed mitigation strategies for addressing inland flooding are listed below. Prevention  Streamline the permitting process and ensure maximum education of a developer or applicant. Develop a checklist that cross-references the bylaws, regulations, and codes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to the proposed project. This list could be provided to an applicant at any Town depart ment.  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 prot ected to the highest recorded flood level, regardless of being within a defined SFHA.  After Map Mod has been completed, consider restudying local flood prone areas and produce new local-level regulatory floodplain maps using more exacting study techniques, including using more accurate contour information to map flood elevations provided with the FIRM. Property & Natural Resource Protection  Pursue the acquisition of additional municipal open space properties inside SFHAs and set those aside as greenways, parks, or other non-residential, non-c ommercial or non-industrial use.  Selectively pursue conservation recommendations listed in the Plan of Conservation and Development and other studies and documents. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 3-31  Continue to regulate development in protected and sensitive areas, including steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains.  Subject to a favorable FEMA cost-benefit analysis, apply for a grant to acquire the property at 111 Flood Bridge Road.  Consider purchasing residences along Flood Bridge Road, River Hill Road, River Trail, Manor Drive, and Pomperaug Trail. These homes must also qualify for purchase based on the FEMA cost-benefit analysis. It is understood that owners along River Trail are not currently interested in relocation.  Work with homeowners on Flood Bridge Road, River Hill Road, River Trail, Manor Drive, Pomperaug Trail, and other areas to educate them about the benefits of floodproofing. Structural Projects  Increase the conveyance capacity of the culvert for Jeremy Brook under Hulls Hill Road at the intersection with Jeremy Swamp Road.  Upgrade the drainage systems along, and the cross culverts beneath, River Road in order to prevent flooding in multiple locations due to clogging of storm drains and the incapacity of culverts.  Install and repair storm drains and drainage systems on Lakeside Road and Lee Farm Road.  Increase in the elevation and replace the bridge over Transylvania Brook at Spruce Brook Road.  Work with CTDOT to elevate portions of Route 172 and replace the Route 172 bridge over the Pomperaug River in order to mitigate for flooding problems along this state roadway. In addition, mitigation strategies important to all hazards are described in Section 11.1 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-1 4.0 ICE JAMS 4.1 Setting According to the Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security “Advisor” (Vol. 3, Issue 1) an ice jam is an accumulation of ice in a river that restricts water flow and may cause backwater that floods low-lying areas upstream from the jam. Areas below the ice jam can also be affected when the jam releases, sending water and ice downstream. Ice jam damages can affect homes, buildings, roads, bridges and the environment (e.g., through erosion, sedimentation, bank scour or tree scarring, etc.). Ice jams have historically been concentrated in a small area of Southbury near the confluence of the Housatonic and Pomperaug Rivers. The neighborhoods which are under highest threat by ice jams include those along Manor Road and Pomperaug Trail. 4.2 Hazard Assessment An ice jam is defined by the National Weather Service as a stationary accumulation of ice that restricts or blocks streamflow. When an ice jam occurs, water level rise can occur on the scale of several feet per hour or even per minute, depending upon antecedent conditions and location. Because ice jams occur in the winter, winter storm conditions often magnify complications and risks associated with ice jam flooding. Ice jams can additionally bring forth scouring, river bed erosion, river bank erosion, and damages to river bank and shoreline stabilizations. These effects then have the possibility of in creasing the area’s susceptibility to future flooding events. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-2 There are three different types of ice jams; freezup jams, breakup jams, and combination jams. Freezup jams typically occur during early to midwinter and are composed primarily of frazil ice with a small component of fragmented ice. This type of ice jam forms when some hydraulic occurrence slows the movement of the frazil, causing the ice to cease its downstream movement. The ice then forms an “arch” accumulating across the river. Breakup jams occur when fragmented ice is broken up due to a significant rainfall event or snowmelt. The pieces flow to a point where some hydraulic condition prohibits the fragmented ice from moving further downstream, where the pieces of ice gather and inhibit water flow downstream past that point. Lastly, combination jams are simply a combination of freezup and breakup jams. Any combination of the sequence of events above is possible. It is likely that all three types of ice jams occur at this location in the Town of Southbury. The hydraulic condit ions presented at this location (namely, the sudden flattening of the profile of the Pomperaug River at the Housatonic River) allow for all three circumstances to arise. The development of an ice jam in this area of the Town of Southbury is considered a likely event each year, and could cause significant damage to the Town, its residents, and its infrastructure. 4.3 Historic Record Through research efforts by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Engineering Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and En gineering Laboratory (CRREL), records of ice jams occurrences across the continental United States have been most confidently accounted for since the 1930s when the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) first installed stream gages. These records and others are compiled online (https://rsgis.crrel.usace.army.mil/icejam/) at ACOE CRREL’s Ice Jam NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-3 Information Clearinghouse, which contains historical and the most current data , as well as related information about the processes involved in ice jam formation and mitigation. The CRREL database includes 132 records of jams in Connecticut dating back to 1902. The database indicates that Connecticut experiences both freezup and breakup type events. Although limited data exists regarding historic damages associated with ice jams, twelve well-documented ice jams in Connecticut since 1961 indicate that typical damages include road closures, bridge damages, evacuation, residential and commercial damage. The Pomperaug River is considered the third most-susceptible river in the state with regard to ice jams, after the Shetucket River and the Salmon River, and well ahead of the Connecticut River. The most significant recent ice jam occurred in 1993. Private property was reportedly flooded and damaged. 4.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Existing mitigation measures appropriate for flooding have been discussed in Section 3.0. These include ordinances, codes, and regulations that have been enacted to minimize flood damage. In addition, structural projects such as streambank protection along the Pomperaug River have protected certain areas. Programs, policies, and mitigation measures that are specifically applicable to ice jams are not addressed within Town of Southbury regulations. 4.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment The Town of Southbury will continue to experience ice jams along the lower Pomperaug River, as the hydraulic conditions at this location will continue to present favorable ice jam forming conditions. This area is depicted on Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1: Location of Ice Jams in Southbury 00.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 " )172 " )67 § ¨ ¦84 For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not be exact. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, “Hydrography”, DEP “Ice Jams”, Southbury August 2008 Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads Streams Ice Jams Waterbodies " )188 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-5 The neighborhoods within the Town of Southbury vulnerable to flooding as a result of ice jams include those along Manor Road and Pomperaug Trail. Because flood waters can carry ice, extensive damage to the landscape, the riverbed and riverbanks, and residential housing is possible. Streets often become flooded and have the potential to become littered with fallen branches, poles, residential materials, and/or tree limbs, preventing egress. The Town of Southbury can evacuate on the order of 50 to 100 people in t he area of Town mentioned above that is prone to flooding as a result of ice jams. The Town of Southbury continuously monitors the river’s stage and ice conditions to determine when to evacuate residents in this area. 4.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Many potential mitigation measures for ice jams include those appropriate for flooding. These were presented in Section 3.6. However, instream structural projects are possible for preventing ice jams. The most recent such project was undertaken along the Salmon River in East Haddam, Connecticut. The Salmon River problem is similar to the Pomperaug River problem. During the winter months, ice jams at the tidal reach of the Salmon River; this is analogous to the backwater part of the Pomperaug River. The jamming causes the flooding of residential properties. To mitigate downstream ice jam flooding, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRREL designed a pier-type ice control structure to retain the breakup i ce. The project involved the construction of a 125-foot long concrete pier ice control structure across the main channel of the river. The struct ure consists of nine monoliths, two-feet wide by ten- feet thick, 15 to 18 feet high and spaced 14 feet on center. The projec t was executed on February 22, 2005 and the total cost of the project was $1.8 million. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-6 4.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Recommendations for mitigation of ice jams include the following:  Continuously monitor the stretch of the Pomperaug River that is prone to ice jams near Manor Road and Pomperaug Trail. If ice jam conditions appear to be imminent, then proper evacuations or other preventive safety measures will need to be taken. The CodeRED system can be used to facilitate warnings and evacuations.  As explained in Section 3.7, consider purchasing residences along Manor Drive and Pomperaug Trail (these homes must also qualify for purchase based on the FEMA cost-benefit analysis) and work with homeowners on Manor Drive and Pomperaug Trail to educate them about the benefits of floodproofing.  Evaluate options for instream structural projects and commence a dialog with DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers about potential funding for such project s. On an annual basis, monitor the criteria for PDM grants and evaluate if ice jam mitigation projects might qualify. In addition, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-1 5.0 HURRICANES 5.1 Setting Hazards associated with tropical storms and hurricanes include winds, heavy rains, and inland flooding. While only some of the areas of Southbury are susceptible to flooding damage caused by hurricanes, wind damage can occur anywhere in the Town. Hurricanes therefore have the potential to affect any area within the Town of Southbury. A hurricane striking the Town of Southbury is considered a possible event each year that could cause critical damage to the Town and its infrastructure (please refer to Appended Table 1). 5.2 Hazard Assessment Hurricanes are a class of tropical cyclones which are defined by the National Weather Service as non-frontal, low pressure large scale systems that develop over tropical or subtropical water and have definite organized circulations. Tropical cyclones are categorized based on the speed of the sustained (1-minute average) surface wind near the center of the storm. These categories are: Tropical Depression (winds less than 39 mph), Tropical Storm (winds 39-74 mph, inclusive) and Hurricanes (winds at least 74 mph). The geographic areas affected by tropical cyclones are called tropical cyclone basins. The Atlantic tropical cyclone basin is one of six in the world and inclu des much of the North Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico. The official Atlantic hurricane season begins on June 1 and extends through November 30 of eac h year, although occasionally hurricanes occur outside this period. Inland Connecticut is vulnerable to hurricanes despite moderate hurricane occurrences when compared with other areas within the Atlantic Tropical Cyclone basin. Since NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-2 AHurricane 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 effects of a hurricane are expected in the area within 24 hours. hurricanes tend to weaken within 12 hours of landfall, inland areas are less susceptible to hurricane wind damages than coastal areas in Connecticut; however, the heaviest rainfall often occurs inland. Therefore, inland areas are vulnerable to inland f looding during a hurricane. A hurricane Watch is an advisory for a specific area stating that a hurricane poses a threat to coastal and inland areas. Individuals should keep tuned to local tel evision and radio for updates. A hurricane Warning is then issued when the dangerous effects of a hurricane are expected in the area within 24 hours. The Saffir / Simpson Scale The Saffir / Simpson Hurricane Scale, which has been adopted by the National Hurricane Center, categorizes 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 classify hurricanes into one of five categories. The Saffir / Simpson scale is provided below.  Category 1: Winds 74-95 mph (64-82 kt or 119-153 km/hr). Storm surge generally 4-5 ft above normal. No real damage to building structures. Damage primarily to unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and trees. Some damage to poorly constructed signs, coastal road flooding, and minor pier damage.  Hurricane Diane was a Category 1 hurricane when it made landfall in North Carolina in 1955, and weakened to a tropical storm before reaching the Connecticut shoreline. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-3 Hurricane Agnes of 1971 was a Category 1 hurricane when it hit Connectic ut.  Hurricanes = 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 shrubbery and trees with some trees blown down. Considerable damage to mobile homes, poorly constructed signs, and piers. Coastal and low-lying escape routes flood two to four hours before arrival of the hurricane center. Small craft in unprotected anchorages break moorings.  Hurricane Bonnie of 1998 was a Category 2 hurricane when it hit the North Carolina coast.  Hurricane Georges of 1998 was a Category 2 hurricane when it hit the Florida Keys and the Mississippi Gulf Coast.  Hurricane Bob was a Category 2 hurricane when it made landfall in southern New England and New York in August of 1991.  Hurricane Ike was a strong Category 2 hurricane 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 structural damage to small residences and utility buildings with a minor amount of curtainwall failures. 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 before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Flooding near the coast destroys smaller structures with larger structures damaged by battering from floating debris. Terrain continuously lower than five feet above mean sea level may be flooded inland eight miles (13 km) or more. Evacuation of low-lying residences within several blocks of the shoreline may be required. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-4 The Great New England Hurricane of 1938 was a Category 3 hurricane when it hit New York and southern New England.  The Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 was a Category 3 hurricane when it made landfall in North Carolina, Virginia, New York, and southern New England .  Hurricane Carol of 1954 was a Category 3 hurricane when it struck Connec ticut, New York, and Rhode Island.  Hurricane Connie of 1955 was a Category 3 hurricane when it made landfall in North Carolina.  Hurricane Gloria of 1985 was a Category 3 hurricane when it made landfall in North Carolina and New York, and weakened to a Category 2 hurricane befo re reaching Connecticut.  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.  Hurricane Katrina of August 2005 was a Category 3 hurricane when it stru ck Louisiana and Mississippi.  Hurricane Rita of September 2005 reached Category 3 as it struck Louisia na.  Hurricane Wilma of October 2005 was a Category 3 hurricane when it made landfall in southwestern 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 mobile 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 residential areas as far inland as six m iles (10 km). NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-5 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 rea ched Connecticut.  Hurricane Luis of 1995 was a Category 4 hurricane while moving over the Leeward Islands.  Hurricanes Felix and Opal of 1995 also reached Category 4 status at peak intensity.  Category 5: Winds greater than 155 mph (135 kt or 249 km/hr). Storm surge generally greater than 18 ft above normal. Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings. Some complete building failures with small utility buildings blown over or away. All shrubs, trees, and 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 evacuati on of residential areas on low ground within 5-10 miles (8-16 km) of the shoreline may be required.  Hurricane Andrew was a Category 5 hurricane when it made landfall in southeastern Florida in 1992.  Hurricane Mitch of 1998 was a Category 5 hurricane at peak intensity ove r the western Caribbean.  Hurricane Gilbert of 1988 was a Category 5 hurricane at peak intensity a nd is one of the strongest Atlantic tropical cyclones of record. Table 5-1 lists the hurricane characteristics mentioned above as a function of category, as well as the expected central pressure. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-6 Table 5-1 Hurricane Characteristics CENTRAL PRESSURE WIND SPEED Category Millibars Inches MPH Knots SURGE Feet Damage Potential 1 >980 >28.9 74-95 64-83 4-5 Minimal 2 965-979 28.5-28.9 96-110 84-96 6-8 Moderate 3 945-964 27.9-28.5 111-130 97-113 9-12 Extensive 4 920-644 27.2-27.9 131-155 114-135 13-18 Extreme 5 <920 155 >135 >18 Catastrophic The Saffir / Simpson Hurricane Scale assumes an average, uniform coastline for the continental United States and was intended as a general guide for use by public safety officials during hurricane emergencies. It does not reflect the effects of varying localized bathymetry, coastline configuration, astronomical tides, barriers or other factors that may modify storm surge heights at the local level during a single hurricane event. For inland communities such as the Town of Southbury, the coastline assumption is not applicable. According to Connecticut’s 2007 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, a moderate Category 2 hurricane is expected to strike Connecticut once every ten years, whereas a Category 3 or Category 4 hurricane is expected before the year 2040. Th ese frequencies are based partly on the historic record, described in the next section. 5.3 Historic Record Through research efforts by NOAA’s National Climate Center in cooperation with the National Hurricane Center, records of tropical cyclone occurrences within the Atlantic Cyclone Basin have been compiled from 1851 to present. These records are compiled in NOAA’s Hurricane database (HURDAT), which contains historical data in the process of being reanalyzed to current scientific standards, as well as the most current hurricane data. During HURDAT’s period of record, 29 hurricanes and 67 tropical s torms have passed within a 150 mile radius of Newport, Rhode Island. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-7 Since 1900, eight direct hits and two hurricanes that did not make landfall (but passed close to the shoreline) were recorded along the Connecticut coast, of which there were four Category 3, two Category 2, and two Category 1 hurricanes (two of the ten struck Connecticut before the Saffir / Simpson scale was developed). Of the four Category 3 hurricanes, two occurred in September and two occurred in August. The most devastating hurricane to strike Connecticut, and believed to be the strong est hurricane to hit New England in recorded history, was believed to be a Category 3 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 Island, New York and moved quickly northward over Connecticut into northern New England. The majority of damage was caused from storm surge and wind damage. Surges of 10 to 12 feet were recorded along portions of the Long Island and Connecticut Coast, and heavy winds flattened forests, destroyed nearly 5,000 cottages, farms, and homes, and damaged an estimated 15,000 more throughout New York and southern New England. Overall, the storm left an estimated 700 dead and caused physical damages in excess of 300 million 1938 United States dollars (USD). The “Great Atlantic Hurricane” hit the Connecticut coast 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 Connecticut. Injuries and storm damage were lower in this hurricane than in 1938 because of increased warning time and the fewer structures located in vulnerable areas due to the lack of rebuilding after the 1938 storm. Another Category 3 hurricane, Hurricane Carol, struck in August of 1954 shortly after high tide and produced storm surges of 10 to 15 feet in southeastern Connecticut. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-8 Rainfall amounts of six inches were recorded in New London, and wind gus ts peaked at over 100 mph. Near the coast, the combination of strong winds and storm surge damaged or destroyed thousands of buildings, and the winds toppled trees that left most of the eastern part of the state without power. Overall damages were estimated at $461 million (1954 USD), and 60 people died as a direct result of the hurricane. W estern 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 decli ning tropical storm when it hit Connecticut in August of 1955, producing heavy rainfall of four to six inches across the state. The saturated soil conditions exacerbated the flooding caused by Diane five days later, a Category 1 hurricane and the wettest tropical cyclone on record for the Northeast. Diane produced 14 inches of rain in a 30-hour period , causing destructive flooding conditions along nearly every major river system in the state. The Mad and Still Rivers in Winsted, the Naugatuck River, the Farmington River, and the Quinebaug River in northeastern Connecticut caused the most damage. The flood waters caused over 100 deaths, an estimated $200 million in damages (1955 USD), and left 86,000 unemployed. For comparison, the total property taxes levied by all Connecticut municipalities in 1954 amounted to $194.1 million. More recently, flooding and winds associated with hurricanes have caused extensive shoreline erosion and related damage. In September of 1985, hurricane Gloria passed over the coastline as a Category 2 hurricane. The hurricane struck at low tide, resulting in low to moderate storm surges along the coast. The storm produced up to six inches of rain and heavy winds which damaged structures and uprooted trees. Over 500,000 people suffered significant power outages. Hurricane Bob, a Category 2 hurricane making 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 gu sts up to 100 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-9 mph recorded, and the storm was responsible for six deaths in the state. Total damage in southern New England was approximately $1.5 billion (1991 USD). The most recent tropical cyclone to impact Connecticut was tropical storm Floyd in 1999. Floyd is the storm of record in the Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and is discussed in more detail in Section 3.3. Tropical Storm Floyd caused power outages throughout New England and at least one death in Connecticut. 5.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Existing mitigation measures appropriate for flooding have been discussed in Section 3.0. These include ordinances, codes, and regulations that have been enacted to minimize flood damage. Wind loading requirements are addressed through the state building code. The Connecticut Building Code was amended in 2005 and adopted with an effective date of December 31, 2005. The new code specifies the design wind speed for construc tion in all the Connecticut municipalities, with the addition of split zones for some towns. For example, for towns along the Merritt Parkway 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 Southbury is 95 miles per hour. The Town of Southbury has adopted the Connecticut Buildi ng Code as its building code. Tree limbs and trees may fall during heavy wind events, potentially damaging structures, utility lines, and vehicles. The Town of Southbury Department of Public Works performs annual tree maintenance near roadways. Connecticut Light & Power also performs tree maintenance, but landowners are primarily responsible for conducting tree maintenance on private property. The Town attempts to close roads at convenient intersections rather than at the location of the downed tree or branch. Additionally, all NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-10 utilities in new subdivisions must be placed underground, whenever possible, in order to mitigate storm-related damages. As explained in Section 2.9, the Town of Southbury has space designated to for shelter of evacuees. The Town of Southbury has designated the Southbury Fire House and the Southbury Senior Center as the two shelters in Town. In addition, the Town has additional space available that could be used as additional shelter space if needed. As hurricanes generally pass an area within a day’s time, additional shelters can be set up following the storm as needed for long-term evacuees. As discussed previously, the Town of Southbury has instituted the CodeRE D Emergency Notification System. However, this feature is relatively new to the Town of Southbury. The Town therefore also relies on radio and television to spread information on the location and availability of shelters. Prior to a hurricane, the Town ensures that warning/notification systems and communication equipment is working properly and prepares for the possible evacuation of susceptible areas. 5.5 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 Southbury 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 Southbury is vulnerable to hurricane damage from wind and flooding, and from any tornadoes accompanying the storm. Areas of known and potential flooding problems are discussed in Section 3.0, and tornadoes will be discussed in Section 6.0. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-11 Hurricane-force winds can easily destroy poorly constructed buildings an d mobile homes. Debris such as signs, roofing 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 fallen poles cause considerable disruption for residents. Streets may be flooded or blocked by fallen branches, poles, or trees, preventing egress. Downed power lines can also start electrical fires, so adequate fire protection is important. As the residents and businesses of the State of Connecticut become more dependent on the internet and mobile communications, the impact of hurricanes on commerce will continue to increase. A major hurricane has the potential of causing complete disruption of power and communications for up several weeks, rendering electronic devices and those that rely on utility towers and lines inoperative. According to the Connecticut DEP, this is a significant risk which cannot be quantitatively estimated. As the Town of Southbury is not affected by storm surge, hurricane sheltering needs have not been calculated by the Army Corps of Engineers for the Town. Under limited emergency conditions, a high percentage of evacuees will seek shelter with friends or relatives rather than go to established shelters. During extended power outages, it is believed that only 10% to 20% of the affected population of Southbury wi ll relocate. The Town of Southbury determines sheltering need based upon areas damaged within the Town, but encourages residents to shelter in place whenever possible. 5.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Many potential mitigation measures for hurri canes 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 SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-12 5.6.1 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 identified 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 utilities underground in new developments or as related to redevelopment.  Continue to review the Emergency Operations Plan for the Town and update when necessary. 5.6.2 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 for structures, as well as the use of storm shutters over exposed glass and the inclusion of hurricane straps to hold roofs to buildings. Compliance with the amended Connecticut Building Code for wind speeds is necessary. Literature should be made available by the Building Department to developers during the per mitting process regarding these design standards. 5.6.3 Public Education and Awareness The public should be made aware of evacuation 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 11.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-13 5.6.4 Emergency Services The Emergency Operation Plan of the Town of Southbury includes guidelines and specifications for communication of hurricane warnings and watches, as w ell 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. In addition, th e Town of Southbury should identify and prepare additional facilities for evacuati on and sheltering needs. The Town should also review its mutual aid agreements and update as necessary to ensure help is available as needed. 5.6.5 Structural Projects Structural projects for wind damage mitigation are not possible. 5.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Recommendations for mitigation of hurricane and tropical storm winds include the following:  Increase tree limb maintenance and inspections, especially along Route 172, Route 67 and other evacuation routes. Increase 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 ensure timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Town. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-14 In addition, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 11.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-1 6.0 SUMMER STORMS & TORNADOES 6.1 Setting Like hurricanes and winter storms, summer storms and tornadoes have the potential to affect any area within the Town of Southbury. 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 summer storm to harm one area within the Town without harming another. The entire Town of Southbury is therefore susceptible to summer storms (including heavy rain, flash flooding, wind, hail, and lightning) an d tornadoes. Based on the historic record, it is considered highly likely that a summer storm that includes lightning will impact the Town of Southbury each year, although lightning strikes have a limited effect. Strong winds and hail are considered likely to occur durin g such storms but also generally have limited effects. A tornado is considered a possible event in New Haven County each year that could cause significant damage to a small area (refer to Appended Table 2). 6.2 Hazard Assessment Heavy wind (including tornadoes and downbursts), lightning, heavy rain , hail, and flash floods are the primary hazards associated with summer storms. Flooding caused by heavy rainfall was covered in Section 3.0 of this plan and will not be discussed in detail here. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-2 Tornadoes Tornadoes are spawned by certain thunderstorms. NOAA defines a tornado as “a violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to the ground.” The Fujita scale was accepted as the official classification system for tornado damage for many years following its publication in 1971. The Fujita scale rated the intensity of a tornado by examining the damage caused by the tornado after it has passed over a man- made structure. The scale ranked tornadoes using the now-familiar notation of F0 through F6, increasing with wind speed and intensity. The following graphic of the Fujita scale is provided by FEMA. A description of the scale follows in Table 6-1. Fujita Tornado Scale Table 6-1 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 SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-3 Table 6-1 (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 and F1) account for approximately 69% of all tornadoes. Strong tornadoes (F2 and F3) account for approximately 29% of all tornadoes. Violent tornadoes (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 Enhanced Fujita Scale was developed in response to a number of weaknesses 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 that structures have different con struction depending on location within the United States, and an overestimation of wind speeds for F3 and greater. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-4 The Enhanced Fujita scale is still a set of wind estimates based on damage. Its uses three- second gusts estimated at the point of damage based on a judgment of eight levels of damage to 28 specific indicators. Table 6-2 relates the Fujita and enhance d Fujita scales. Table 6-2 Enhanced Fujita Scale Fujita Scale Derived EF Scale Operational EF Scale F Number  Fastest 1/4- mile (mph)  3 Second Gust (mph)  EF Number 3 Second Gust (mph)  EF Number  3 Second Gust (mph)  0  40-72 45-78 0 65-85 0 65-85 1 73-112 79-117 1 86-109 1 86-110 2 113-157 118-161  2 110-137  2 111-135  3 158-207 162-209  3 138-167  3 136-165  4 208-260 210-261  4 168-199  4 166-200  5 261-318 262-317  5 200-234  5 Over 200 The historic record of tornadoes is discussed in Section 6.3. The pattern of occurrence in Connecticut is expected to remain unchanged according to the Connecticut Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2007). The highest relative risk for tornado es in the state are Litchfield and Hartford Counties, followed by New Haven, Fairfield, Toll and, Middlesex, Windham, and finally New London County. By virtues of its location in New Haven County and adjacent to Litchfield County, the Town of Southbury 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 atmosphere and the ground. In the initial stages of development, air acts as an insulator between the positive and negative charges. However, when the potential between the positive and negative charges becomes too great, a discharge of electricity (lightning) occurs. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-5 In-cloud lightning occurs between the positive charges near the top of t he 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 bott om 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 addition to an average of 300 lightning injuries per year. Most lightning deaths and injuries occur outdoors with 45% of lightning casualties occurring in open fields and ballparks, 23% under trees, and 14% involving water activities. Only 15 lightning-related fatalities occurred in Conn ecticut between 1959 and 2005, and only one occurred between 1998 and 2007. Most recent ly, on June 8, 2008, lightning struck a pavilion at Hammonasset Beach in Madison, Connecticut, injuring five and killing one. Thunderstorms occur 18 to 35 days each year in Connecticut. According to a report b y meteorologist Joe Furey on Fox 61 News, 2008 was an abnormal year for thunderstorms, with 20 days of thunderstorm activity occurring by the end of July. In general, thunderstorms in Connecticut are more frequent in the western and northern parts of the state, and less frequent in the southern and eastern parts. Although li ghtning is usually associated with thunderstorms, it can occur on almost any day. The likelihood of lightning strikes in the Southbury area is very high during any given thunderstorm, although no single area of the Town is at higher risk of lightning strik es. Downbursts A downburst is a severe localized wind blasting down from a thunderstorm. They are more common than tornadoes in Connecticut. These “straight line” winds are distinguishable from tornadic activity by the pattern of destruction and debris. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-6 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). Depending on the size and location of these events, the destruction to p roperty may be significant. 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). It is difficult to find statistical data regarding frequency of downburst activity. However, downburst activity is, on occasion, mistaken for tornado activity in Connecticut, indicating that it is a relatively uncommon yet persistent hazard. The risk to the Town of Southbury 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 part of Connecticut each year during a severe thunderstorm. As with thunderstorms, hailstorms are more frequent in the northwest and western portions of the state, and less frequent in the southern and eas tern portions. Overall, the risk of at least one hailstorm occurring in the Town of Southbury is moderate in any given year. 6.3 Historic Record The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) lists 13 tornado events in New Haven County since 1950. This includes one F4 rated tornado, two F3 rated tornadoes, three F2 rated tornadoes, three F1 rated tornadoes, two F0 rated tornadoes, and t wo undefined NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-7 tornadoes. Property damages from tornados in the County totaled approximately 280 million dollars. Table 6-3 lists the tornado events for New Haven County . Table 6-3 Tornado Events in New Haven County Since 1950 Date Fujita Tornado Scale Property Damage Wind Speed October 24, 1955 F2$3,000 113 – 157 mph August 29, 1959 F-$0 Unknown May 24, 1962 F3$2,500,000 158 – 206 mph July 29, 1971 F3$250,000 158 – 206 mph September 18, 1973 F2$0 113 – 157 mph July 28, 1982 F1$3,000 73 – 112 mph July 10, 1989 F2$25,000,000 113 – 157 mph July 10, 1989 F4$250,000,000 207 – 260 mph May 29, 1995 F-$10,000 Unknown May 29, 1995 F1$50,000 73 – 112 mph July 23, 1995 F0$0 40 – 72 mph July 3, 1996 F1$2,000,000 73 – 112 mph May 31, 2002 F0$0 40 – 72 mph A limited selection of summer storm damage in and around the Town of Southbury, taken from the NCDC Storm Events database, is listed below:  July 28, 1995 – Thunderstorm winds downed several trees and power lines when a thunderstorm moved through the Town of Southbury.  October 21, 1995 – A squall line generated thunderstorms that downed several trees and power lines. Vehicles were also damaged by the falling trees.  July 15, 1997 – Severe thunderstorms produced high winds, hail, and h eavy rain throughout New Haven County. High winds downed trees and power lines in the Town of Southbury, and lightning struck one house in Town.  June 30, 1998 – During the afternoon and evening, severe thunderstorm s produced high winds including three weak tornadoes, large hail, and frequent ligh tning across the state.  September 16, 1999 – In addition to the flooding damages described in Section 3.3, the remnants of Tropical Storm Floyd also produced wind gusts up to 60 miles per NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-8 hour in New Haven County, causing widespread downing of trees and power lines. Significant power outages were reported.  June 27, 2000 – Severe thunderstorms brought about high winds which d owned tree limbs in Southbury.  May 31, 2002 – In the evening, a professional meteorologist confirmed the occurrence of an F0 tornado in the Town of Southbury. Tornadic damages were observed near Exit 14 off Interstate 84. Large trees were splintered, uprooted and caused traffic blocks. The tornado snaked across the interstate, flattening trees, shrubs and bushes.  August 21, 2004 – Trees were downed in the communities surrounding the Town of Southbury as a result of thunderstorms accompanied by 50 mph wind gusts.  July 28, 2006 – Severe thunderstorms produced high winds up to 50 mph that downed many trees and power lines across the state.  June 5, 2007 – Hail accumulation of up to one inch deep was reported and car windshields were damaged throughout the area. Hail up to 1.75 inches in diameter and damaging winds accompanied the severe thunderstorms. The Connecticut DOT plowed the roadways to clear hail accumulation.  July 19, 2007 – Trees and power lines were downed along Poverty Road in the Town of Southbury. Severe weather occurred across the area.  July 19, 2008 – Many trees were downed on Luther Drive, Fishrock Road, and South Georges Hill as a result of numerous thunderstorms which developed across the area. 6.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Warning is the primary method of existing mitigation for tornadoes and thunderstorm- related hazards. Tables 6-4 and 6-5 list the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Watches and Warnings, respectively, as pertaining to actions to be taken by emergency management personnel in connection with summer storms and tornadoes. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-9 Asevere 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. Table 6-4 NOAA Weather Watches Weather Condition Meaning Actions Severe Thunderstorm Severe thunderstorms are possible in your area. Notify personnel, and watch for severe weather. Tornado Tornadoes are possible in your area. Notify personnel, and be prepared to move quickly if a warning is issued. Flash Flood It is possible that rains will cause flash flooding in your area. Notify personnel to watch for street or river flooding. Table 6-5 NOAA Weather Warnings Weather Condition Meaning Actions Severe Thunderstorm Severe thunderstorms are occurring or are imminent in your area. Notify personnel and watch for severe conditions or damage (i.e. downed power lines and trees. Take appropriate actions listed in town emergency plans. Tornado Tornadoes are occurring or are imminent in your area. Notify personnel, watch for severe weather and ensure personnel are protected. Take appropriate actions listed in emergency plans. Flash Flood Flash flooding is occurring or imminent in your area. Watch local rivers and streams. Be prepared to evacuate low- lying areas. Take appropriate actions listed in emergency plans. Aside from warnings, several other methods of mitigation for wind damage are employed in the Town of Southbury. Continued location of utilities underground is an important method of reducing wind damage to utilities and the resulting loss of services. The Connecticut Building Codes NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-10 include guidelines for Wind Load Criteria that are specific to each municipality, as explained in Section 5.0. In addition, specific mitigation measures address debris removal and tree trimming. In the Town of Southbury, the local utilities are responsible for tree b ranch removal and maintenance. In addition, all new developments in the Town must place utilities underground wherever possible. The Public Works Department also performs annual tree maintenance on municipal right of ways. Municipal responsibilities relative to tornado mitigation and preparedness include:  Developing and disseminating emergency public information and instructions concerning tornado safety, especially guidance regarding in-home protection and evacuation procedures, and locations of public shelters.  Designate appropriate shelter space in the community that could potentially withstand tornado impact.  Periodically test and exercise tornado response plans.  Put emergency personnel on standby at tornado ‘watch’ stage. 6.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment The central and southern portions of the United States are at higher risk for lightning and thunderstorms than is the northeast. However, more deaths from lightning occur on the East Coast than elsewhere, according to FEMA. Lightning-related fatalities have declined in recent years due to increased 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. The Town of Southbury is particularly NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-11 More information is available at: FEMA – http://www.fema.gov/library/ NOAA – http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/NWSTornado/ susceptible to damage from high winds due to its high elevation and heavily treed landscape. Heavy winds can take down trees near power lines, leading to the start a nd spread of fires. Such fires can be extremely dangerous during the summer months during dry and drought conditions. Most downed power lines in Southbury 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. 6.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Both the FEMA and the NOAA websites contain valuable information regarding preparing for and protecting oneself during a tornado, as well as information on a number of other natural hazards. Available information from FEMA includes:  Design and construction guidance for creating 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 family preparedness procedures and the best physical locations during a storm event. Although tornadoes pose a legitimate threat to public safety, their occurrence is considered too infrequent to justify the construction of tornado shelters. Residents should be encouraged to purchase a NOAA wea ther radio containing an alarm feature. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-12 The implementation of an emergency notification system would be beneficial in warning residents of an impending tornado. 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 included several tornadoes stuck at about 3:15 AM. According to National Public Radio, local broadcast stations had difficultly warning residents due to the lack of listeners and viewers and encouraged those awake to telephone warnings into the affect ed 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 Connecticut Building Code for wind speeds.  Provide for the Building Department to make literature available during the permitting process regarding appropriate design standards. 6.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives The following actions are recommended to mitigate for winds, hail, tornadoes, and downbursts: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-13  Increase tree limb maintenance and inspections.  Standardize a tree maintenance program for the Town.  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.  Continue to require compliance with the amended Connecticut Building Code for wind speeds.  Provide for the Building Department or the Planning or Zoning Commissions to make literature available during the permitting process regarding appropriate design standards. In addition, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 11.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-1 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. 7.0 WINTER STORMS 7.1 Setting Similar to summer storms and tornadoes, winter storms have the potential to affect any area of the Town of Southbury. However, unlike summer storms, winter events and the hazards that result (wind, snow, and ice) have more widespread geographic extent. The entire Town of Southbury 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 to Appended Tables 1 and 2). 7.2 Hazard Assessment This section focuses on those effects commonly associated with winter st orms, including those from blizzards, ice storms, heavy snow, freezing rain and extreme cold. Most deaths from winter storms are indirectly related to the storm, such as from traffic accidents on icy 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 storms, and such storms tend to produce a NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-2 large amount of precipitation. Severe winter storms can produce an array of hazardous weather conditions, including heavy snow, blizzards, freezing rain and ice pellets, and extreme cold. The National Weather Service defines a blizzard as having winds over 35 mph with snow and blowing snow that reduces visibility to less than one- quarter mile for at least three hours. Connecticut experiences at least one severe winter storm every five years, although a variety of small and medium snow and ice storms occur nearly every winter. The likelihood of a nor’easter occurring in any given 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 used 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 differs from other meteorological indices in that it uses population information in addition to meteorological measurements, thus giving an indication of a storm’s societal impacts. NESIS values are calculated within a geographical information system (GIS). The aerial distribution of snowfall and population information 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 converted into one of the five NESIS categories. The largest NESIS values result from storms producing heavy snowfall over large areas that include major metropolitan centers. Table 7-1 presents the NESIS categories, their corresponding NESIS values, and a descriptive adjective. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-3 Table 7-1 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 7.3 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 recorded in Long Island Sound and damaged 6,000 coastal homes. Inland areas received up to four feet of snow. Winter Storm Ginger in 1996 caused up to 27 inches of snow 24 hours and shut down the State of Connecticut for an entire day. The nor’easter which occurred 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 northeast. This storm ranked 20 thout of 33 major winter storms ranked by NESIS for the northeastern United States since 1956, and produ ced 21 inches of snow in Seymour and 23 inches of snow in Waterbury. The most damaging winter storms are not always nor’easters. According to the NCDC, there have been 135 snow and ice events in the State of Connecticut between 1993 and March 2008, causing over $18 million in damages. Notably, heavy snow in December 1996 caused $6 million in property damage. Snow removal and power restoration for a winter storm event spanning March 31 and April 1, 1997 cost $1 million. On March 5, 2001, heavy snow caused $5 million in damages, followed by another heavy snow event four days later that caused an additional $2 million in damages. The last documented NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-4 winter storm event that qualified as a blizzard was Winter Storm Ginger in January of 1996. These events were recorded for various counties throughout the st ate. 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 Connecticut on record was Ice Storm Felix on December 18, 1973. This storm resulted in two deaths and widespread power outages throughout the state. An ice storm in November of 2002 that hit Litchfield and western Hartford Counties resulted in $2.5 million dollars in public sector damages. Additional examples of recent winter storms to affect New Haven County, taken from the NCDC database, include:  March 13 to 14, 1993 – A powerful storm caused blizzard conditions and up to 21 inches of snow in Litchfield County, with less snowfall occurring in New Haven County. 40,000 power outages and $550,000 in property damage was report ed throughout Connecticut.  December 23, 1994 – An unusual snow-less late December storm caused gale force winds across the state. The high winds caused widespread power outages affecting up to 130,000 customers statewide. Numerous trees and limbs were blown down, damaging property, vehicles, and power lines to a total of five million dollars in damages. Peak wind gusts of up to 64 miles per hour were reported.  January 12, 1995 – Light snow and sleet changed to light freezing rai n, coating highways with ice. Up to 200 accidents occurred on state highways.  April 9, 1996 – A late winter storm produced heavy wet snow across most of southern Connecticut. The weight of the snow caused numerous trees and power lin es to fall. Snowfall amounts ranged from three to 14 inches across New Haven County.  April 1, 1997 – A low pressure system produced morning rain and after noon wet snow during the afternoon. Strong gusty winds up to 40 mph combined with the wet snow to cause power lines and trees to fall. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-5  December 29, 1997 – A low pressure system produced sustained winds of 30 to 40 mph with gusts up to 59 knots, with damage to trees and power lines reported in the Town of Ansonia and the Borough of Naugatuck.  January 15, 1998 – An ice storm caused widespread and numerous traffic accidents across northern New Haven County, with at least one-half inch of ice acc umulating on trees and power lines. Several roads were closed due to severe icing.  March 15, 1999 – Light rain changed to wet snow that became heavy overnight, downing numerous tree limbs and power lines across the region. Snowfall amounts in New Haven County ranged from eight to 11 inches.  January 25, 2000 – A winter storm produced up to two inches of snow per hour in northern New Haven County, which changed into sleet and freezing rain as the storm progressed. Snowfall was measured at 6.3 inches in the Town of Beacon Falls and seven inches in the City of Waterbury, and the snow was accompanied by wind gusts up to 45 mph.  December 12, 2000 – High winds produced peak wind gusts of up to 58 mph in northern New Haven County, downing many trees onto houses, cars, power lines, and streets and causing significant property damage and power outages in the Borough of Naugatuck and the City of Waterbury.  December 30, 2000 – Heavy snow at rates of one to two inches per hour mixed with high winds to produce near blizzard conditions. 12 inches of snow was r eported at the Borough of Naugatuck.  February 5, 2001 – A winter storm produced bands of heavy wet snow across New Haven County, with amounts ranging from ten to 20 inches reported. The heavy snow caused numerous fallen tree limbs that snapped power lines, power o utages, and caused many traffic accidents.  November 27, 2002 – Bands of heavy snow passed over northern New Haven County, producing seven inches of snow in the Town of Beacon Falls and nine inches in the City of Waterbury.  December 5, 2003 – A winter storm produced occasionally heavy snow with accumulations of up to 13 inches in the Town of Oxford. Wind gusts of at least 35 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-6 mph combined with the snow to create “white-out” conditions that caused major widespread impacts to mass transit across the entire region.  January 28, 2004 – A winter storm produced six inches of snow in the Borough of Naugatuck and eight inches of snow in the City of Waterbury.  February 25, 2005 – A winter storm produced snow amounts of five to 10 inches across the state. Six inches were reported as snow accumulation in the Town of Southbury.  March 8, 2005 – A strong arctic cold front intensified as it swept ac ross Connecticut, causing rain to change to snow and temperatures to fall from the 40s to the 20s, and produced northwest winds up to 55 mph. Near blizzard conditions occurred for a short time, with snowfall amounts ranging from three to six inches. The sudden drop in temperature resulted in a “flash-freeze” across roads that resulted in hundreds of vehicle accidents.  March 12, 2005 – A band of heavy snow oriented from south to north across New Haven County produced snowfall rates in excess of two inches per hour. Snowfall amounts ranged from five to nine inches.  March 24, 2005 – A late winter storm produced six inches of snow in t he Town of Beacon Falls.  December 9, 2005 – A winter storm produced six to 12 inches of snow across Connecticut. Ten inches were reported as having accumulated in the Town of Southbury.  January 9, 2008 – Gusty winter winds caused a partial collapse of a b uilding under construction in the Town of Oxford. 7.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Existing programs applicable to flooding and wind are the same as those discussed in Sections 3.0 and 5.0. Programs that are specific to winter storms are generally those related to preparing plows, sand and salt trucks; tree-trimming to protect power lines; and other associated snow removal and response preparations. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-7 It is almost a guarantee that winter storms will occur annually in Connecticut. In response, it is important for municipalities to budget fiscal resources towards snow management. The Town ensures that all warning/notification and communications systems are ready before a storm, and ensures that appropriate equipment and supplies, especially snow removal equipment, are in place and in good working order. The Town also prepares for the possible evacuation and sheltering of some populations which could be impacted by the upcoming storm (especially the elderly and special needs persons). The Town of Southbury primarily uses Town staff for plowing operations. The Connecticut Department of Transportation plows Interstate 84, Route 6, Routes 67, and Route 172. The Department of Public Works has a list of priority snow plow routes. During emergencies, a plow vehicle can be dispatched ahead of an emergency vehicle. The Town should continue to discourage the creation of cul-de-sacs whenever a feasible connection to a through street can be created. This policy presents residents and emergency personnel with two means of egress into neighborhoods in the Town, ensuring that residents will not be cut off from critical facilities during times of need. 7.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment As mentioned for summer storms, the heavily treed landscape in close proximity to densely populated residential areas in the Town of Southbury poses probl ems in relation to blizzard condition damage. Tree limbs and some building structures may not be suited to withstand high wind and snow loads. Ice can damage or collapse power lines, render steep gradients impassable for motorists, undermine foundations, and cause “flood” damage from ice freezing water pipes in basements. In addition, winter storms present additional problems for motorists all over the state. As the population of Connecticut and its dependence on transportation continues to increase, the vulnerability of the state to winter storms also increases. There is a high propensity NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-8 for traffic accidents 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 handicapped citizens, are at particularly high risk of injury or death during a blizzard. After a storm, snow piled on the sides of roadways can inhibit line of sight and reflect a blinding amount of sunlight, making driving difficult. When coupled with slippery road conditions, poor sightlines and heavy glare create dangerous driving conditions. A few areas in the Town of Southbury have been identified by Town personnel as having problems with ice during the winter months. Icing causes difficult driving con ditions throughout the hillier sections of Town such as Berkshire Road and Pasco e Drive. These roadways are not easily traveled upon when ice accumulates. Icing due to poor drainage also occurs along Pomperaug Trail. As for other winter hazards, drifting snow is not as large a problem in Southbury as other areas, but it still occurs. This problem is mitigated through municipal plowing efforts. Ice jams are a significant problem along the stretch of the Pomperaug River near Manor Road. Refer to Section 4.0 for a discussion of ice jams. 7.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Potential mitigation measures for flooding caused by nor’easters include those presented in Section 3.6. Winter storm mitigation measures must also address blizzard, snow, and ice hazards. These are emphasized below. Note that structural projects are generally not applicable to hazard mitigation for wind, blizzard, snow, and ice hazards. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-9 7.6.1 Prevention Cold air, wind, snow, and ice cannot be prevented from impacting any particular area. Thus, mitigation should be focused on property 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 5.0 and 6.0 are thus applicable to winter storm hazards, as well. As mentioned previously, utilities in Southbury should continue to be placed underground where possible. This can occur in connection with new development and also in connection with redevelopment work. Underground utilities cannot be damaged by heavy snow, ice, and winter winds. 7.6.2 Property Protection Property can be protected during winter storms through the use of shutters, storm doors, and storm windows. Where flat roofs are used on structures, snow removal is important as the heavy load from collecting snow may exceed the bearing capacity of the structure. Heating coils may be used to remove snow from flat roofs, and pipes should be adequately insulated to protect against freezing and bursting. All of these recommendations should apply to new construction, although they may also 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. 7.6.3 Public Education and Awareness The public is typically more aware of the hazardous effects of snow, ice , and cold weather than they are with regard 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 SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-10 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. 7.6.4 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 storms. The creation of through streets with new developments increases the amount of egress for residents and emergency personnel into neighborhoods. Available shelters should also be advertised and their locations known to the public prior to a storm event. Finally, mutual aid agreements with surrounding municipalities should be reviewed and updated as necessary to ensure help will be available when needed. 7.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Most of the recommendations in Sections 3.6 and 4.6 for mitigating flooding are suitable for mitigation of flooding caused by winter storms. These are not repeated in this subsection. The following recommendations are applicable to other aspects of winter storms such as winds, snow, and ice:  Increase tree limb maintenance and inspections.  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 ensure timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of the Town of Southbury. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-11  Post a list of Town sheltering facilities and snow plowing prioritization in the Town Hall and on the Town’s website so residents can best plan how to access critical facilities during a winter storm event.  Continue to encourage two modes of egress into every neighborhood by the creation of through streets. In addition, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 11.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-1 8.0 EARTHQUAKES 8.1 Setting The entire Town of Southbury is susceptible 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, earthquakes are considered a hazard that i s possible to occur, but that may cause significant effects to a large area of the Town (refer to Appended Table 1). 8.2 Hazard Assessment An earthquake is a sudden rapid shaking of the earth caused by the break ing and shifting of rock beneath the earth’s surface. Earthquakes can cause buildings and bridges to collapse, disrupt gas, electric and phone lines, and often cause landsli des, flash floods, fires, avalanches, and tsunamis. Earthquakes can occur at any time without warning. The underground point of origin of an earthquake 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 the 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 the amplitude of earthquake waves recorded on instruments which have a common calibration. The magnitude of an earthquake is thus represented by a single, instrumentally determined value recorded by a seismograph, which record the varying amplitude of ground oscillations. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-2 The following is a description of the 12 levels of Modified Mercalli intens ity from the USGS. I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildin gs. 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 p assing 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; sligh t to moderate in well- built ordinary structures; c onsiderable 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 co llapse. 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 (maso nry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. XII. Damage total. Lines of sight and level are destroyed. Object thrown in the air. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-3 Unlike seismic activity in California, earthquakes in Connecticut are not associated with specific known faults. Instead, earthquakes with epicenters in Connecticut are referred to as being intra-plate activity. Bedrock in Connecticut – 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 work 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. 8.3 Historic Record According to the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, Connecticut is a region of very minor seismic activity. This assessment is based on lack of historical and instrumental reports of strong earthquakes. However, earthquakes do occur in this region. The New England states regularly register seismic events. According to the Northeast Region Emergency Consortium, there were 137 recorded earthquakes in Connecticut between 1568 and 1989. The most 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 Rivers, Quebec on February 5, 1663 c aused moderate damage in parts of Connecticut. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-4  Strong earthquakes in Massachusetts in November 1727 and November 1755 were felt strongly in Connecticut.  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 I ntensity V earthquake would be approximately 4.3 on the Richter scale.  On June 30, 1858, New Haven and Derby were shaken by a moderate tremor.  On July 28, 1875, an early morning tremor caused Intensity V damage throughout Connecticut and Massachusetts.  The second strongest earthquake to impact Connecticut occurred near Hart ford 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, 198 9, and 1990 (2.0, 2.8, and 2.8 in magnitude, respectively), in Greenwich in 1991 (3.0 magnitude), and on Long Island in East Hampton, New York in 1992.  The most recent earthquake to occur in Connecticut occurred on March 11, 2008. It was a 2.0 magnitude with its epicenter three miles northwest of the center of Chester. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-5 8.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures The Connecticut Building Codes include design criteria for buildings spe cific to municipalities, as adopted by the Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA). These include the seismic coefficients for building design in the Town of Southbury. 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 Southbury do not directly address earthquake hazards. However, the Town of Southbury is deliberate about regulating land use on steep slopes. Section 1.2.15 of the Subdivision Regulations defines steep slopes as those portions of land with slope/to pography in excess of 25%. Section 4.11.9 regulates the maximum grade for any street as not exceeding 10% for local residential streets, 8% for throughfares, and 3% for turnarounds. Likewise, Section 8.7 of Southbury Zoning Regulations (Setbacks and Slopes) states that no earth removal or placement shall occur within 50 feet of an abutting property line without written approval from abutting property owner. Finished slopes cannot exceed 25% grade or some lesser slope that is necessary to provide stability, safety, and the opportunity for future reuse and development. 8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment According to the USGS, Connecticut is at a low risk for experiencing a d amaging 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 the force of gravity. To appre ciate why these values of ground shaking are expressed as a percentage of the force of gravity, note that it requires more than 100% of the force of gravity to throw objects up in the air. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-6 TheAEL 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. In terms of felt effects and damage, ground motion at the level of several percent of gravity corresponds to the threshold of damage to buildings and houses (an earthquake intensity of approximately V). For comparison, 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 intensity of about VII, or about 10% to 2 0% of gravity. According to the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project (2008), an earthquake impacting the Town of Southbury 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 probabilistic curves developed by the USGS for the National Earthquakes Hazards Reduction Program to calculate Annualized Earthquake Losses (AEL) for the United States. Based on the results o f this study, FEMA calculated the AEL for Connecticut to be $11,622,000. This value placed Connecticut 30 th out of the 50 states in terms of AEL. The magnitude of this value stems from the fact that Connecticut has a large building inventory that would be damaged in a severe earthquake, and takes into account the lack of damaging earthquakes in the historical record. The current Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2007) states that “there is a 66% chance that an earthquake of a 2.7 magnitude or greater” will occur in the area of Southbury. According to the previous Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigat ion Plan (2004), the State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Management notes the chance that a damaging earthquake of magnitude 5.0 or greater will occur within the state in any one year is 5%, and that the odds of an earthquake of magnitude 6.0 are about one in 300 each year. Therefore, the Town of Southbury is unlikely to experience a damaging NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-7 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. 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, artificial fill material has the potential for liquefaction. When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases, reducing the ability of soil to support building foundations or bridges is reduced. Increased shaking a nd liquefaction can cause greater damage to buildings and structures, and a greater loss of life. As explained in Section 2.3, several areas of the Town of Southbury are underlain by sand and gravel of glacial meltwater origin. Figure 2-5 depicts surficial materials in the Town. Structures in these areas are at increased risk from earthquakes due to amplification of seismic energy and/or collapse. The best mitigation for future development in areas of sandy material may be application of the most stringent building codes, or possibly the prohibition of certain types of new construction. The areas that are not at lesser risk from unstable soils during an earthquake are the areas in Figure 2-5 underlain by glacial till. Areas of steep slopes can collapse during an earthquake, creating landsl ides. Seismic activity can also break utility lines, such as water mains, electric and telephone lines, and stormwater management systems. Damage to utility lines can lead to fires, especially in electric and gas mains. Dam failure can also pose a significant threat to developed areas during an earthquake. For this Plan, dam failure has been addressed separately in Section 9.0. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 8-8 Problems with mass movement and slides at slopes have indeed occurred in the Town of Southbury. For example, a residence at the end of Lower Fish Rock Road near the Housatonic River is in danger of sliding into the river due to previous disturbance of the ground at this location. These types of problems have led, in part, to the regulations pertaining to development on and near slopes. 8.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives As earthquakes are difficult to predict and can affect the entire Town of Southbury, potential mitigation can only include adherence to building codes, education of residents, and adequate planning. The following potential mitigation measures have been identified:  Consider preventing new residential development in areas prone to collapse.  Continue regulating development on and near slopes, and consider setting a prohibition on development of slopes above a certain percentage grade.  Continue to require adherence to the state building codes.  Ensure that municipal departments have adequate backup facilities in case earthquake damage occurs to municipal buildings. In addition, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 11.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-1 9.0 DAM FAILURE 9.1 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 floodwaters. In addition, a dam failure can cause a chain reaction where the sudden release of floodwaters causes the next dam downstream to fail. With 32 registered dams and potentially several other minor dams in the Town or along its border, dam failure can occur almost anywhere in the Town of Southbury. While flooding from a dam failure generally has a limited geographic extent, the effects are potentially catastrophic. Fortunately, a major dam failure is considered only a possible natural hazard event in any given year (refer to Appended Table 2). 9.2 Hazard Assessment The Connecticut DEP administers the statewide Dam Safety Program, and designates a classification to each state-registered dam based on its potential hazard.  Class AA dams are negligible hazard potential dams that upon failure would result in no measurable damage to roadways, land and structures, and negligible economic loss.  Class A dams are low hazard potential dams that upon failure would result in damage to agricultural land and unimproved roadways, with minimal economic loss.  Class BB dams are moderate hazard potential dams that upon failure would result in damage to normally unoccupied storage structures, damage to low volume roadways, and moderate economic loss. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-2  Class B dams are significant hazard potential dams that upon failure would result in possible loss of life, minor damage to habitable structures, residences, hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, and the like, damage or interruption of service of utilities, damage to primary roadways, and significant economic loss.  Class C dams are high potential hazard dams that upon failure would result in loss of life and major damage to habitable structures, residences, hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, and main highways with great economic loss. As of 1996, there were 32 DEP-registered dams within the Town of Southbury, of which seven were Class A, one was Class AA, one was Class BB, 12 were Class B, one was Class C, and ten were undefined. The list of Class B and C dams was updated by the DEP in 2007. This updated information is listed in Table 9-1. In addition, Long Meadow Pond Dam is located upstream of the Pomperaug River in the Town of Bethlehem and believed to have the potential to impact the Town of Southbury should it fail. This dam is also listed in Table 9-1. Table 9-1 High Hazard Dams that Could Potentially Impact the Town of Southbury Number Name Town Class 1006 Long Meadow Pond Dam Bethlehem BB 13001 Shepaug Dam Southbury C 13002 Paper Mill Pond Dam Southbury B 13008 Kettletown Brook Pond Dam Southbury B 13011 Middle Hill House Road Pond Dam Southbury B 13012 Pomperaug River Dam Southbury B 13031 Pierces Colonial Acres Dam Southbury B 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. These Class B & C dams are shown on Figures 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, and 9-4. Figure 9-1: High Hazard Dams in Southbury 00.5 1 Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ®t G F ? G F ? k V T D % % % © © 9 "M "M § ¨ ¦84 Housatonic River Shepaug Dam " )172 Inundation Area 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations Legend Major Roads Local Roads Town Boundary V T Sewage Treatment Facility ®t Assisted Living Facilities G F Life Care Centers k Southbury Training School ? Condominium Communities Dam Hazard Class % B % C D Viasat/Comsat Development Facility Streams Wate r We llf ield For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not be exact. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, “Dams”, DEP “Facilities”, Southbury August 2008 % % Figure 9-2: High Hazard Dams in Southbury 00.25 0.5Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² " )67 " )188 Jeremy Brook Walnut Hill Brook Kettletown Brook Ryans Pond Kettletown Brook Pond Dam Paper Mill Pond Dam Wa t e r Streams Legend Major Roads Local Roads Town Boundary Dam Hazard Class % B For gen eral pl anning purpos es onl y. Deli neation s may not be exact. Source : “R oads”, c198 4 – 20 08 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04 /08. “To wn Bo undary “, “Dams “, D EP “Fa cilities “, So uthbur y August 2008 Figure 9-3: High Hazard Dams in Southbury 00.25 0.5Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ®t G F ? G F ? V T % % © © 9 "M § ¨ ¦84 " )172 Pomperaug River Lower Hill House Road Pond Middle Hill HouseRoad Pond Dam Pomperaug River Dam Lower Cass Road Pond 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations ®t Assisted Living Facilities G F Life Care Centers ? Condominium Communities V T Sewage Treatment Facility Legend Town Boundary Wat er Streams Ma jor Roa ds Local Roads Dam Hazard Class % B Wellfield For gen eral plan nin g pu rpo ses only . Delin eatio ns may no t be exa ct. Sou rce: “Roa ds”, c1 984 – 20 08 Tele At las, Rel. 04/ 08. “Town Boundary”, “Dams”, DEP “Facil ities”, Southbury August 2008 Figure 9-4: High Hazard Dams in Southbury 00.25 0.5Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² k % " )67 Transylvania Brook Gravel Pit Pond Pierces Colonial Acres Pond Dam Transylvania Pond " )172 Dam Hazard Class % B Legend Town Boundary Wat er Major Roads Local Roads Streams k Southbury Training School For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not be exact . Sou rc e: “Roa ds “, c1 98 4 – 20 08 Te le Atl as, Re l. 04/ 08 . “Town Boundar y”, “Dams”, DEP “Faciliti es”, Southbury August 2008 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-7 There is one Class C dam in the Town of Southbury. This is the Shepaug Dam on the Housatonic River, owned by First Light Power Resources, that impounds Lake Lillinonah. The dam location is depicted on Figure 9-1 along with its downstream inundation area. 9.3 Historic Record Approximately 200 notable dam and reservoir failures occurred worldwide in the twentieth century. More than 8,000 people died in these disasters. The following are the two most catastrophic dam failures in Connecticut recent history:  1938 and 1955: Exact numbers of dam failures caused by these floods are unavailable, but Connecticut DEP believes that more dams were damaged in these events than in the 1982 or 2005 flooding events.  1961: Crystal Lake dam in Middletown failed, 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 d ams 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 flash flooding on April 16, 1996 ca used three small dams in Middletown and one in Wallingford to breach, and the Connecticut DEP reported that the sustained heavy rainfall from October 7 to 15, 2005 caused 14 c omplete or partial dam failures and damage to 30 other dams throughout the State. A sample of damaged dams is summarized in Table 9-2. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-8 Table 9-2 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 Southbury. According to Town personnel, the dams throughout Town are in varying stages of condition. The following paragraphs provide a description and highlight the general condition of each Class C & B dam based on information available at the Connecticut DEP.  Shepaug Dam – This Class C hydroelectric dam was installed in 1955 and is owned by First Light Power Resources. Capable of producing 42,600 kilowatts, the dam has one power-producing unit. The dam is a concrete gravity structure anchored into bedrock. It is 1,412 feet in length and is divided into four sections. The dam’s drainage area upstream is approximately 1,391 square miles, with a 293 foot spillway. Lake Lillinonah, covering approximately 1,820 acres lies upstream of the hydroelectric dam.  Paper Mill Pond Dam – This Class B masonry dam is located on Eightmile River and is founded on ledge. The dam is owned by the Connecticut DEP and has an outlet pipe with a sluice gate. The dam experienced pinhole leaks and leaking from its outlet pipe from 1966 to 1972.  Kettletown Brook Pond Dam – This Class B dam is owned by Westonbrook Farm LLC. As its name suggests, the dam is located on Kettletown Brook. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-9  Middle Hill House Road Pond Dam – This Class B dam has an armory fence, a concrete apron spillway to a lower pond which is a rip rap bottom. The dam is owned by Heritage Village Foundation, Inc. The drain pipe outlet of the dam is four inches and extends from the lower pond under Hillhouse Road. There is a suspended sanitary sewer line that crosses the brook which is located just downstream of the dam. The dam was last inspected in 1990.  Pomperaug River Dam – This Class B run-of-the-river dam has a metal sluiceway and is currently in generally poor condition. The dam is owned by Berbric Realty Corp. and had repairs to its stone masonry abutment in 1991. The failure of the dam caused flooding at a mill building 800 feet downstream, minor damage to the road 1,400 feet downstream of the dam, and possible damage to the building on the left abutment. There has been no correspondence about the dam since 2005.  Pierces Colonial Acres Dam – This Class B dam was constructed in 1988 and is owned by Westwood Acres, Inc. The dam is located on an unnamed tributary of Transylvania Brook. The dam is consists of a dike of compacted earth fill with an impervious core. The concrete spillway is four feet by four feet in size and is designed for the 100-year flood. 9.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures The dam safety statues are codified in Section 22a-401 through 22a-411 inclusiv e of the Connecticut General Statutes. Sections 22a-409-1 and 22a-409-2 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, have been enacted which govern the registrat ion, classification, and inspection of dams. Dams must be registered by the owner with the DEP, according to Connecticut Public Act 83-38. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-10 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. Dam Inspection Regulations require that over 600 dams in Connecticut be inspected annually. The DEP currently prioritizes inspections of those dams which pose the greatest potential threat to downstream persons and properties. Dams found to be unsafe under the inspection program must be repaired by the owner. Depending on the severity of the identified deficiency, an owner is 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 structure to a safe condition and may refer noncompliance with such an order to the Attorney General’s Office for enforcement. As a means of last resort, the DEP Commissioner is empowered by 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 maintain emergency operations plans. First Light Power Resources is therefore charged with maintaining such a plan for the Shepaug Dam. 9.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment By definition, failure of Class C dams may cause catastrophic loss of life and property. The only Class C dam in the Town of Southbury, the Shepaug Dam, presents the highest damage potential to Town residents should it fail. Shepaug Dam The Shepaug Dam is owned by the First Light Power Resources. Based on dam failure inundation maps on file at the DEP, a dam failure at full pool height (worst-case scenario) NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-11 would cause flooding along the Housatonic River in the Towns of Southbur y and Newtown (Figure 8-1). Residents downstream of the Shepaug Dam including those located along River Road, Manor Drive, and Pomperaug Trail would be in s erious danger. Additionally, residents in other communities along the river would experience flooding. The satellite communication facility at the end of River Road in Southbury is located adjacent to the dam and could be in serious threat of major damages if the Shepaug Dam failed. Such a failure would cause backwater conditions alo ng the Pomperaug River and the unnamed tributaries that join the Housatonic River along this stretch. Other Dams in Southbury The five additional Class B dams described in Section 9.3 can also have an effect on residents of Southbury. Although Town personnel did not describe these dams as having potential problems or becoming potential threats to residents, review of DEP files indicated that the Pomperaug River Dam is currently in poor condition. Without regular maintenance performed on the existing dams, additional problems and threats may surface. Long Meadow Pond Dam, Town of Bethlehem The Long Meadow Pond dam located in the Town of Bethlehem requires discussion in context of flooding from dam failure. This dam is owned by the Town of Bethlehem and is currently rated below a Class B dam. The dam overtopped during the April 2007 nor’easter, and though the dam sustained some damage, it did not fail. The Connecticut DEP sent the Town of Bethlehem an engineering request letter in October 2007 requiring the Town to retain an engineer to perform a hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of the dam, and to design improvements to allow the dam to safely pass the 100-year storm event. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-12 Should this dam fail, it is likely that floodwaters would continue southwest into the Weekeepeemee River. If the dam failure occurs during heavy rain, the Weekeepeemee could already be flooded, and the additional waters would exacerbate flooding conditions downstream in the Towns of Woodbury and then Southbury, where the Pomperaug River would convey floodwaters from the pond and the Weekeepeemee River. Residents living along the Pomperaug River in Southbury remain concerned with the Long Meadow Pond dam in Bethlehem. They were notified in 2007 when sandbagging was taking place at the dam, and were displeased that a formal notification and process for evacuation were not available at that time. They recommend that the notification process be improved. 9.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives The Dam Safety Section of the DEP Inland Water Resources Division is charged with the responsibility for administration and enforcement of Connecticut’s dam safety laws. The existing statutes require that permits be obtained to construct, repair, or alter dams, and that existing dams be registered and periodically inspected to assure that their continued operation does not constitute a hazard to life, health, or property. The Town of Southbury should work with the ACOE and the Connecticut DEP to stay up to date on the evolution of Emergency Operations Plans and Dam Failure Analyses for the significant and high hazard dams in Town. Whenever possible, copies of these documents should be made available at the Town Hall for reference and public viewing. All Class B and C dams in Town should be regularly inspected by their respective owners, along with regular maintenance as required to keep the dams in safe and functional order. The Town should initiate correspondence with the owners of the five listed Class B dams, including the DEP, with regard to past, future planned, and ongoing maintenance. The Town could consider implementing occasional Town inspections of NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 9-13 Class A, AA, and unranked dams. The Town’s inventory and familiarity with all known dams within Southbury is important to maintaining safe and functional working order of all dams. The Town should consider specifically including dam failure areas in its CodeRED emergency notification system. This technology should be used to warn downstream residents of a potential or impending dam failure and facilitate evacuation. With regard to Long Meadow Pond Dam, the Town of Bethlehem is pursuing modifications of the dam to pass the 100-year flood event, and is being urged to review and update the Emergency Operations Plan when modifications are completed. Refer to Section 8.0 of the Bethlehem Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan for more information. The Town of Southbury should support the Town of Bethlehem’s efforts to address repairs to Long Meadow Pond Dam. In addition, there are several suggested potential mitigation strategies which are applicable to all hazards in this plan. These are outlined in Section 11.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-1 10.0 WILDFIRES 10.1 Setting The ensuing discussion about wildfires is focused on the undeveloped woo ded and shrubby areas of Southbury, along with low-density suburban type development found at the margins of these areas known as the wildland interface. Structural fires in higher density areas of the Town are not considered. The Town of Southbury 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 10-1 depicts wildfire risk areas for the Town of Southbury. Hazards associated with wildfires include property damage and loss of habitat. Wildfires are considered a likely event each year, but should they occur are generally contained to a small range with limited damage to non-forested areas. 10.2 Hazard Assessment Wildfires are well-defined by the Massachusetts Hazard Mitigation Plan as being “highly 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 conditions. Wildfires are also known as “wildland fires.” Nationwide, humans have caused approximately 90% of all wildfires in the last decade. Accidental and negligent acts include unattended campfires, sparks, burning debris, and irresponsibly discarded cigarettes. The remaining 10% of fires are caused mostly by lightning. ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ®t G F ? G F ? ®t k V T D © © 9 "M "M Figure 10-1: Southbury Wildfire Risk Area 00.51 Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² £ ¤6 " )172 " )67 § ¨ ¦84 " )188 ¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼Wildfire Risk Area For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not be exact. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Tow n Boundary”, D EP “Faci li ti es”, Sout hbury “Wi l df i re Ar ea”, C O GC NV August 2008 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations Wa t e r Streams Legend Major Roads Local Roads Town Boundary V T Sewag e Tre atment Facil ity ®t Assisted Living Facilities G F Life Care Centers k Southbury Training School ? Condominium Communities D Viasat/Comsat Development Facility Wel lfiel d NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-3 Nevertheless, wildfires are also a natural process, and their suppression is now recognized to have created a larger fire hazard, as live and dead vegetation accumulates in areas where fire has been prevented. In addition, the absence of fir e has altered or disrupted the cycle of natural plant succession and wildlife habitat in many areas. Consequently, federal, state and local agencies are committed to finding ways, such as prescribed burning to reintroduce fire into natural 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. The “wildland/urban interface” is where many such fires are fought. Wildland areas are subject 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 near a wildland area causes increased risk to life and property. Thus, a fire that might have been allowed to burn it self out with a minimum of fire fighting or containment in the past is now fought to prevent fire damage to surrounding homes and commercial areas, as well as smoke threats to health and safety in these areas. 10.3 Historic Record According to the Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2007), Connecticut enacted its first state-wide forest fire control system in 1905, when th e 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 towers and patrols, and regulations regarding open burning. The severe fire weather in the 1940’s prompted the state legislature to join the Northeastern Interstate 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 ha s been NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-4 fragmented in the past few decades by residential development. The urban/wildland interface is increasing each year as sprawl extends further out from Connecticut’s cities. The technology used to combat wildfires has significantly improved since the early 20 th century. An improved transportation network, coupled with advances in firefighting equipment, communication technology, and training, has improved the ability of firefighters to minimize damage due to wildfires in the state. For example, radio and cellular technologies have greatly improved fire fighting command capabilities. According to the Climate of 2008 Wildfire Season Summary presented by the NCDC, an average of 4.6 million acres per year in the United States was burned by wildfires since 1985. This translates to a nationwide mean of 60 acres per fire (at a mean of approximately 77,000 fires per year). The number one cause of wildfires is arson, with about half of all wildfires being intentionally set. Wildfire statistics for Connecticut are much lower than the national average. According to the USDA Forest Service Annual Wildfire Summary Report for 1994 through 2003, an average of 600 acres per year in Connecticut was burned by wildfires dur ing this period. In general, the fires are small and detected quickly, with most wildfires being contained to less than 10 acres in size. Traditionally, the highest forest fire danger in Connecticut occurs in the spring from mid- March to mid-May. The worst wildfire year in Connecticut since 1994 occurred during the extremely hot and dry summer of 1999. Over 1,733 acres of Connecticut burned in 345 separate wildfires, an average of about five acres per fire. Only one wildfire occurred between 1994 and 2003 that burned over 300 acres, and a wildfir e in 1986 in the Mattatuck State Forest in the nearby Town of Watertown burned 300 acres. More recently, a 30-acre wildfire occurred in Oxford at the south end of the Central Naugatuck Valley region on April 19, 2008. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-5 10.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Existing mitigation for wildland fire control is typically focused on Fire Department training and maintaining an adequate supply of equipment. The Town of Southbury typically requires developments outside of the Heritage Village Water Company’s existing service area to use water tanks for fire protection. All new d evelopment projects are required to include water tanks as part of their projects, while som e older, established neighborhoods have tanks. The Town does not promote the use of fire ponds or dry hydrants for fire protection. In addition, new roads and subdivisions a re required meet specifications for fire truck access. Unlike wildfires on the west coast of the United States where the fires are allowed to burn toward development and then stopped, the Southbury Fire Department goes to the fires. This proactive approach of going on the offense is believed to be effect ive for controlling wildfires. The fire department has some water storage capability, but primarily relies on the Heritage Village Water Company service to fight fires throughout the northeastern portion of Town. In the remainder of the Town, the fire department relies heavily on the use of local water bodies and water tanks within developments to supply fire fighting water. 10.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment The most common causes of wildfires are arson, lightning strikes, and electric al fires 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 covering the state are prime locations for a wildfire. In many areas, structures and subdivisions are built abutting forest borders, creating areas of particular vulnerability. Wildfires are more common in rural areas than in developed areas, as most fires in populated areas are quickly noticed and contained. The likelihood of a severe wildfire developing is lessened by the vast network of water features in the NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-6 state, which create natural breaks likely to stop the spread of a fire. During long periods of drought, these natural features may dry up, increasing the vulnerability of the state to wildfires. According to the Connecticut DEP, the actual forest fire risk in Connecticut is low due to several factors. First, the overall incidence of forest fires is very low. Secondly, as the wildfire/forest fire prone areas become fragmented due to development, the local fire departments have increased access to those neighborhoods for firefighting equip ment. Third, the problematic interface areas are site specific such as driveways too narrow to permit emergency vehicles. Finally, trained fire fighters at the local and state level are readily available to fight fires in the state, and inter-municipal cooperation on such instances is common. Based on the historic record presented in Section 10.3, most wildfires in Connecticut are relatively small. In the drought year of 1999, the average wildfire burned five acre s. In comparison, the most extreme wildfires recorded since 1986 each burned 300 acres. Given the availability of fire fighting water in the Town (including the use of nearby water bodies) and the proactive stance regarding fires, it is believed that the low end of this acreage is possible in Southbury as well, with the larger acreage r eserved for very infrequent severe events. The wildfire risk areas presented in Figure 10-1 were defined as being contiguous wooded areas greater than 50 acres in size that have limited access in areas near public water service, and contiguous wooded areas greater than 30 acres in size with limited access in the remainder of the Town. These areas are generally associated with state- owned forests, land trust property, and Town owned open space. As each area borders residential sections of the Town, residents within these risk areas are most vulnerable to fire, heat, and smoke effects of wildfires. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-7 Despite having a considerable amount of forest/urban interface, the overall risk of wildfires occurring in the Town of Southbury 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 firefighting equipment. The Town also has the support of the HVWC and the state to provide access to their owned lands in case of a wildfire. Recall from Figure 2-7, Figure 2-8, and Figure 2-9 that significant elderly and disabled populations reside in the Town of Southbury. In comparing these figures with the wildfire risk areas presented in Figure 9-1, it appears unlikely that the segments of the population potentially impacted by a wildfire would consist of the elderly and those with disabilities residing in Heritage Village and the Southbury Training School. Nevertheless, it is important for the Southbury Fire Department to be prepared to assist these special populations and their own emergency services during emergencies such as wildfires. In summary, the western and south-southwestern parts of Town nearest to develop ment are considered most at risk from wildfires. Additionally, there is concern about those wooded areas in the other heavily forested sections of Town. These areas located in the southern, western, and southeastern portions Southbury present potential access problems for firefighting purposes in the event of a wildfire. The Town has the support of the owners of the open space land to provide access to their lands in the event 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 perio ds of drought. In the case of an extreme wildfire during a long drought on forested lands, it is estimated that up to 300 acres could burn before containment due to the limited access of those lands. Residential areas bordering such lands would also be vulnerable to wildfire, but would likely be more impacted by heat and smoke than by structure fires due to the strong and timely fire response in the Town. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-8 10.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Potential mitigation measures for wildfires include a combination 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 homes is far more effective than trying to steer growth away from potential wildfire areas, 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 fire risk:  The Heritage Village Water Company should continue to extend the public water supply systems into areas that require water for fire protection; any such extension should be supported by additional supply if necessary.  The Heritage Village Water Company and Southbury Training School should continue to identify and upgrade those portions of the public water supp ly systems that are substandard from the standpoint of adequate pressure and volume for fire- fighting purposes.  The Town of Southbury should continue to require the installation of wat er tanks in any new developments within the Town. Other potential mitigation strategies for preventing wildfires include:  Continue to promote inter-municipal cooperation in firefighting efforts;  Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of forest fire danger and how to use common firefighting equipment;  Continue reviewing subdivision applications to ensure new neighborhoods and driveways are properly sized to allow access of emergency vehicles; NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-9  Provide outreach programs on how to properly manage burning and campfires on private property;  Distribute copies of a booklet such as “Is Your Home Protected from Wildfire Disaster? – A Homeowner’s Guide to Wildfire Retrofit” when developers and homeowners pick up or drop off applications;  Patrol Town-owned open space and parks to prevent unauthorized campfires;  Enforce regulations and permits for open burning; and  Continue to place utilities underground. In addition, specific recommendations that apply to all hazards are list ed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-1 11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 11.1 Additional Recommendations Recommendations that are applicable to two, three, or four hazards were discussed in the applicable subsections of Sections 3.0 through 9.0. For example, placin g utilities underground is a recommendation for hurricane, summer storm, winter storm, and wildfire mitigation. A remaining class of recommendations is applicable to all hazards, because it includes recommendations for improving public safety and planning for emergency response. Instead of repeating these recommendations in section after section of this Plan, these are described herein. Informing and educating the public about how to protect themselves and their property from natural hazards is essential to any successful hazard mitigation strategy. The Local Emergency Planning Commission should be charged with the creation and/or dissemination of informational pamphlets and guides to public locations such as the library, post office, senior center, and town hall. Such pamphlets include “Are You Ready? An In-Depth Guide to Citizen Preparedness ” co-published by the American Red Cross, FEMA, and the National Ocean & Atmospheric Administration and includes recommendations for dealing with heat waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, thundersto rms, flooding, fire, and winter storms. Other pamphlets include:  “Food & Water in an Emergency”  “Disaster Supply Kit”  “Family Disaster Plan”  “Preparing for Disaster for People with Disabilities and Other Special N eeds” , and  “Helping Children Cope with Disaster” In addition, the Town should consider adding pages to its website dedica ted specifically to citizen education and preparation for natural hazard events. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-2 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. Thus the ongoing implementation of CodeRED is a potential boon for emergency response in the Town of Southbury. Databases should be set up at 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 on a regular basis, at least once annually. 11.2 Summary of Specific Recommendations Recommendations have been presented throughout this document in individual sections as related to each natural hazard. This section lists specific recommendations of the Plan without any priority ranking. Recommendations that span multiple hazards are only reprinted once in this section under the most appropriate hazard event. Refer to the matrix in Appendix A for recommendations with scores based on the STAPLEE methodology described in Section 1.0. Flooding Prevention  Streamline the permitting process and ensure maximum education of a developer or applicant. Develop a checklist that cross-references the bylaws, regulations, and codes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to the proposed project. This list could be provided to an applicant at any Town depart ment.  Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System.  Continue to require Flood Hazard Area Permits for activities within SFHAs. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-3  Consider requiring buildings constructed in flood prone areas to be prot ected to the highest recorded flood level, regardless of being within a defined SFHA.  After Map Mod has been completed, consider restudying local flood prone areas and produce new local-level regulatory floodplain maps using more exacting study techniques, including using more accurate contour information to map flood elevations provided with the FIRM. Property & Natural Resource Protection  Pursue the acquisition of additional municipal open space properties inside SFHAs and set those aside as greenways, parks, or other non-residential, non-c ommercial or non-industrial use.  Selectively pursue conservation recommendations listed in the Plan of Conservation and Development and other studies and documents.  Continue to regulate development in protected and sensitive areas, including steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains.  Subject to a favorable FEMA cost-benefit analysis, apply for a grant to acquire the property at 111 Flood Bridge Road.  Consider purchasing residences along Flood Bridge Road, River Hill Road, River Trail, Manor Drive, and Pomperaug Trail. These homes must also qualify for purchase based on the FEMA cost-benefit analysis. It is understood that owners along River Trail are not currently interested in relocation.  Work with homeowners on Flood Bridge Road, River Hill Road, River Trail, Manor Drive, Pomperaug Trail, and other areas to educate them about the benefits of floodproofing. Structural Projects  Increase the conveyance capacity of the culvert for Jeremy Brook under Hulls Hill Road at the intersection with Jeremy Swamp Road. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-4  Upgrade the drainage systems along, and the cross culverts beneath, River Road in order to prevent flooding in multiple locations due to clogging of storm drains and the incapacity of culverts.  Install and repair storm drains and drainage systems on Lakeside Road and Lee Farm Road.  Increase in the elevation and replace the bridge over Transylvania Brook at Spruce Brook Road.  Work with CTDOT to elevate portions of Route 172 and replace the Route 172 bridge over the Pomperaug River in order to mitigate for flooding problems along this state roadway. Ice Jams  Continuously monitor the stretch of the Pomperaug River that is prone to ice jams near Manor Road and Pomperaug Trail. If ice jam conditions appear to be imminent, then proper evacuations or other preventive safety measures will need to be taken. The CodeRED system can be used to facilitate warnings and evacuations.  As explained in Section 3.7, consider purchasing residences along Manor Drive and Pomperaug Trail (these homes must also qualify for purchase based on the FEMA cost-benefit analysis) and work with homeowners on Manor Drive and Pomperaug Trail to educate them about the benefits of floodproofing.  Evaluate options for instream structural projects and commence a dialog with DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers about potential funding for such project s. On an annual basis, monitor the criteria for PDM grants and evaluate if ice jam mitigation projects might qualify. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-5 Wind Damage Related to Hurricanes, Summer Storms, and Winter Storms  Increase tree limb maintenance and inspections, especially along Route 172, Route 67 and other evacuation routes. Increase 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 ensure timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Town.  Standardize a tree maintenance program for the Town.  Continue outreach regarding dangerous trees on private property.  Continue to require compliance with the amended Connecticut Building Code for wind speeds.  Provide for the Building Department or the Planning or Zoning Commissions to make literature available during the permitting process regarding appropriate design standards. Winter Storms  Post a list of Town sheltering facilities and snow plowing prioritization in the Town Hall and on the Town’s website so residents can best plan how to access critical facilities during a winter storm event.  Continue to encourage two modes of egress into every neighborhood by the creation of through streets. Earthquakes  Consider preventing new residential development in areas prone to collapse.  Continue regulating development on and near slopes, and consider setting a prohibition on development of slopes above a certain percentage grade. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-6  Continue to require adherence to the state building codes.  Ensure that municipal departments have adequate backup facilities in case earthquake damage occurs to municipal buildings. Dam Failure  Work with the ACOE and the Connecticut DEP to stay up to date on the evo lution of Emergency Operations Plans and Dam Failure Analyses for the significant and high hazard dams in Town.  All Class B and C dams in Town should be regularly inspected by their respective owners, along with regular maintenance as required to keep the dams in safe and functional order.  The Town should initiate correspondence with the owners of the five list ed Class B dams, including the DEP, with regard to past, future planned, and ongoing maintenance.  Consider implementing occasional Town inspections of Class A, AA, and unranked dams.  Consider specifically including dam failure areas in the CodeRED emergency notification system. This technology should be used to warn downstream residents of a potential or impending dam failure and facilitate evacuation.  With regard to Long Meadow Pond Dam, support the Town of Bethlehem’s efforts to address repairs to Long Meadow Pond Dam. Wildfires  The Heritage Village Water Company should continue to extend the public water supply systems into areas that require water for fire protection; any such extension should be supported by additional supply if necessary.  The Heritage Village Water Company and Southbury Training School should continue to identify and upgrade those portions of the public water supp ly systems NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-7 that are substandard from the standpoint of adequate pressure and volume for fire- fighting purposes.  The Town of Southbury should continue to require the installation of wat er tanks in any new developments within the Town.  Continue to promote inter-municipal cooperation in firefighting efforts;  Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of forest fire danger and how to use common firefighting equipment;  Continue reviewing subdivision applications to ensure new neighborhoods and driveways are properly sized to allow access of emergency vehicles;  Provide outreach programs on how to properly manage burning and campfires on private property;  Distribute copies of a booklet such as “Is Your Home Protected from Wildfire Disaster? – A Homeowner’s Guide to Wildfire Retrofit” when developers and homeowners pick up or drop off applications;  Patrol Town-owned open space and parks to prevent unauthorized campfires;  Enforce regulations and permits for open burning; and  Continue to place utilities underground. 11.3 Sources of Funding The following sources of funding and technical assistance may be available for the priority projects listed above. This information comes from the FEMA website (http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/index.shtm). Funding requirements and contact information is given in Section 11.4. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 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 capabilities at State and local level for Tier I and II critical infrastructure sites that are considered high-risk/high- NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-8 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 Homeland Security Act of 2002, is to re-establish a communication network in the event that the current information systems is attacked and rendered inoperable. A total of $80,000 may be available to each applicant provided they are 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 assi stance is in the form of loans not to exceed 25 percent of the local government’s annual operating budget for the fiscal year in which the major disaster occurs, up to a maximum of five million dollars. Competitive Training Grants Program (CTGP) http://www.fema.gov/emergency/ctgp/index.shtm Funds allocated from this program will be used to bolster training and education for Homeland Security. Applicants, if funded, must deliver innovative 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 and governmental, to help people in need of emergency assistance. Emergency Management Performance Grants http://www.fema.gov/emergency/empg/empg.shtm The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) is designed to assist local and state governments in maintaining and strengthening the existing all-hazards, natural and man-made, emergency management capabilities. Allocations if this fund is authorized by the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, and grant amount is determined demographically at the state and local level. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-9 Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Grant Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/eoc/index.shtm The Emergency Operations Center Grant 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 available funding on behalf of qua lified 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 National 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 losses, including elevation, acquisition, or relocation of NFIP-insured structures. Repetitive loss properties are prioritized un der this program. This grant program is administered through the DEP. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/hmgp/index.shtm The HMGP provides grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major 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. 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 HSGP is to enhance the response, preparedne ss, 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 Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. Risk and effectiveness, along with a peer review, determine the amount allocated to each applicant. Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/iecgp/index.shtm Funding through the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program will enable States, Territories, local units of government, and tribal communities to implement their Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans (SCIP) in conjunction with the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) to further NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-10 enhance interoperability. The only applicants eligible for funding 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 trips 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 pur chase insurance as a protection against flood losses in exchange for State and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages. Municipalities that join the associated Community Rating System can gain discounts of flood insurance for their residents. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pdm/index.shtm The purpose of the PDM program is to fund communities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation pr ojects 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 competitive basis. This grant program is administered through the DEP. Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/psgp/index.shtm The goal of the PSGP is to provide protection of critica l port infrastructure from terrorism, involving explosive and non-conventional weapons. Protection includes enhancing training, recovery, prevention, management, response and awareness. Those who may apply include owners of federally 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 recoverin g from major disasters or emergencies. Along with helping to recover, this grant also encourages prevention against potential future disasters by strengthenin g hazard NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-11 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 program 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 meet the requirements for FMA. This grant is provided to eligible States/Tribes/Te rritories that, in turn, will allocate sub- grants to local governments. Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/srl/index.shtm The SRL provides funding to reduce or eliminate 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 acquis ition and demolition or relocation of the structure with conversion of the property to open space, elevation, minor localized flood reduction projects, and dry flood proofing (historic properties o nly). 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 States. Applicable grantees in clude 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-terrorism 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-terrorism and security awareness program. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-12 Urban Areas Security Initiative Nonprofit 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 within the areas of concern. U.S. Fire Administration Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFGP) http://www.firegrantsupport.com/afg/ http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fireservice/grants/ The primary goal of the Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) is to meet the firefighting and emergency response needs of fire departments and nonaffiliated emergency medical services organizations. Since 2001, AFG has helped firefighters and other first responders to obtain critically needed equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training, and other resources needed to protect the public and emergency personnel from fire and related hazards. The Grant Programs Directorate of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 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 Assistanc e 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 public 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 suppo rted by FP&S include fire prevention and public safety education campaigns, juvenile firesetter interventions, media campaigns, and arson prevention and awareness programs. Reimbursement for Firefighting on Federal Property http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fireservice/grants/rfff/ Reimbursement may be made to fire departments for fighting fires on property owned by the federal government for firefighting 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-13 Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency Response (SAFER) http://www.firegrantsupport.com/safer/ The goal of SAFER is to enhance the local fire departments’ abilities to comply with staffing, response and operational standards 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 respond to emergencies whenever they may occur. As a result of the enhanced staffing, response times should be sufficiently reduced with an appropriate number of personnel assembled at the incident scene. Also, the enhanced staffing should provide that all 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 effi cient incident scene will be established and communities will have more adequate protection from fire and fire-related hazards. 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 B oard 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-14 General Hazard Mitigation  Americorps – teams may be available to assist with landscaping projects such as surveying, tree planting, restoration, construction, and environmental education, and provide volunteers to help communities 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.  North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Program – funding for projects that support long term wetlands acquisition, restoration, and/or enhance ment. Requires a 1-to-1 funds match. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-1 12.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 12.1 Implementation Strategy and Schedule The Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley is authorized to update this hazard mitigation plan as needed, coordinate its adoption with the Town of Southbury, and guide it through the FEMA approval process. The individual recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan must be implemented by the municipal departments that oversee these activities. The Office of the First Selectman and the Department of Public Works in the Town of Southbury will primarily be responsible for developing and implementing selected projects, while some projects will be implemented by other departments. Appendix A incorporates an implementation strategy and schedule, detailing the responsible department and anticipated time frame for the specific recommendations listed throughout this document. Upon adoption, the Plan will be made available to all Town departments and agencies as a planning tool to be used in conjunction with existing documents. It is expected that revisions to other Town plans and regulations, 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 the actions identified in this plan are incorporated into ongoing Town planning activities, and that the information and requirements of this plan are incorporated into existing planning documents within five years from the date of adoption or when other plans are updated, whichever is sooner. The Office of the First Selectman will be responsible for assigning appropriate Town officials to update the Plan of Conservation and Development, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, Wetlands Regulations, and Emergency Operations Plan to include the provisions in this plan. Should a general revision be too cumbersome or cost NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-2 prohibitive, simple addendums to these documents will be added that include the provisions of this plan. The Plan of Conservation 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 planning document will be included in the annual budget and capital improvement plans as part of implementing the projects recommended in this Plan. This will primarily include the annual budget and capital improvement projects lists maintained and updated by the Department of Public Works. 12.2 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 his/her oversight of all municipal departments. Such monitoring may include periodic reports to the COGCNV regarding certain projects, meetings, site visits, and telephone calls as befits the project being implemented. The COGCNV will coordinate an annual discussion for review and evaluation of the plan. Participants in this review may include, but need not be limited to, representatives of the departments listed in Section 12.1. Matters to be addressed during this discussion will include a review of the goals and objectives of the original plan, a review of hazards or disasters that occurred during the preceding period, a review of the mitigation activities that have been accomplished to date, a discussion of reasons that implementation may be behind schedule, and recommendations for new projects and revised activities. The annual discussio n will be conducted in the late summer or autumn, at least three months before the annual application cycle for pre-disaster grants. This will enable a list of possible projects to be circulated for Town Departments to review, with sufficient time for developing an application. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-3 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 Southbury. 12.3 Updating the Plan The Town of Southbury plans to formally update the plan at least once every five years. The COGCNV will remind the Town to formally update the plan within this timeframe. More frequent updates can be accomplished if a consensus to do so is reached by the Board of Selectmen of Southbury. The COGCNV will update the plan for the Town if the Town of Southbury submits a request to the COGCNV and secures funding to enable the COGCNV to do so. To develop the plan update, a committee will be formed consisting of representatives of many of the same departments solicited for input to this plan. In addition, local business leaders, community and neighborhood group leaders, relevant private and non-profit interest groups, and the six neighboring municipalities will be solicited for representation, including the following:  The Central Naugatuck Valley Emergency Planning Committee, managed by the COGCNV;  Pomperaug Watershed Coalition;  Key organizations from the list presented on Page 1-10;  Town of Newtown Public Works Department and Planning Department;  Town of Bridgewater Public Works Department and Planning Department;  Town of Roxbury Public Works Department and Planning Department;  Town of Woodbury Public Works Department and Planning Department; NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-4  Town of Middlebury Public Works Department and Planning Department; and  Town of Oxford Public Works Department and Planning Department. Updates may include deleting recommendations as projects are completed, adding recommendations as new hazard impacts arise, or modifying hazard vulnerabilities as land use changes. In addition, the list of shelters and critical facili ties should be updated as necessary, or at least every five years. 12.4 Technical and Financial Resources This Section is comprised of a list of resources to be considered for technical assistance and potentially financial assistance for completion 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 comprised 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 future development areas in both pre- and post-disaster environments. The Risk Insurance Branch mitigates flood losses by providing affordable flood insurance for property owners and by encourag ing communities to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations. FEMA Programs administered by the Risk Analysis Branch include: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-5  Flood Hazard Mapping Program, which maintains and updates National Flood Insurance Program maps;  National Dam Safety Program , which provides state assistance funds, research, and training in dam safety procedures;  National Hurricane Program , which conducts and supports projects and activities that help protect communities from hurricane hazards; and  Mitigation Planning , a process for states and communities to identify policies, activities, and tools that can reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from a hazard event. FEMA Programs administered by the Risk Reduction Branch include:  Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) , which provides grants to states and local governments to implement long-term 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 insurable under the National Flood Insurance Program;  Pre-Disaster Mitigation 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 organizations supports state and local programs designed to protect citizens from earthquake hazard. The Risk Insurance Branch oversees the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) , which enables property owners in participating communities to purchase flood insurance. The NFIP assists 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 past and current acquisition, relocation, and retrofitting programs, and has expertise in many natural and technological hazards. FEMA also provides funding for training state and local officials at Emergency Management Institute in Emmitsburg, Maryland. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-6 The Mitigation Directorate also has in place several Technical Assistance Contracts (TAC) that support FEMA, States, territories, and local governments with activities to enhance the effectiveness of natural hazard reduction program efforts. The TACs support FEMA’s responsibilities and legislative authorities for implementing the earthquake, hurricane, dam safety, and floodplain management programs. The range of technical assistance services provided through the TACs varies based on the needs of the eligible contract users and the natural hazard programs. Contracts and services include:  The Hazard Mitigation Technical Assistance 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 Assistance Contract (WAWTAC)- supporting wind and flood hazards reduction program needs. 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 materials, developing a Hurricane Mitigation and Recovery exercise, and assessing the hazard vulnerability of a hospi tal.  The National Earthquake Technical Assistance Contract (NETAC) – supporting earthquake program needs. Projects include economic impact analyses of various earthquakes, vulnerability analyses of hospitals and schools, identifica tion 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, this 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 Response & Recovery Division also provides mobile emergency response support to disaster areas, supports the National Disaster Medical System, and provides urban search and rescue teams for disaster victims in confined spaces. The division also coordinates federal disaster assistance programs. The Public Assistance Grant Program (PA) that provides 75% grants for mitigation projects to protect eligible damaged public and private non-profit facilities from future damage. “Minimization” grants at 100% are available 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 SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-7 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 Federal Insurance Administration as the National Flood Insurance Program Bureau and Statistical Agent, CSC provides information and assistance on flood insurance, including handling policy and claims questions, and providing workshops to leaders, insurance 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 th at affect a significant number of homes and businesses, but that would not need additional assistance through FEMA. (SBA is triggered by a FEMA declaration, howe ver.) SBA can provide additional low-interest funds (up to 20% above what an elig ible applicant would “normally” qualify for) to install mitigation measures. They can also loan the cost of bringing a damaged property up to state or local code requirements. These loans can be used in combination with the new “mitigation insurance” under the NFIP, or in lieu of that coverage. Environmental Protection Agency Region I 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2023 (888) 372-7341 Provides grants for restoration and repair, and educational activities, including: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-8  Capitalization Grants for State Revolving Funds: Low interest loans to governments to repair, replace, or relocate wastewater treatment plans damaged in floods. Does not apply to drinking water or other utilities.  Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants : Cost-share grants to state agencies that can be used for funding watershed resource restoration activities, including wetlands and other aquatic habitat (riparian zones). Only those activities tha t 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 protecting 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 Mitigation 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 replace (and redesign) bridges where flo od damage eliminates police and fire access to the other side of the waterway. Funds are also available for smaller municipalities through 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 local governments under the Floodplain Management Services Program (FPMS). Various flood protection measures such as beach re-nourishment, stream clearance and snagging projects, flood proofing, and flood preparedness are funded on a 50/50 matching basis by Section 22 planning Assistance to States NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-9 program. They are authorized to relocate homes out of the floodplain if it proves to be more cost effective than a structural flood control measure. U.S. Department of Commerce National Weather Service Northeast River Forecast Center 445 Myles Standish Blvd. Taunton, MA 02780 (508) 824-5116 http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ The National Weather Service prepares and issues flood, severe weather, and coastal storm warnings. Staff hydrologists can work with communities on flood warning issues and can give technical assistance in preparing flood warning plan s. 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 technical 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 opt ions 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 American Wetland Conservation Fund and Partners for Wildlife programs. It also administers the North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Program , which provides matching grants to organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry o ut wetlands NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-10 projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Funds are available for projects focusing on protecting, restoring, and/or enhancing critical habitat. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly SCS) Connecticut Office 344 Merrow Road, Suite A Tolland, CT 06084-3917 (860) 871-4011 The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides technical assistance to individual land owners, groups of landowners, communities, and soil and water conservation districts on land-use and conservation planning, resource d evelopment, stormwater management, flood prevention, erosion control and sediment reduction, detailed soil surveys, watershed/river basin planning and recreation, an d fish and wildlife management. Financial assistance is available to reduce flood damage in small watersheds and to improve water quality. Financial assistance is available under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program; 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 Consortium (NESEC) develops, promotes, and coordinates “all-hazards” emergency management activities throughout the Northeast. NESEC works in partnership with public and private organizations to redu ce losses of life and property. They provide support in areas including interstate c oordination 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 SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-11 State Resources Connecticut Department of Economic 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 smaller communities and rural areas grants for use in revitalizing neighborhoods, expanding affordable housing and econ omic opportunities, and improving community 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 divisions with various functions re lated 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, substantial damage/improvement requirements, community assistance visits, and other general flood hazard mitigation planning including the delineation of floodways.  State Hazard Mitigation Officer (shared role with the Department of Eme rgency 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 SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-12 preparing flood warning plans. This service has helped the public respo nd 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 erosion management systems. Certain non- structural measures that mitigate flood damages are also eligible. Funding is provided to communities that apply for 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 draws 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 local Inland Wetlands Commissions, reviews and approves municipal regulations for localities. Also controls flood management and natural disaster mitigations.  Dam Safety Program : Charged with the responsibility 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 maintains 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 restoration, 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 directly and indirectly related to hazard mitigation including the Section 319 non-point source pollution reduction grants and municipal facilities program 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 Long Island Sound License Plate Program. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-13 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 preparedness, 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 enforcing the Connecticut State Building Code, and is also responsible for the municipal 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 administers the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) that includes grants for projects which promote alternative or improved methods of transportation. Funding through grants can often be used for projects with mitigation benefits such as preservation of open space in the form of bicycling and walking trails. CT DOT is also involved in traffic imp rovements and bridge repairs which could be mitigation related. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-14 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 state 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 industry to research ways of reducing the social and economic impacts of natural hazards. The Institute advocates the development and implementation of building 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, research, and for engineering and planning advice. The National Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA) 1301 K Street, NW, Suite 800 East Washington, DC 20005 (202) 218-4122 http://www.nafsma.org NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-15 NAFSMA is an organization of public agencies who strive to protect 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 resources 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 Mitigation 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 Management 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 identify useful publications from the more than 900 documents in the library. 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 management information from around the region to its members. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-16 Volunteer Organizations – Volunteer organizations including the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, 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 officials should recommend that the funds be held until an applicant exhausts all sources of public disaster 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, state, and national service pro grams that connects volunteers with nonprofits, public agencies, and faith-based an d 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-fight situations, such as by filling and placing sandbags. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 13-1 13.0 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 Environmental Protection. 2007. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan For 2007-2010. ___. 2007. High Hazard & Significant Hazard Dams in Connecticut, rev. 9/11/07. http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/water_inland/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 Health. Connecticut Emergency Medical Service Regions. http://www.dph.state.ct.us/EMS/Documents/EMSRegionsMap010108.pdf Connecticut Flood Recovery Committee. 1955. Report of the Connecticut Flood Recovery Committee, November 3, 1955. Connecticut State Library. http://www.cslib.org/floodrecov.pdf Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Engineering and Design ICE JAM FLOODING: CAUSES AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS, November 30, 1994. http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-pamphlets/ep1110-2-11/toc.htm Environmental Defense. 2004. Bracing for Climate Change in the Constitution State: What Connecticut Could Face. Federal Emergency Management Agency. April 2008. HAZUS ®-MH Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States. FEMA document 366. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 13-2 ___. 2007. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. March 2004, Revised November 2006 and June 2007. ___. 2005. Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding: A Guide for Communities. FEMA document 511. ___. 1987.Reducing Losses in High Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local Officials . The Association of State Floodplain Managers. ___. 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 National Weather Service. National Weather Service Glossary . http://www.weather.gov/glossary/glossary.php?letter=i ___, United States Army Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 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. Glowacki, D. 2005. Heavy Rains & Flooding of Sub-Regional Drainage Basins . Reviewed Draft. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Inland Water Resources Division. Godschalk, D.R., T. Beatley, P. Berke, D.J. Brower, and E.J. Kaiser. 1999. Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning . Island Press: Washington, D.C. 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_Quakes/why_quakes.html NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 13-3 Kocin, P. J., Uccellini, L.W. 2004. A Snowfall Impact Scale Derived From Northeast Storm Snowfall Distributions. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85, 177-194. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/snow-nesis/kocin-uccellini.pdf Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency and Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2004. Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mazzaferro, D. L., Handman, E.H., Thomas, M.P. 1979. Water Resources Inventory of Connecticut: Part 8 – Quinnipiac River Basin. United States Geological Survey, Connecticut Water Resources Bulletin No. 27. Milone & MacBroom, Inc. 2007. City of Waterbury Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___. 2007. Town of Nantucket Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. ___. 2007. Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency, Bridgeport, CT. ___. 2005. City of New Haven Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Miller, D.R., G.S. Warner, F.L. Ogden, A.T. DeGaetano. 2004. Precipitation in Connecticut . University of Connecticut College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Connecticut Institute of Water Resources, Storrs, CT. Muckel, G.B. (editor). 2004. Understanding Soil Risks and Hazards: Using Soil Survey to Identify Areas With Risks and Hazards to Human Life and Property . United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Hurricane Research Division. Hurricane Histograms. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/counties/CT.html National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Enhanced F-scale for Tornado Damage . http://www.spc.noaa.gov/efscale/ ___. Climate of 2008 Wildfire Season Summary . Updated January 8 2009. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/fire08.html ___. 2008. Lightning Deaths By State, 1998 to 2007. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/stats/98-07_deaths_by_state.pdf NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 13-4 ___. 2001.Winter Storms: The Deceptive Killers – A Preparedness Guide. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/winter/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). 2008. Station Snow Climatology http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ussc/USSCAppController?action=station_select&county=true &state=06 ___. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2006. The Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS). http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/snow-nesis/ ___. National Weather Service. National Hurricane Center Tropical Prediction Center. NHC/TPC Archive of Past Hurricane Seasons . http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management. 2000. State of New Hampshire Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan . Concord, New Hampshire. Northeast States Emergency Consortium. Earthquakes. http://www.nesec.org/hazards/Earthquakes.cfm. Accessed 7/17/2008. 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/ Salerno, Carolee. 2008. “1 dies, 4 injured when lightning strikes beac h 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 Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html [Accessed 10 February 2007]. South Western Regional Planning Agency. 2005. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Strategy Document, Connecticut’s South Western Region. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 13-5 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. http://www.tornadoproject.com/ Town of Southbury, Connecticut. 2006. Zoning Regulations. ___. 2005. Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations. ___. 2003. Subdivision and Other Land Use Regulations. ___. 2002. Plan of Conservation and Development. ___. Southbury, Connecticut Emergency Operations Plan. Current as of November 2006. United States Geological Survey. Earthquake Hazards Program. Earthquake Information for Connecticut . http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/states/connecticut/connecticut_history.html ___. National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project. Seismic Hazard Map of Connecticut. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/connecticut/hazards.php ___. USGS Water Data for Connecticut . http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ct/nwis/nwis ___. 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/severitygip.html United States Census Bureau. 2005 Population Estimates. http://www.census.gov/ ___. American Factfinder. http://factfinder.census.gov/ 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 Ice Jams 1326 Earthquakes 3126 Wildfires 1214 Location 1 = small isolated to specific area during one event 2 = medium mulitple areas during one event 3 = large significant portion of the town during one event Frequency of Occurrence 0 = unlikely less than 1% probability in the next 100 years 1 = possible between 1 and 10% probability in the next year; or at least one chance i n next 100 years 2 = likely between 10 and 100% probability in the next year; or at least one chance in next 10 years 3 = highly likely near 100% probability in the next year Magnitude / Severity 1 = limited injuries and/or illnesses are treatable with first aid; minor “quality o f life” loss; shutdown of critical facilities and services for 24 hours or less; property severely damaged < 10% 2 = significant injuries and / or illnesses do not result in permanent disability; shutd own of several critical facilities for more than one week; property severely damaged 10% 3 = critical injuries and / or ilnesses result in permanent disability; complete shut down of critical facilities for at least two weeks; property severely damaged 25% 4 = catastrophic multiple deaths; complete shutdown of facilities for 30 days or more; pr operty severely damaged >50% Frequency of Occurrence, Magnitude / Severity, and Potential Damages bas ed on historical data from NOAA National Climatic Data Center and Town records Appended Table 2 Hazard Effect Ranking Some effects may have a common cause; for example, a hurricane causes hi gh winds and inland flooding. Some effects may have similar causes; for example, hurricanes and nor’ea sters both cause heavy winds. Location Frequenc y of Ma gnitude /Rank Natural Hazard Effects Occurrence Severit y 1 = small0 = unlikely1 = limited 2 = medium 1 = possible2 = significant 3 = large 2 = likely 3 = critical 3 = highly likely 4 = catastrophic Nor’Easter Winds 3328 Snow 3328 Blizzard 3328 Hurricane Winds 3137 Ice 3227 Thunderstorm and Tornado Winds 2226 Flooding from Dam Failure 1146 Flooding from Ice Jams 1326 Shaking 3126 Lightning 1315 Flooding from Poor Drainage 1315 Inland Flooding 2215 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 Flood Damage Prevention and Control Ordinance 6 This section of the Town code promotes the public health, safety an d general welfare and minimizes public and private losses due to flood conditions by establishing standards and elevations for construction and renovations in flood hazard areas Flood Plain District 5 This section defines the boundaries of the flood plain district and stat es that no building or structure within the boundaries of the district may be constructed, moved, or substantially improved without a Flood Hazard Area Permit obtained from the Building Official of the Town of Southbur y in accordance with the Flood Damage Prevention and Control Ordinance listed above. This requirement has terms which the project must meet in order to be in compliance with the ordinanc e Drainage 7.2.6 This section outlines the Town’s provision to manage storm water, which includes the collection and disposal thereof in an attempt to: avoid sto rm water flow across sidewalks; protect water courses and wetlands from pollution, erosion and sedimentation; avoid an amount of discharge and time of concentration of flow beyond the capacity of downstream drainage channels; and avoid downstream flooding. This section also calls for th e improvement of existing watercourses, channels, and additional drainage systems on lots or downstream of lots. Drainage 7.2.6 This section outlines the design standards for stormwater and other non sanitary drainage facilities, including location, suitable receiving wat er bodies, design specifications for pipes, manholes, and culverts, and the use of underdrains . Appended Table 3 Southbury Code of Ordinance Subdivision Regulations Aquifer Protection Area Regulations Zoning Regulations Development Permit Checklist for Hazard Mitigationand Effective Emergency Management Appended Table 3 Southbury Code of Ordinance Subdivision Regulations Aquifer Protection Area Regulations Zoning Regulations Wetlands and Watercourses 7.2.7 This section calls for site development plans to provide protection of a ll wetlands and watercourses, which includes floodplains in their natural state, unless prior modification approval has been given. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control 7.2.16 This section calls for a provision be made for soil erosion and sedimen t control in accordance with the standards of the Town of Southbury Soil Erosion Sediment Control Ordinance. Setbacks and Slopes 8.7.4 This section states that no earth removal or placement shall occur withi n 50 feet of an abutting property line without written approval from abutt in g property owner. However, this practice may occur at approximate grade and within 50 feet of an abutting street line. Finished slopes cannot exceed 25% grade or some lesser slope that is necessary to provide stability, safety, and the opportunity for future reuse and developme n Natural Features 4.8 specifies that a subdivision should avoid filling or excavation or othe r encroachment upon wetlands, water courses, floodplains, and other land subject to potential flooding Terrain 4.9.1 specifies that each lot shall be capable of accommodating [permitte d buildings]…with driveway access, parking spaces and suitable sites fo r on-site sewage disposal and water supply, without disturbing wetlands and water courses. Development Permit Checklist for Hazard Mitigationand Effective Emergency Management Appended Table 3 Southbury Code of Ordinance Subdivision Regulations Aquifer Protection Area Regulations Zoning Regulations Special Flood Hazard Areas/Floodways 4.2.3 specifies that when a subdivision includes land in a Special Flood Hazar d Area or floodway, the lots, streets, drainage and other improvements sha ll be reasonably safe from flood damage and shall capable of use without danger from flooding . APA – Southbury Training School These regulations are a zoning overlay and control land use an d development in the affected part of the town located within the APA. Therefore, the APA Regulations indirectly provide a level of protection against development of certain commercial and industrial properties in o r near floodplains in this portion of Southbur y APA – Heritage Village Water Company These regulations are a zoning overlay and control land use an d development in the affected part of the town located within the APA. Therefore, the APA Regulations indirectly provide a level of protection against development of certain commercial and industrial properties in o r near floodplains in this portion of Southbur y APPENDIX A STAPLEE MATRIX STAPLEE Criteria Good = 3, Average =2, and Poor = 1 A. Ongoing B. 2009-2014 C. 2014-2019 D. 2019-2024 ALL HAZARDS Dissemination of informational pamphlets regarding natural hazards to pu blic locations Police & Fire Dept. B333333321 Continue implementation of CodeRED system Police & Fire Dept. A333332320 Continue to review and update Emergency Operations Plan. Police & Fire Dept. A333333321 INLAND FLOODING Prevention Streamline the permitting process to ensure maximum education of develop er or applicant Planning, Bldg. B3223333 19 Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System Selectman’s OfficeB3323222 17 Continue to require Flood Hazard Area Permits for activities within SFHA s. Planning, Bldg.A3332332 19 Require new buildings constructed in flood prone areas to be protected t o the highest recorded flood level regardless of SFHA Planning, Bldg.B2222332 16 Consider restudying local flood prone areas and produce new local-level regulatory floodplain maps using more exacting study techniques. Public WorksB2322222 15 Property and Natural Resource Protection Pursue the acquisition of additional municipal open space properties ins ide SFHAs and set those aside as greenways, parks, etc. Selectman’s Office B,C,D322333319 Selectively pursue conservation recommendations listed in the Plan of Co nservation and Development and other studies and documents. Selectman’s OfficeB,C,D3223323 18 Continue to regulate development in protected and sensitive areas, inclu ding steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains. PlanningA2332323 18 Subject to a favorable FEMA cost-benefit analysis, apply for a grant to acquire the property at 111 Flood Bridge Road. Selectman’s OfficeB3323333 20 Consider purchasing residences along Flood Bridge Road, River Hill Road, River Trail, Manor Drive, and Pomperaug Trail. Selectman’s OfficeC1323333 18 Work with homeowners on Flood Bridge Rd, River Hill Rd, River Tr, Manor Dr, Pomperaug Tr, and other areas to educate about floodproofing. Public Works, Bldg.B,C2223323 17 Structural Projects Increase the conveyance capacity of the culvert for Jeremy Brook under H ulls Hill Road at the intersection with Jeremy Swamp Road. Public WorksC3333322 19 Upgrade the drainage systems along, and the cross culverts beneath River Rd to prevent flooding due to clogging of storm drains and the incapacity of culverts. Public WorksB3333322 19 Install and repair storm drains and drainage systems on Lakeside Road an d Lee Farm Road. Public WorksC3333322 19 Increase in the elevation and replace the bridge over Transylvania Brook at Spruce Brook Road. Public WorksC3333322 19 Work with CTDOT to elevate portions of Route 172 and replace the bridge over Pomperaug River to mitigate for flooding problems. Public WorksD3323222 17 ICE JAMS Monitor the stretch of the Pomperaug River prone to ice jams. If condit ions are imminent, evacuations or other preventive measures should be taken. Police & Fire Dept.A Consider purchasing residences along Manor Dr and Pomperaug Tr, and work with homeowners to educate them about the benefits of floodproofing. Selectman’s, Bldg.C1323333 18 Evaluate options for instream structural projects and commence a dialog with DEP and USACE about potential funding for such projects. Public WorksC3233211 15 WIND DAMAGE RELATED TO HURRICANES, SUMMER STORMS, AND WINTER STORMS Increase tree limb maintenance & inspections, esp. along Route 172, Rout e 67 and other evacuation routes. Public WorksB3323332 19 Increase inspections of trees on private property near power lines and T own right-of-ways. Public WorksB1322132 14 Require that utilities be placed underground in new developments and pur sue funding to place them underground in existing developed areas. PlanningA,B3233332 19 Review potential evacuation plans to ensure timely migration of people s eeking shelter in all areas of Town. Police & Fire Dept.B 3333332 20 Standardize a tree maintenance program for the Town. Public WorksB3333332 20 Continue outreach regarding dangerous trees on private property. Public WorksB3333332 20 Continue to require compliance with the amended Connecticut Building Cod e for wind speeds. Planning, Bldg.A3333332 20 Provide for the Building Dept or the P&Z Commissions to make literature available during the permitting process regarding design standards. Planning, Bldg.B3333332 20 Administratively workable? STAPLEE Sum of Scores Politically acceptable? Can it be legally implemented? Economically beneficial? Environmentally beneficial? Socially acceptable? Technically feasible? Schedule Strategies Listed by Primary Report Section for Southbury Responsible Department 1 Page 1 STAPLEE Criteria Good = 3, Average =2, and Poor = 1 A. Ongoing B. 2009-2014 C. 2014-2019 D. 2019-2024 Administratively workable? STAPLEE Sum of Scores Politically acceptable? Can it be legally implemented? Economically beneficial? Environmentally beneficial? Socially acceptable? Technically feasible? Schedule Strategies Listed by Primary Report Section for Southbury Responsible Department 1 WINTER STORMS Post a list of sheltering facilities and plowing prioritization in the T own Hall and on the Town’s website so residents can plan how to access critical facilities. Public Works, FireB3333332 20 Continue to encourage two modes of egress into every neighborhood by the creation of through streets. PlanningA2332322 17 Provide educational materials to property owners regarding using shutter s, storm windows, pipe insulators, and removing snow from flat roofs Fire Dept.B3333332 20 Provide educational materials with safety tips and reminders regarding c old weather Fire Dept.B3333332 20 EARTHQUAKES Consider preventing new residential development in areas prone to collap se. PlanningB2233333 19 Continue regulating development on and near slopes, and consider setting a prohibition on development of slopes above a certain grade. PlanningB2333333 20 Continue to require adherence to the state building codes. Bldg.A3333332 20 Ensure that municipal departments have adequate backup facilities in cas e earthquake damage occurs to municipal buildings. Police & Fire Dept.B3323322 18 DAM FAILURE Work with ACOE and DEP to stay up to date on the evolution of EOPs and D am Failure Analyses for the significant and high hazard dams. Public WorksB3323233 19 All Class B and C dams in Town should be regularly inspected by their re spective owners, along with regular maintenance as required. Public WorksB3313133 17 Initiate correspondence with the owners of the five listed Class B dams, including the DEP, with regard to maintenance. Public WorksB3323233 19 Consider implementing occasional Town inspections of Class A, AA, and un ranked dams. Public WorksC3312133 16 Consider specifically including dam failure areas in the CodeRED emergen cy notification system. Police & Fire Dept.B3323333 20 With regard to Long Meadow Pond Dam, support the Town of Bethlehem’s eff orts to address repairs to Long Meadow Pond Dam. Selectman’s OfficeB3322333 19 WILDFIRES Heritage Village Water Company should continue to extend the public wate r supply systems into areas that require water for fire protection. Selectman’s OfficeB3333312 18 Heritage Village Water Company & Southbury Training School should contin ue to identify and upgrade portions of the systems that are substandard for fire-fighting. Selectman’s Office B3233322 18 Continue to require the installation of water tanks in any new developme nts within the Town. Planning, FireA3233333 20 Continue to promote inter-municipal cooperation in firefighting efforts. Fire Dept.A3333333 21 Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of fo rest fire danger and how to use common firefighting equipment. Fire Dept.A3333333 21 Continue reviewing subdivision applications to ensure neighborhoods and driveways are properly sized to allow access of emergency vehicles. Planning, FireA3333323 20 Provide outreach programs on how to properly manage burning and campfire s on private property. Fire Dept.B3333333 21 Distribute copies of booklets such as “Is Your Home Protected from Wildf ire Disaster? – A Homeowner’s Guide to Wildfire Retrofit.” Fire Dept.B3333333 21 Patrol Town-owned open space and parks to prevent unauthorized campfires . Fire Dept.B3323323 19 Enforce regulations and permits for open burning. Fire Dept.B3333333 21 Continue to place utilities underground. Planning A2223323 17 2223333 18 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 Southbury, as well as to identify areas that should be prioritized for hazard mitigation. Documentation of this process is provided within the following sets of meeting minutes and field reports. Meeting Minutes N ATURAL H AZARD PRE -D ISASTER M ITIGATION PLAN FOR SOUTHBURY Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Initial Data Collection MeetingFebruary 6, 2008 I. Welcome & Introductions The following individuals attended the data collection meeting:  David Murphy, P.E., Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI)  Samuel Eisenbeiser, Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. (FHI)  Shawn Goulet, Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI)  Virginia Mason, Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley (CGCNV)  Mark A.R. Cooper, First Selectman  Jennifer Naylor, First Selectman’s Office  George Slaiby, Southbury Police Department & Emergency Management  Richard Lyle, Southbury Fire Department & LEPC  DeLoris Curtis, Southbury Planning Department  Tom Crowe, Southbury Department of Public Works II. Description and Need for Hazard Mitigation Plans / Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Virginia and David described the basis for the natural hazard planning p rocess and possible outcomes. The list of recent FEMA grants was reviewed. First Selectman Cooper assigned Jennifer Naylor of the First Selectman’s Office as the point of contact for the project. III. Project Scope and Schedule The project scope was described, including project initiation and data c ollection, the vulnerability assessment, public meetings, development of recommendations, and the FEMA Review and Plan adoption. A 12-month schedule was presented. The public informational meeting was scheduled for the second Wednesday in March (March 12 th) at 6:30 PM at the Fire House. Virginia mentioned that she will develop a press release for the meeting. IV. Hazards to Address The Southbury plan will address flooding, ice jams, hurricanes and tropical storms, winter storms and nor’easters, summer storms and tornadoes, earthquakes, dam failure, and wildfires. Meeting Minutes February 6, 2008 Page 2 V. Discussion of Hazard Mitigation Procedures in Effect & Problem Areas In general, the Town of Southbury has three unique situations that can p otentially lead to difficult disaster response: (1) the presence of Heritage Village, wit h its 2,500 age- restricted units and access limitations; (2) the predominance of year-round homes in challenging riverside and hilly locations that were formerly summer cottages; and (3) the tendency for more recent developments to rely on dead-end streets. With regard to number (1) above, Heritage Village has its own security but not its own police and rescue teams. It relies on the Town of Southbury for these services. The adjacent Traditions development of 150 units is similar but smaller, but a one way entrance/exit and an emergency access connection to Heritage Village. With regard to number (2) above, many of the cottages date back to the 1930s when CL&P sold numerous cottage home lots for $100 each. These cottage home lots were transformed into year-round dwellings mostly during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. These homes are now the largest problem in the Town in terms of overbank flooding and flooding caused by poor drainage. A majority of the Town (those areas developed post-1980s) has utilities located underground. There is currently a Town ordinance that prohibits dwellings in floodplains. The year-round homes located on the cottage lots pre-date the floodplain prohibition. A. Emergency Response Capabilities & Evacuation Routes There was discussion that the town is interested and will be meeting to discuss the CodeRED Emergency Notification System for emergency notifications very soon. No local evacuation plan exists. Evacuation routes are determined on a case-case basis. Both George and Richard mentioned that there is a constant need to evacuate residents along Pomperaug Trail and Flood Bridge Road. Prior to a flood, both the Town Police and the Town Fire Departments warn the residents of the danger. Both departments monitor the watercourses’ levels. The Fire House and the Senior Center (located centrally within the Town) are the two shelters. Newer subdivisions can only have 20 or fewer lots on a dead end. A rece nt subdivision project was denied because of steep slopes. The road widths associated with new subdivisions is required to be 26 feet. However, some subdivisions with less than 20 lots allow 22’ road widths. There is a substantial amount of one-way entrance/exit roadways in the Town. The importance of connectivity needs to be addressed in the project. There was mention that age-restricted housing is no longer allowed in Southbury. Meeting Minutes February 6, 2008 Page 3 B. Noted Flooding and/or Drainage Problem Areas Flooding The following major flooding locations will be of highest priority during this project:  The homes located along Manor Road and Pomperaug Trail are often inundated during sustained precipitation events. In addition, Pomperaug Trail and Manor Road are under constant threat of flooding associated with ice jams. Additionally, these roads have dead ends and thus have only one entrance/exit.  Homes located on and just off Flood Bridge Road experience flooding during sustained storm events. Nearby, houses along the private dirt road at the junction of River Hill Road & Branch Road are located within the flood zone and unde r constant threat of flooding from the Pomperaug River. The following locations are also noteworthy and will be explored throughout the project:  Route 172 at the Ray Lewis House (“Hay Fever Farm”) becomes inundated during large scale rainfall events.  Spruce Brook at Route 172 experiences mainly road flooding. However, there have been reports of residential damage. The road would benefit from replacement of the bridge over the Transylvania Brook in this location.  At the Hulls Hill Road/Jeremy Swamp Road intersection, which is at a low elevation, road closures can result from flooding. This area is connected with the Jeremy Brook watercourse.  Recent problems on Lakeside Road associated with drainage have been caused by stormwater clogging the culvert. Most recently, the storms of early February caused minor damage to a home after a culvert became clogged. Lee Farm Drive has similar problems.  Community House Road near Bullet Hill Brook has history of road flooding during heavy rain storms  At the Route 172 Bridge over the Pomperaug River south of Middle Road, n uisance flooding is a common occurrence. Meeting Minutes February 6, 2008 Page 4  From South Farm Road to South Flat Road, whenever flooding is expected, the road is shut-down and the traffic is re-routed. This is a common occurrence during the rainy season of the spring.  Berkshire Road is a dead end and, because of its close orientation with the Pomperaug River, is noted as high priority to include it in connectivity with other roadways. This is important for emergency vehicles and options for transit if evacuation is needed.  Private roads and trails (including Hillside Road, Heritage Village and Berkshire Estates) are too narrow for emergency vehicular transit. They present the possibility of access problems during emergencies in the area.  Flag Swamp Road is a dirt road that connects Southbury to Roxbury and is a dead end. This road is orientated along the watercourse associated with Flag Swamp.  Piers Corner Lake Road also has one in/out route and is located in close proximity to the lake, therefore is under threat of flooding.  Little Fox Road is a one way in/out road that can be affected by flooding associated with an unnamed watercourse. Potential Problems Associated with River Road  Prior to the construction of I-84, River Road was an important arterial road. The River Road bridge (circa 1962(?)) over the Pomperaug River is often used as a backup to I-84 when traffic occurs on the highway, but is currently rated as being “poor” to “very poor”. The bridge crosses the Pomperaug River just before its confluence with the Housatonic River. This bridge is owned by the Town. Approximately $500,000 is needed for this bridge replacement project. It is likely that this will be mentioned in the hazard mitigation plan, in case PDM funding could be applied someday.  Following the northern side of the Housatonic River, sections of the road are closed at times throughout the course of the year. The town pays for the costs assoc iated with repairs. Another section is subsiding/developing a sinkhole and th is section is important access for the satellite company that supports federal defense, ViaSat/Comsat. There is also a dam located in close proximity to the property. Although only five or six homes use this section of River Road, ViaSat/Comsat is a facility with national importance.  To the northwest of the River Road No. 2 bridge, the road is washing awa y due to rainfall and changes in sediment size. Following River Road further to the west, between South Flat Hill Road and Stillson Road, flooding occurs on a nor mal basis. Meeting Minutes February 6, 2008 Page 5  Flooding from debris in the culvert takes place to the west of the River Road bridge. Also, just to the north of the River Road bridge (along the Pomperaug R iver) there are ice jams that take place, causing flooding along Pomperaug Road and Manor Road. These different locations along River Road will be given high priority to projects associated with road flooding and infrastructure throughout the project. The importance of River Road to residents of the Town, and of those traveling along I-84 is extremely significant. Erosion/Slide Hazards  Lower Fish Rock Road is a dead end street along the Housatonic. A residence at the end of the street is in danger of sliding into the river due to the disturbing of the ground at this location.  A riverbank stabilization application for the Pomperaug River is pending for funding. Wildfires  Wildfires will be discussed, but are not priority in Southbury because much of the possible land to be subject to wildfires is mostly state-owned.  The Town typically requires that developments outside of the HVWC’s existing service area need water tanks for fire protection. All new development projects are required to include water tanks in the projects, while some older neighborhoods have tanks, some do not. The Town does not use fire ponds or dry hydrants. Land Acquisition for Open Space  Acquisitions are constantly removing developable land. The process has been aggressive and a goal of 20% open space in the Town has been set to reach by 2012. The goals of the acquisition and transformation are connecting other open space properties, connecting wildlife, and eliminating possible developments in close association with floodplains. Southbury Land Trust is very involv ed in the process and, to a smaller extent, the National Audubon Society. Critical Facilities and Communities  Heritage Village includes 2,500 condominium units with a population of 4,000. The development has its own security, but does not have a police force. Meeting Minutes February 6, 2008 Page 6  Traditions includes 150 units and has a one way entrance/exit with an em ergency access via Heritage Village.  The Southbury Training School is a large Connecticut DMR facility. This facility serves the entire state of Connecticut.  East Hill Woods and Pomperaug Woods are both life care centers.  Assisted living communities include Kensington Green and Greys Meadows.  The private Sewage Treatment Plant near the golf course is located in the flood plain of the Pomperaug River.  The Heritage Valley Water Company wellfield is located within 100 year flood plain. It was mentioned that the wells had experienced contamination a few years ago. Has the DPH required elevation of the wellheads above the flood pl ain? VI. Acquisitions  Comprehensive Plan of Development . Southbury Planning Commission, 2004.  Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations . Southbury Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission, May 2005.  Subdivisions Regulations . Southbury Planning Department, January 1, 2007.  Zoning Regulations. Southbury Zoning Commission, 2007. COGCNV field notes Field inspection on February 13, 2008. Notes typed February 15, 2008. Shawn Goulet Connecticut experienced a period of heavy rains on frozen ground on February 13, 2008. Precipitation measured 1.35 inches over approximately 9 hours in nearby Litchfield and 1.62 inches in Waterbury. On February 13, 2008 David Murphy and Shawn Goulet highlighted high priority areas of potential flooding mentioned during the initial data c ollection meeting in the Town of Southbury. Additionally, areas of potential flooding were outlin ed in the Town of Middlebury. These sites were visited on February 13, 2008 and problematic areas were photographed. These problematic areas primarily included areas of potential poor drainage due to the snow cover. The sequence of photography is listed below: Photographs:1. Nuisance flooding along River Rd. 2. Nuisance flooding along River Rd. 3. The Town of Southbury alleviating nuisance flooding along River Road 4. The Town of Southbury alleviating nuisance flooding along River Road 5. A front yard along Pomperaug Trail is flooded 6. The end of Pomperaug Trail is flooded 7. Another front yard along Pomperaug Trail is flooded 8. River Road Bridge over the Pomperaug River 9. The view looking upstream of the Pomperaug River from Manor Road 10. The view looking west and upgradient along Jeremy Swamp Road 11. Nuisance flooding along Jeremy Swamp Road 12. Jeremy Brook bends after the culvert crossing beneath Hulls Hill Road 13. View looking south of Jeremy Brook culvert crossing outlet along Hulls hill Road 14. View of Jeremy Brook near the culvert crossing 15. Water from Jeremy Brook begins to spill onto Hulls Hill Road 16. An undersized culvert appears stressed due to the substantial precip itation 17. Water associated with Jeremy Brook before entering the culvert crossing 18. 19. 20. These notes follow the sequence of photography above. a) River Road (west of Glen Rd.), Southbury – Looking north along River Road, water from an unnamed stream builds (Photo #1). The cause of the nuisance flooding looks to be a failing culvert due to its overcapacity or damming. Page 1 1. Nuisance flooding along River Road b) River Road (west of Glen Road), Southbury – This is the same location as Photo #1. The Town of Southbury has to alleviate the culvert during large-scale rain e vents along this portion of River Rd. in Photo #3. 3. The Town of Southbury alleviating nuisance flooding along River Road c) Pomperaug Trail, Southbury – The front yards of different homes along Pomperaug Trail were flooded like the representative home in Photo #3. The backyards of these homes border the Pomperaug River. Page 2 5. A front yard along Pomperaug Trail is flooded d) River Road Bridge (over the Pomperaug River), Southbury – The River Road Bridge over the Pomperaug River becomes instrumental to vehicular transportation when traffic on I-84 becomes problematic or the highway is shut-down. The bridge is currently rated as bein g in “poor” to “very poor” condition and is owned by the Town. Photo #4 shows the view of the bridge from Berkshire Road. 8. River Road Bridge over the Pomperaug River Page 3 e) Manor Road, Southbury – Photo #5 is the view looking upstream the Pomperaug River from Manor Road. Homes, Manor Road, and Pomperaug Trail are often inundated during sustained precipitation events. Ice jams at this location often bring about flooding events. 9. The view looking upstream of the Pomperaug River from Manor Road f) Jeremy Swamp Road, Southbury – Traveling east along Jeremy Swamp Road, water was found to be moving rapidly downgradient towards Jeremy Brook (Photo #6) prior to the Jeremy Swamp Road/Hulls Hill Road intersection. Potential for storm drain failure along this road can lead towards substantial nuisance flooding (Photo #7). 10. The view looking west and upgradient along Jeremy Swamp Road Page 4 11. Nuisance flooding along Jeremy Swamp Road g) Hulls Hill Road/Jeremy Swamp Road, Southbury – Jeremy Brook flows rapidly to the east of the Hulls Hill Road/Jeremy Swamp Road intersection (Photo #8). 13. View looking south of Jeremy Brook culver crossing outlet along Hulls hill Road The intersection often becomes inundated during heavy precipitation events and is subsequently closed by the Town. The intersection was approaching inundation at the time of data collection (Photo #9). Page 5 15. Water from Jeremy Brook begins to spill onto Hulls Hill Road The lone culvert crossing at the location appears to be insufficient for a storm of this scale (Photo #10). 16. An undersized culvert appears stressed due to the substantial precipitat ion h) Regan Road, Middlebury – Regan Road, which follows part of Hop Brook through Middlebury was determined to be a possible source of road and property/house inundation. Photos 18-20 show Hop Brook at an elevated stage level during the rain event alongside the road and near homes in this section of the Town. Page 6 18. The downstream view of Hop Brook along Regan Road 19. The upstream view of Hop Brook along Regan Road Page 7 20. The view of Hop Book from Regan Road Page 8 NEWS RELEASE To: Mauve Slavin Contact: Virginia Mason Voices Assistant Director For Release: Immediately 203-757-0535 Ice jams in the winter? Flooding problems along the Pomperaug? What other types of natural emergencies can Southbury plan for? A meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 at 6:30 P. M. at the Fire House to discuss the importance of planning to minimize the effects of natural disasters in the community. Southbury is one of six municipalities which successfully applied through the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) for a planning grant to identify natural hazards and ways the town can reduce their impacts. The consultants, Milone and MacBroom, Inc., will be seeking input from the public about possible local natural hazards such as hurricanes, nor’easters, floods, severe thunderstorms, wildfires, and earthquakes. The town invites the public to attend this informational meeting and participate in this process. In coming months, the consultants will develop a plan identifying actions that can be undertaken prior to a disaster to reduce the loss of life and property damages associated with the event. The plan will be submitted to FEMA in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The Act requires communities to have approved mitigation plans in order to be eligible to receive Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program project grants. The Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley consists of thirteen municipalities in the greater Waterbury area: Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Cheshire, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Oxford, Prospect, Southbury, Thomaston, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott, and Woodbury. For further information, contact Virginia Mason or Selma Alves at COGCNV by phone at 203-757- 0535 or email at vmason@cnvgcnv.org. T:ProjectsEmergency PlanningPre-Disaster MitigationPredisaster_grant 05public noticesSouthbury News Release.3.04.08.wpd Meeting Minutes N ATURAL H AZARD PRE -D ISASTER M ITIGATION PLAN FOR SOUTHBURY Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Public Information MeetingMarch 19, 2008 I. Welcome & Introductions Numerous individuals attended the public meeting:  David Murphy, P.E., Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI)  Samuel Eisenbeiser, Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. (FHI)  Virginia Mason, Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley (CGCNV)  DeLoris Curtis, Southbury Planning Department  Rick Lyle, Assistant Fire Chief & LEPC  Tom Crowe, Southbury Department of Public Works  George Slaiby, Southbury Police Department & Emergency Management  Jennifer Naylor, First Selectman’s Office  John Turk, Board of Selectmen  Oscar Fuller, Region 5 Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES)  Harlan Ford, Region 5 ARES  Maeve Slavin, Voices Newspaper  Chris Gardner, Waterbury Republican-American  Rachel Pederson, resident of River Trail  Joann Murphy, resident of River Trail  John Fleming, resident of River Trail  Joann Hart, resident, 129 River Trail  John Koolis, resident, 111 Floodbridge Road  Leovigilda Villadowd, resident, 155 Grasslands Road  Laarni Ring, resident, 155 Grasslands Road Ms. Mason introduced the project team and the project, explaining the CO G’s role in the project, the goals of the Disaster Mitigation Act, and the relationship to the FEMA pre- disaster and post-disaster funding processes. II. Power Point: “Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, Southbury, Co nnecticut” Mr. Murphy and Mr. Eisenbeiser presented the power point slideshow. III. Questions, Comments, and Discussion The majority of the discussion focused on flooding of the Floodbridge Road and River Trail neighborhoods along the Pomperaug River: Meeting Minutes March 19, 2008 Page 2  Several residents from River Trail provided narratives of flooding incidents and evacuations that occurred as the road was flooding. John Fleming on River Trail is not interested in being bought out, and neither are his neighbors. Mr. Fleming’s basement floods and is vented (wet floodproofing). However, his foundation has been damaged. The first floor is believed to be six inches above flood levels.  Joann Murphy spent $14,000 to repair flood damages last year. Flood levels in her house have reached a depth of three feet on the first floor. Pictures a re available.  The owner of 111 Floodbridge Road would like to be bought out by the Town and it was explained that PDM funds can sometimes be used for this purpose.  All the residents living along the Pomperaug River that were in attendance are concerned with the Long Meadow Pond dam in Bethlehem. If the dam fails, they would all suffer damages. They were notified in February 2007 when sandbagging was taking place at the dam, and were displeased that a formal notification and process for evacuation were not available at that time. They recommend that the notification process be improved.  A resident at 155 Grasslands Road is experiencing “flooding” from an adjacent subdivision. Her driveway and garage floor are reportedly cracking from this water.  Cedar Land Park experiences flooding and has been evacuated by boat.  Oscar Fuller of the Region 5 Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) offered the services of his organization (for a fee) to integrate amateur radio into the Town’s emergency communications as a backup to the primary communications system. He has worked with other towns and the Danbury Hospital. Natural Hazard Pre-DisasterMitigation Plan Southbury, Connecticut Presented by : David Murphy, P.E. – Associate Milone & MacBroom, Inc. Sam Eisenbeiser, AICP Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. March 19, 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 Naugatuck  Southbury  Thomaston  Beacon Falls  Bethlehem  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 ret rof it , home acquisition, and planning projects State Description Grant Colorado Detention pond $3,000,000 Oregon Water conduit replacement $3,000,000 Wa s h in g t o n Ro a d e le v a t 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 Oregon Ice storm retrofit $1,570,836 No rt h Da ko t a Po we r t ra n s mis s io n re p la c e me n t $1,511,250 Texas Home elevations $1,507,005 Florida Storm sewer pump station $1,500,000 Massachusetts Flood hazard mitigation project $1,079,925 Kansas Effluent pump station $765,000 South Dakota Flood channel restoration $580,657 Ma s s a c h u s e t t s Cu lv e rt p ro je c t $525,000 Te xa s St o rm s h e lt e r $475,712 Mas s achus etts Hous ing elevation and retrofit $473,640 Ut a h Fire s t a t io n re t ro fit $374,254 Washington Downtown flood prevention project $255,000 New York WWTP Floodwall construction $223,200 Mas s achus etts 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 Ba n k s t a b iliza t 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 A Road Closure During / After a Large Scale Rainfall Event is a Type of Hazard Mitigation What is Hazard Mitigation? M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Reduce loss / damage to life, property, and infrastructure Reduce the cost to residents and businesses Educate residents and policy-makers about natural hazard risk and vulnerability Connect hazard mitigation planning to other community planning efforts Enhance and preserve natural resource systems in the community Long-Term Goals of Hazard Mitigation M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Terrorism and Sabotage Disaster Response and Recovery Human Induced Emergencies (some fires, hazardous spills and contamination, disease, etc.) What a Hazard Mitigation Plan Does Not Address M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Identify natural hazards that could occur in Southbury Evaluate the vulnerability of structures and populations and identify critical facilities and areas of concern Assess adequacy of mitigation measures currently in place Evaluate potential mitigation measures that could be undertaken to reduce the risk and vulnerability Develop recommendations for future mitigation actions Components of Hazard Mitigation Planning Process M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Emergency Services – Police, Fire, Ambulance Municipal Facilities – Town Hall The Fire House & Senior Center Old Poverty Road House Fire (June 2007) Southbury’s Critical Facilities M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Southbury Town Hall Life / Health Care and Assisted Living Water Utilities – Tanks, Pumping Stations Wastewater Utilities – Pumping Stations and Treatment Plants The Southbury Training School ViaSat / ComSat Southbury’s Critical Facilities M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Southbury Training School Satellite facility 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 – dissemination of public safety information Construction of structural measures Allocate technical and financial resources for mitigation programs Preserve critical land areas and natural systems Potential Mitigation Measures M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Inland flooding Winter storms, nor’easters, heavy snow, blizzards, ice storms Ice Jams Hurricanes Summer storms, tornadoes, thunderstorms, lightning, hail Dam failure Wildfires Earthquakes Primary Natural Hazards Facing Southbury M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. River Road – West of Flooding of Unnamed Tributary Undersized Culvert @ Hulls Hill Road / Jeremy Swamp Road Intersection Winds Heavy rain / flooding Hurricanes M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Heavy wind / tornadoes / downbursts Lightning Heavy rain Hail Lightning over Boston Flooding in MN Tornado in KS Summer Storms and Tornadoes M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Blizzards and nor’easters Heavy snow and drifts Freezing rain / ice Connecticut CT River – April 2007 Winter Storms M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Southbury – April 2007 Occur on rivers partially or totally frozen Ice floes pile on channel obstructions Backwater upstream can rapidly rise and overflow channel banks When the jam is released, flooding migrates downstream Very dangerous / serious threat Ice Jams M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Area of common ice jams on Pomeraug River Severe rains or earthquakes can cause failure Possibility of loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage Dam Failure M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Shepaug Dam Southbury has low to moderate risk of wildfires Land subject to wildfires is mostly state-owned Fire Heat Smoke Photo courtesy of FEMA Wildfires M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Southbury 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 Shaking  Liquefaction  Secondary (Slides/Slumps) Photos courtesy of FEMA Earthquakes M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Roadway and property flooding at rivers and streams  River Road – from small streams  Manor Road & Pomperaug Trail along the Pomperaug River  Flood Bridge Road  Hulls Hill Road / Jeremy Swamp Road Intersection  Other streams and localized problems Flooding caused by poor drainage Potential bridge maintenance / replacement Erosion and scour caused by high flows Area-Specific Problems M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Along River Road – from small streams Flooding at Rivers and Streams M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Manor Road & Pomperaug Trail along the Pomperaug River Flooding at Rivers and Streams M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Pomeraug Trail Manor Road Flood Bridge Road –Pomeraug River M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding at Rivers and Streams April 2007 Nor’easter Hulls Hill Road / Jeremy Swamp Road Intersection Jeremy Brook M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding at Rivers and Streams M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding at Rivers and Streams Route 172 – “Hay Fever Farm” Community House Road at Bullet Hill brook River Hill Road & Branch Road at Pomeraug River South Flat Hill Road at Little Pootatuck Brook Flagg Swamp Road at Flagg Swamp M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding Caused by Poor Drainage Lee Farm Drive Lakeside Road Lee Farm Drive and Lakeside Road River Road Bridge over Pomperaug River – Town-owned bridge in need of maintenance Spruce Brook Bridge at Route 172 – in need of replacement over Transylvania Brook Potential Bridge Maintenance / Replacement M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Locations along the Pomperaug River in Southbury Erosion & Scour Caused by High Flows M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Incorporate input from residents Rank hazard vulnerability Develop a response strategy Prepare the draft plan with recommendations for review by the Town and the public Adopt and implement the plan Next Steps M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Questions and Additions M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. APPENDIX C RECORD OF MUNICIPAL ADOPTION ERRATA TO BE PRESENTED MARCH 19, 2009 Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Town of Southbury, Connecticut Table of Contents: Page iv Updated title of Table 9-1. Section 1 Page 1-9: Added current First Selectman, H William Davis, Jr., to list of individuals involved with the Plan. Clarification of titles for two other individuals (former First Selectman and Assistant). Section 2 Page 2-5: Added source for Table 2-1. Page 2-5: Vizada Americas currently owns the formerly Telenor Satellite Communications facility. Page 2-24: Updated Table 2-5 for Vizada Americas facility. Page 2-26: Updated second paragraph to discuss the potential use of the Walzer Fami ly Jewish Community Campus facility as an additional shelter under dire circumstances. Section 3 Page 3-7: Added October 2005 storms and damages in discussion of historic record. Section 9 Page 9-2: Included Long Meadow Pond Dam in Bethlehem in the discussion of dams whose failures could affect Southbury, and added that dam to Table 9-1.

BOROUGH OF NAUGATUCK NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING AREA FEBRUARY 2009 REVISED MARCH 2009 MMI #2937-02 Prepared For: Under a grant from the Federal Emergenc y Management Agency (FEMA) through the Connecticut Department of E nvironmental Protection (DEP) Council of Governments of th e Central Naugatuck Valley 60 North Main Street, 3rd Floor Waterbury, Connecticut 06702-1403 Prepared By: M ILONE & M AC BROOM , INC . 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 (203) 271-1773 www.miloneandmacbroom.com In Association With : Fitzgerald & Halliday 72 Cedar Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860) 446-2102 www.fhiplan.com NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………… ……………….ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 1-1 1.2 Hazard Mitigation Goals ……………………………………………………………… …………………….. 1-3 1.3 Identification of Hazards and Document Overview ……………………………………………….. 1-5 1.4 Discussion of STAPLE E Ranking Method……………………………………………….. ………….. 1-7 1.5 Documentation of the Planning Process ……………………………………………………………… .. 1-8 2.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE 2.1 Physical Setting……………………………………………………………… …………………………….. ….. 2-1 2.2 Existing Land Use ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………… 2-4 2.3 Geology ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. …….. 2-6 2.4 Climate ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ……. 2-13 2.5 Drainage Basins and Hydrology ……………………………………………………………… ………… 2-14 2.6 Population and Demographic Setting ……………………………………………………………… …. 2-18 2.7 Governmental Structure ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 2-19 2.8 Development Trends ……………………………………………………………… ………………………… 2-2 3 2.9 Critical Facilities and Sheltering Capacity ………………………………………………………….. 2-26 3.0 INLAND FLOODING 3.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 3-1 3.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 3-2 3.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 3-5 3.4 Existing Programs, Policies and Mitigation Measures ……………………………………………. 3-8 3.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 3-16 3.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 3-24 3.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Meas ures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 3-34 4.0 HURRICANES 4.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 4-1 4.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 4-1 4.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 4-6 4.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 4-9 4.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 4-11 4.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 4-12 4.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Meas ures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 4-14 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 5.0 SUMMER STORMS & TORNADOES 5.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 5-1 5.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 5-1 5.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 5-6 5.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 5-9 5.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 5-11 5.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 5-12 5.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Meas ures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 5-13 6.0 WINTER STORMS 6.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 6-1 6.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 6-1 6.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 6-3 6.4 Existing Programs, Policies and Mitigation Measures ……………………………………………. 6-7 6.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 6-7 6.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ……………………………………. 6-9 6.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Meas ures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 6-11 7.0 EARTHQUAKES 7.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 7-1 7.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 7-1 7.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 7-3 7.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 7-4 7.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 7-5 7.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ……………………………………. 7-8 8.0 DAM FAILURE 8.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 8-1 8.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 8-1 8.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 8-3 8.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………. 8-10 8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 8-11 8.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 8-16 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 9.0 WILDFIRES 9.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 9-1 9.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 9-1 9.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 9-3 9.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 9-5 9.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 9-6 9.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ……………………………………. 9-9 10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 Additional Recommendations……………………………………………………………… ……………. 10-1 10.2 Summary of Specific Recommendations …………………………………………………………….. 10-2 10.3 Sources of Funding ……………………………………………………………… ………………………….. 10-7 11.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 11.1 Implementation Strategy and Schedule ……………………………………………………………… . 11-1 11.2 Progress Monitoring and Public Participation ……………………………………………………… 11-2 11.3 Updating the Plan……………………………………………………………… …………………………… .. 11-3 11.4 Technical and Financial Resources……………………………………………………………… …….. 11-4 12.0 REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………….. 12 -1 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) TABLES Table 2-1 Land Use by Area ……………………………………………………………… …………………… 2-4 Table 2-2 Soils by Taxonomic Class……………………………………………………………… ………. 2-12 Table 2-3 Drainage Basins ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 2-14 Table 2-4 Population Density by Munici pality, Region, and State, 2005 …………………….. 2-18 Table 2-5 Critical Facilities in Naugatuck ……………………………………………………………… . 2-28 Table 3-1 FIRM Zone Descriptions ……………………………………………………………… …………. 3-3 Table 4-1 Hurricane Characteristics ……………………………………………………………… …………. 4-6 Table 5-1 Fujita Scale…………………………………………………… ……………………………………… .. 5-2 Table 5-2 Enhanced Fujita Scale ……………………………………………………………… ……………… 5-4 Table 5-3 Tornado Events in Ne w Haven County Since 1950 …………………………………….. 5-7 Table 5-4 NOAA Weather Watches……………………………………………………………… ……….. 5-10 Table 5-5 NOAA Weather Warnings ……………………………………………………………… ……… 5-10 Table 6-1 NESIS Categories ……………………………………………………………… …………………… 6-3 Table 8-1 Dams Registered with the DEP in the Borough of Naugatuck ………………………. 8-2 Table 8-2 Class C Dams Upstream of the Borough of Naugatuck ……………………………….. 8-3 Table 8-3 Dams Damaged Due to Fl ooding from October 2005 Storms……………………….. 8-6 FIGURES Figure 2-1 Naugatuck Location Map……………………………………………………………… …………. 2-2 Figure 2-2 Naugatuck in the CNVR ……………………………………………………………… ………….. 2-3 Figure 2-3 Naugatuck Ge neralized Land Use …………………………………………………………….. 2-5 Figure 2-4 Naugatuck Bedrock Geology ……………………………………………………………… ……. 2-8 Figure 2-5 Naugatuck Surficial Geology……………………………………………………………… ….. 2-10 Figure 2-6 Naugatuck El derly Population ……………………………………………………………… … 2-20 Figure 2-7 Naugatuck Linguistical ly Isolated Households …………………………………………. 2-21 Figure 2-8 Naugatuck Di sabilities Map……………………………………………………………… ……. 2-22 Figure 2-9 Naugatuck Cr itical Facilities………………………………………………. ………………….. 2-24 Figure 3-1 FEMA Flood Zones in Naugatuck …………………………………………………………….. 3-4 Figure 3-2 View of 1947 Topographic Map, Spencer Street Corridor ………………………….. 3-17 Figure 3-3 View of 1954 Topographic Map, Spencer Street Corridor ………………………….. 3-18 Figure 3-4 Spencer Street / Cherry St reet / Pleasant Avenue Study Area ……………………… 3-19 Figure 3-5 Long Meadow Pond Brook Study Area ……………………………………………………. 3-21 Figure 3-6 Beacon Valley Road Study Area …………………………………………………………….. 3-22 Figure 8-1 High Hazard Dams in Naugatuck ……………………………………………………………… 8-4 Figure 8-2 High Hazard Dams in Naugatuck ……………………………………………………………… 8-5 Figure 9-1 Naugatuck Wild fire Risk Area……………………………………………………………… ….. 9-2 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDED TABLES Appended Table 1 Hazard Event Ranking Appended Table 2 Hazard Effect Ranking Appended Table 3 Development Permit Checklist for Hazard Mitigation and Effective Emergency Management APPENDICES Appendix A STAPLEE Matrix Appendix B Documentation of Plan Development Appendix C Subdivision/Site Plan Checklist for Drainage Designs (November 2008) Appendix D Record of Municipal Adoption NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Borough of Naugatuck Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan 1. The primary purpose of this natural hazard pre-disaster mitigation plan (HMP) is to identify natural hazards and risks, existing capabilities, and activities that can be undertaken to prevent loss of life and reduce property damages associated with the identified hazards. The Disaster Miti gation Act of 2000 (DMA) requires local communities to have a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-approved mitigation plan in order to be eligible to receive post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) grants and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program project grant funds. 2. The Borough of Naugatuck drains to si x major watersheds corresponding to the Naugatuck River, Hop Brook, Long Meadow Pond Brook, Fulling Mill Brook, Beacon Hill Brook, and Little River. A ll of the watersheds in Naugatuck are part of the regional Naugatuck River basin that ultimately di scharges into the Housatonic River. 3. The Department of Public Works is the prin cipal municipal department that responds to problems caused by natural hazards. 4. The Borough considers its police, fire, gove rnmental, service and major transportation facilities to be its most important critical f acilities, for these are needed to ensure that emergencies are addressed while day-to-day management of Naugatuck continues. Although none of the educational institutions in the Borough have emergency generators, they are considered criti cal facilities as these are used as shelters or supply distribution points. In addition, Borough pers onnel consider public and private water, sewer, electric, and communication utilities to be critical facilities. 5. The Borough currently does not have the cap acity to shelter 10% of its population due primarily to the lack of trained staff to operate shelters. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-2 6. The Public Works Department, Ambulance Services, Fire Department, Borough Offices, South Naugatuck CL&P Substation, and H op Brook School are all located within a mapped dam failure inundation area, and Maple Hill School is located on the edge of a wildfire risk area. 7. According to the FEMA mapping, approxima tely 219 acres of land in Naugatuck are located within the 100 -year flood boundary and 575 acres of land are located within the 500-year flood boundary. The municipal offices , fire department, wastewater treatment plant, Cherry Street Substation, Ecumeni cal Food Bank and Hop Brook School are all in 500 year floodplains, but they ar e not regularly impacted by flooding. 8. The Borough of Naugatuck has in place a number of measures to prevent flood damage. These include regulations and plans that co ntrol encroachment and development in and near floodplains and floodways. However, the Borough has not completed an update of its flood hazard regulations, and currently ha s no plans to enroll in the Community Rating System program. 9. The Borough of Naugatuck primarily atte mpts to mitigate flood damage and flood hazards by restricting building activities inside flood-prone areas. This process is carried out through both the Zoning Commission and the Inland Wetlands Commission. 10. Areas with flooding problems include: Spen cer Street Corridor/Cherry Street/Pleasant Avenue area; the area adjacent to the Long Meadow Pond Brook and its tributary near Rubber Avenue and Harlow Court, near Mountview Plaza and north of the Baummer Dam; the lower portion of Arch Street at Long Meadow Pond Brook; and Beacon Valley Road near Beacon Falls. 11. Two preventative recommendations for the Bo rough to consider include joining FEMA’s Community Rating System to reduce the cost of flood insurance for its residents and NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-3 requiring developers to demonstrate whether detention or retention will be the best management practice for stormw ater at specific sites. 12. To streamline the permitting process, a check list should be developed and available at several departments that cross-references the bylaws, regul ations, and codes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to a proposed project. A sample for the Borough of Naugatuck is included as Appended Table 3. 13. A hurricane striking the Borough of Naugatuck is considered a possible event each year that could cause critical damage to the Borough and its infrastructure. Emergency personnel should review potential evacuation plans to ensure timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Naugatuck, and post evacuation and shelter information on the Borough website and in municipal buildi ngs. The Building Department should have literature available regarding appropriate de sign standards for wind, information on tree maintenance procedures, and the role of CL&P. 14. The recent implementation of the CodeRED emergency notification system in Naugatuck is beneficial for warning residents of impending emergencies. The Borough of Naugatuck should consider including dam failure areas in its CodeRED emergency notification system. 15. Connecticut experiences at least one severe winter storm every five years, although a variety of small and medium snow and ice storms occur nearly every winter. The likelihood of a nor’easter occurring in any give n winter is therefore considered high, and the likelihood of other winter storms occurring in any given winter is very high. 16. The heavily treed landscape in close proximity to densely populated residential areas in the Borough of Naugatuck can pose problem s during windy summer and winter storms including power outages, traffic delays and detours, and property damages. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-4 17. Emergency shelters, evacuation plans, and plowing routes should be posted at the municipal offices and on the Borough’s website. 18. An inactive fault is located in the far southeast corner of the Borough. Even though this fault is inactive, the best mitigation for future development in the area of this fault would be to preserve or convert the faul t area into municipal open space. 19. With 16 registered dams and several othe r minor dams in the Borough, dam failure can occur almost anywhere in Naugatuck. In addition, parts of the Borough lie within inundation areas for several Class C dams, both within and upstream of Naugatuck. The Borough should assess the condition and pe rformance of the Donovan Road Dam and upgrade as necessary, and upgrade and repair the Ridge Lower Pond Dam located along Warren Avenue. The Borough of Naugatuck ma y wish to establish a Flood and Erosion Control Board to oversee local flooding and erosion problems and municipally-owned dams. 20. The Borough of Naugatuck is considered a low- risk area for wildfires. Wildfires are of concern primarily in wooded areas and other areas with poor access for fire-fighting equipment. Wildfires are considered a likel y event each year, but, when one occurs, it is generally contained to a small range w ith limited damage to non-forested areas. 21. The 2001 Plan of Conservation and Developmen t (Plan of C&D) indicated that there are several streets in the Borough which are inaccessi ble to fire trucks due to either steep grades or the narrowness of the road. Thes e include Aetna Place, Bosco Drive, Highland Circle, Hughes Street, Joseph Road, Mitchell Street and Theresa Street. Thus it is essential that any future development on steep slopes be reviewed with an extra level of attention to ensure that new developments are not burdened by the same type of problems. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-5 22. The 2001 Plan of C&D also indicated that the Naugatuck Fire Department (NFD) has expressed concerns regarding response times to developments in the northwest and southeast portions of the Borough. Additionally, the water pressure in some areas, particularly around the perimeter of the Bo rough, has been identified as a problem. These areas exhibit low-pressure situations wh ich may inhibit the department’s ability to deal with fires. Subsequent to the Plan of Conservation and Development publication in 2001, additional water lines have been extended up May Street towards the Eastside Fire Station and on Wooster Street. 23. It is important for the Borough of Naugatuck to be prepared to assist special populations including the elderly, linguisti cally isolated and disabled during emergencies, including wildfires. 24. In addition, there is special concern about fires in the Na ugatuck State Forest in the southern part of the Borough. Fires in these areas are particularly difficult to access due to topography can spread to or from nearby municipalities. The Borough has the support of the owners of the tracts of open space to provide access to their lands in case of a wildfire. 25. The Borough of Naugatuck should consider the construction of dry hydrants throughout the Borough to provide a more reliable s upply of firefighting water in areas without public water supply. 25. The Naugatuck Office of Emergency Management & Homeland Security (NEMHS) should be charged with creati ng and disseminating informational pamphlets and guides to public locations such as the library, post offi ce, senior center, and Borough offices. The Borough should consider adding additional pages to its website dedicated to citizen education and preparation for natural hazard events. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 ES-6 26. The Office of the Mayor and the Department of Public Works in the Borough of Naugatuck will primarily be responsible for developing and implementing selected projects, including updating th e Plan of Conservation and Development, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regul ations, Wetlands Regulations, and Emergency Operations Plan to include the provisions in this pla n. Some projects will be implemented by other departments. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose The term hazard refers to an extreme natural ev ent that poses a risk to people, infrastructure, or resources. In the contex t of natural disasters, pre-disaster hazard mitigation is commonly defined as any sustained action that permanently reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people, prope rty, and resources from natural hazards and their effects. The primary purpose of a natural hazard pre-disaster mitigation plan (HMP) is to identify natural hazards and risks, existing capabilities , and activities that can be undertaken by a community or group of communities to preven t loss of life and reduce property damages associated with the identified hazards. This HMP is prepared specifically to identify hazards in the Borough of Naugatuck, Connec ticut (“Naugatuck” or “Borough”). The HMP is relevant not only in emergency mana gement situations, but also should be used within the Borough of Naugatuck’s land use, environmental, and capital improvement frameworks. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA), commonly known as the 2000 Stafford Act amendments, was approved by Congress and si gned into law in October 2000, creating Public Law 106-390. The purposes of the DMA are to establish a national program for pre-disaster mitigation and streamline administration of disaster relief. The DMA requires local communities to have a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-approved mitigation plan in order to be eligible to receive post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) grants a nd Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program project grant funds. Once a community ha s a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan, the community is then eligible to apply for PDM project funds for m itigation activities. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-2 Mitigation Funding Note that starting in 2008, applications for hazard mitigation grant funding are administered under the Unified Hazard Mitigation Assistance program. More information on this and the following programs can be found at FEMA’s website, http://www.fema.gov/ The subject pre-disaster hazard mitigation plan was developed to be consistent with the requirements of the HMGP, PDM, and Flood Ma nagement Assistance (FMA) programs. These programs are briefly described below. Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program The Pre-Disaster Mitigation program was au thorized by Part 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5133. The PDM program provides funds to states, te rritories, tribal governments, communities, and universities for hazard mitigation planning and implementation of mitigation projects prior to disasters, providing an opportunity to reduce the na tion’s disaster losses through pre-disaster mitigation planning and the implem entation of feasible, effective, and cost- efficient mitigation measures. Funding of pre- disaster plans and projects is meant to reduce overall risks to populations and facilities. PDM funds should be used primarily to support mitigation activities that address natural hazards. In addition to providing a vehicle for funding, the PDM program provides an opportunity to raise risk awareness within communities. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) The HMGP is authorized under Section 404 of th e Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The HMGP provi des grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation meas ures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-3 recovery from a disaster. A key purpose of the HMGP is to ensure that any opportunities to take critical mitigation measures to protect life and property from future disasters are not “lost” during the recove ry and reconstruction process following a disaster. Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program The FMA program was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4101) with the goa l of reducing or eliminating claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA provides FMA funds to assist States and communities with implementing measures that reduce or eliminate the long- term risk of flood damage to buildings, hom es, and other structures insurable under the NFIP. The long-term goal of FMA is to reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP through mitigation activities. Th ree types of grants are available under FMA. These are Planning, Project, and Tec hnical Assistance grants. 1.2 Hazard Mitigation Goals The primary goal of this hazard mitigation plan is to reduce the loss of or damage to life, property, infrastructure, and natural, cu ltural and economic resources from natural disasters. This includes the reduction of public and private damage costs. Limiting losses of and damage to life and property will also reduce the social, emotional, and economic disruption associated with a natural disaster. Developing, adopting, and implementing this hazard mitigation plan is expected to: ‰ Increase access to and awareness of funding sources for hazard mitigation projects. Certain funding sources, such as th e Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive Grant Program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, will be available if the hazard mitigation plan is in place and approved. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-4 ‰ Identify mitigation initiatives to be implemented if and when funding becomes available. This HMP will identify a number of mitigation recommendations, which can then be prioritized and acted upon as funding allows. ‰ Connect hazard mitigation planning to other community planning efforts. This HMP can be used to guide Naugatuck’s development through inter-departmental and inter-municipal coordination. ‰ Improve the mechanisms for pre- and pos t-disaster decision making efforts. This plan emphasizes actions that can be taken now to reduce or prevent future disaster damages. If the actions identified in this plan are implemented, damage from future hazard events can be minimized, thereby eas ing recovery and reducing the cost of repairs and reconstruction. ‰ Improve the ability to implemen t post-disaster recovery projects through development of a list of mitigation alternatives ready to be implemented. ‰ Enhance and preserve natural resource systems. Natural resources, such as wetlands and floodplains, provide protection against disasters such as floods and hurricanes. Proper planning and protection of natural resources can provide hazard mitigation at substantially reduced costs. ‰ Educate residents and policy makers about natural hazard risk and vulnerability. Education is an important tool to ensure that people make informed decisions that complement the Borough’s ability to implem ent and maintain mitigation strategies. ‰ Complement future Community Rating System efforts. Implementation of certain mitigation measures may increase a community’s rating, and thus the benefits that it derives from FEMA. The Borough of Nauga tuck has never participated in the Community Rating System. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-5 1.3 Identification of Hazards and Document Overview As stated in Section 1.1, the term hazard refers to an extreme natural event that poses a risk to people, infrastructure, or resources. Based on a review of the Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and correspondence with local officials, the following have been identified as natural hazards that can potentially affect the Borough of Naugatuck: ‰ Inland Flooding ‰ Hurricanes and Tropical Storms ‰ Summer Storms (including lightning, hail, and heavy winds) and Tornadoes ‰ Winter Storms ‰ Earthquakes ‰ Dam Failure ‰ Wildfires This document has been prepared wi th the understanding that a single hazard effect may be caused by multiple hazard events. For example, flooding may occur as a result of frequent heavy rains, a hurricane, or a wint er storm. Thus, Appended Tables 1 and 2 provide summaries of the hazard events and hazard effects that impact the Borough of Naugatuck, and include criteria for characteri zing the locations impacted by the hazard, the frequency of occurrence of the hazards, and the magnitude or severity of the hazards. Despite the causes, the eff ects of several hazards are persistent and demand high expenditures from the Borough. In order to better identify current vulnerabilities and potential mitigation strategies associated with other hazards, each hazard has been individually discussed in a separate chapter. This document begins with a general disc ussion of Naugatuck’s community profile, including the physical setting, demographics, development trends, governmental structure, and sheltering capacit y. Next, each chapter of this Plan is broken down into six NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-6 or seven different parts. These are Setting; Hazard Assessment ; Historic Record ; Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ; Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ; and Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives, and for chapters with several recommendations , a Summary of Recommendations. These are described below. ‰ Setting addresses the general areas that are at risk from the hazard. General land uses are identified. ‰ Hazard Assessment describes the specifics of a given hazard, including general characteristics, and associated effects. Also defined are associated return intervals, probability and risk, and relative magnitude. ‰ Historic Record is a discussion of past occurrences of the hazard, and associated damages when available. ‰ Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures gives an overview of the measures that the Borough of Naugatuck is currently undertaking to mitigate the given hazard. These may take the form of ordinances and codes, structural measures such as dams, or public outreach initiatives. ‰ Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment focuses on the specific areas at risk to the hazard. Specific land uses in the given areas are identified. Critical buildings and infrastructure that would be affected by the hazard are identified. ‰ Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives identifies mitigation alternatives, including those that may be th e least cost effective or inappropriate for Naugatuck. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-7 ‰ Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives provides a summary of the recommended courses of action for Naugatuck that is included in the STAPLEE an alysis described below. This document concludes with a strategy for implementation of the Natural Hazard Pre- Disaster Mitigation Plan, in cluding a schedule, a program for monitoring and updating the plan, and a discussion of t echnical and financial resources. 1.4 Discussion of STAPLEE Ranking Method To prioritize recommended mitigation meas ures, it is necessary to determine how effective each measure will be in reducing or preventing damage. A set of criteria commonly used by public administration offici als and planners was applied to each proposed strategy. The method, called STAPLEE, stands for the “Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic and Environmental” criteria for making planning decisions. The following questions were asked about the proposed mitigation strategies: ‰ Social : Is the proposed strategy so cially acceptable to Naugatu ck? Is there any equity issues involved that would mean that one segment of Naugatuck could be treated unfairly? ‰ Technical : Will the proposed strategy work? Will it create more problems than it will solve? ‰ Administrative : Can Naugatuck implement the strategy? Is there someone to coordinate and lead the effort? ‰ Political : Is the strategy politica lly acceptable? Is there public support both to implement and maintain the project? ‰ Legal : Is Naugatuck authorized to implement the proposed strategy? Is there a clear legal basis or precedent for this activity? NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-8 ‰ Economic : What are the costs and benefits of this strategy? Does the cost seem reasonable for the size of the problem and the likely benefits? ‰ Environmental : How will the strategy impact the environment? Will the strategy need environmental re gulatory approvals? Each proposed mitigation strategy presented in this plan was evaluated and assigned a score (Good = 3, Average = 2, Poor = 1) based on the above criteria. An evaluation matrix with the total scores from each stra tegy can be found in Appendix A. After each strategy is evaluated using the STAPLEE method, it is possible to prioritize the strategies according to the final score. The highest scoring is determined to be of more importance, economically, socially, environmentally and po litically and, hence, prioritized over those with lower scoring. 1.5 Documentation of the Planning Process The Borough of Naugatuck is a member of the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV), the regional planning body responsible for Naugatuck and twelve other member municipalities: Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Cheshire, Middlebury, Oxford, Prospect, Southbury, Thomaston, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott, and Woodbury. The municipalities of Ch eshire, Prospect, Oxford, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott, and Woodbury have existing mitigation plans, and hazard mitigation plans are being concurrently developed for remaining municipalities. Ms. Virginia Mason of the COGCNV coordinated the development of this Hazard Mitigation Plan. The COGCNV applied for the grant from FEMA through the Connecticut Department of Environmental Prot ection (DEP). The adoption of this plan in the Borough of Naugatuck will also be coordinated by the COGCNV. In addition, the COGCNV provided Geographic Information System (GIS) base mapping and created many of the figures presented in this document. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-9 The following individuals from the Borough of Naugatuck provided information, data, studies, reports, and observations; and were involved in the development of the Plan: ‰ Mr. Mike Bronko, Naugatuck Mayor ‰ Mr. Al Pistarelli, Naugatuck Mayoral Aide ‰ Mr. Fran Dambowsky, Naugatuck Emergency Management & Homeland Security ‰ Mr. Ken Hanks, Naugatuck Deputy Fire Chief and Chairman, COGCNV Emergency Planning Committee ‰ Mr. James Ricci, Jr., Naug atuck Fire Department ‰ Mr. James R. Stewart, Naugatuck Engineer ‰ Mr. Keith Rosenfeld, Naugatuck Planner/Wetlands Enforcement Officer ‰ Mr. Hank Witkowski, Jr., Superint endent of Public Works/Streets A data collection, evaluation, and outreach program was undertaken to compile information about existing hazards and mitigat ion in the Borough, as well as to identify areas that should be prioritized for hazard m itigation. The following is a list of meetings that were held to develop this Hazard Mitigation Plan: ‰ A project meeting with Borough officials was held January 23, 2008. Necessary documentation was collected, and problem areas within the Borough were discussed. ‰ Field inspections were performed on February 13, 2008. Observations were made of flooding and problem areas within the Bor ough after a period of heavy rain falling on frozen ground. ‰ A public information meeting was held March 3, 2008 at 6:00 P.M. Preliminary findings were presented and public comments solicited. While residents were invited to the pub lic information meeting via newspaper, no residents attended that were not Borough pers onnel. Ten municipal agencies and civic NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-10 organizations were invited via a mailed copy of the press release that announced the public information meeting. These included the following: ‰ Naugatuck River Watershed Association; ‰ Naugatuck Valley Health District; ‰ Naugatuck Chamber of Commerce; ‰ United Way of Greater Waterbury; ‰ American Red Cross – Waterbury Area; ‰ Naugatuck Inland Wetlands Commission; ‰ Naugatuck Planning Commission; ‰ Naugatuck Zoning Commission; ‰ Naugatuck Economic Development Corporation; and ‰ Naugatuck Economic Development Commission. No representatives of these organizations a ttended the meeting. Residents were also encouraged via newspaper articles to contact the COG with comments. It is important to note that COGCNV manages the Centra l Naugatuck Valley Emergency Planning Committee. This committee has begu n coordinating emergency services in the region. Fire, Police, EMS, Red Cross, em ergency management directors, and other departments participate in these efforts. In June 2004, over 120 responders participated in the region’s first tabletop exercise on bi ological terrorism. Area health directors, hospitals, and other health care professionals also meet monthly with the Health and Medical Subcommittee to share informati on, protocols, and training. Thus, local knowledge and experience gained through th e Emergency Planning Committee activities has been transferred by the COGCNV to the pre-disaster mitigation planning process. Additional opportunities fo r the public to review the Plan will be implemented in advance of the public hearing to adopt this plan, tentatively scheduled for March 2009, contingent on receiving conditional approval from FEMA. The draft that is sent for FEMA review NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 1-11 will be posted on the Borough website (http://www.naugatuck-ct.gov) and the COGCNV website (http://www.cogcnv.org) to provide opportunities for public review and comment. Such comments will be incorporated into the final draft where applicable. Upon receiving conditional approval from FE MA, the public hearing will be scheduled, at which time any remaining comments can be addressed. Notification of the opportunity to review the Plan on the above websites a nd the announcement of the public information meeting will be posted on the websites and placed in local newspapers. If any final plan modifications result from the comment period leading up to and including the public hearing to adopt the pla n, these will be submitted to FEMA as page revisions with a cover letter explaining the chan ges. It is not anticipated that any major modifications will occur at this phase of the project. Appendix B contains copies of meeting minut es, field notes and observations, the public information meeting presentation, and other r ecords that document the development of this Natural Hazard Pre-Di saster Mitigation Plan. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-1 2.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE 2.1 Physical Setting The Borough of Naugatuck is located in New Haven County. It is bordered by the Town of Beacon Falls to the south, the Town of Oxford to the west, the Town of Middlebury and the City of Waterbury to the north, and the Towns of Prospect and Bethany to the east and southeast. Refer to Figure 2-1 fo r a location schematic and Figure 2-2 for a location map. Naugatuck is located within the western part of the crystalline uplands, or Western Highlands, of western Connecticut. This geol ogic feature consists of three belts of metamorphic rocks bounded to the west by th e sediments and metamorphic rocks of the Hudson River valley and on the east by the Tria ssic sediments of the Connecticut River valley. The topography of the Borough is generally mo derate sloping along the Naugatuck River in the central portion of the Borough in the developed area. Steeper sections of land occur in the southwestern portion of the Borough near the Naugatuck State Forest, although both the west and east sides of the community are quite hilly. Elevations range from approximately 200 feet above sea level along the Naugatuck River in the northern part of the Borough to over 870 feet above sea level near Andrews Hill in the southwestern part of the Borough, based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. The hilly, elevated terrain of Naugatuck makes it particularly vulnerable to an array of natural hazards. In fact, approximately 23% of land area has slopes greater than 15%. § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦91 § ¨ ¦91 § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦395 ” )2 ” )9 ” )15 ” )15 ” )8 ” )44 CONNEC TICU T Figure 2-1: Naugatuck Location Map § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 ” )42 ” )188 ” )68 ” )70 ” )67 ” )63 ” )8 ” )188 ” )262 ” )322 ” )73 ” )61 ” )42 ” )109 ” )70 ” )10 ” )188 ” )68 ” )64 ” )172 ” )69 ” )67 £ ¤6 ” )8 ” )47 ” )63 ” )69 § ¨ ¦84 ” )132 ” )317 ” )222 ” )254 £ ¤6 Newtown Bristol Hamden Litchfield Morris Roxbury Bethany Southington Plymouth Washington Monroe Seymour Woodbridge North Haven Harwinton Burlington Farmington Plainville Warren Shelton Ansonia Wallingford Derby Meriden New Haven Bridgewater East Haven COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² 024 Miles Figure 2-2: Naugatuck in the CNVR M i d d l e b u r yM i d d l e b u r y W a t e r b u r yW a t e r b u r y W o l c o t tW o l c o t t O x f o r dO x f o r d B e a c o nF a l l s B e a c o nF a l l s S o u t h b u r yS o u t h b u r y W o o d b u r yW o o d b u r y B e t h l e h e mB e t h l e h e m W a t e r t o w nW a t e r t o w n T h o m a s t o nT h o m a s t o n N a u g a t u c kN a u g a t u c k P r o s p e c tP r o s p e c t C h e s h i r eC h e s h i r e Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Naugatuck CNVR For general planning purposes on ly. Delin eations may not be ex act. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 200 8 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, DEP Septemb er 200 8 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-4 2.2 Existing Land Use The Borough of Naugatuck encompasses 16.4 square miles. Table 2-1 provides a summary of land use in Naugatuck by area. In addition, refer to Figure 2-3 for a map of generalized land use provided by the COGCNV. Table 2-1 Land Use by Area Land Use Area (acres) Pct. Vacant 3,990 38% Residential – Low Density 2,088 20% Residential – Medium Density 1,563 15% Recreational 1,090 10% Industrial 486 5% Agricultural 2602% Commercial 233 2% Residential – High Density 2152% Utilities/Transportation 187 2% Institutional 1792% Mining 1221% Water 107 1% Total 10,520 100% Source: Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley, 2000 Naugatuck is characterized by its hills and st eep slopes, which limit development in much of the Borough. Naugatuck features a linea r commercial & institutional district along Route 63, the Naugatuck River and Route 8, extending from Route 68 in the north to Cherry Street in the south. To the east a nd west of this district are medium density residential neighborhoods. Furt her to the east and west, low density residential areas are interspersed with agricultural areas. Some isolated high density residential areas are dispersed throughout the Borough. 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not b e exact. September 2008 Figure 2-3: Naugatuck Generalized Land Use Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads AG Agriculture CF Institutional CM Commercial IN Industrial RL Residential – Low Density less than 2 dewlling units per acre RM Residential – Medium Density 2-8 dwelling units per acre RH Residential – High Density 8 or more dwelling units per acre RX Resource Extraction TU Transportation & Utilities UL Undeveloped Land W Water RC Recreational Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, R el. 04 /08. “Town Boundary”, DE P “Land Us e”, COGCNV 2000 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-6 Bedrock Geology Connecticut bedrock geology is comprised of several “terranes.” Terranes are geologic regions that reflect the role of plate tectonics in Connecticut’s natural history. A large industrial park is lo cated in the northeast corner of Naugatuck to the north of Route 68. A large area at the southern borde r of the Borough is protected open space. Nearly 30% of land in Naugatuck is classifi ed as open space, with roughly half of this area permanently protected, including State Fore st, and the other half consisting of water company land and others types of open space. There is a general lack of open space along watercourses such as Fulling Mill Brook, Cold Spring Brook, Beacon Hill Brook, and Long Meadow Pond Brook. However, stee p slopes along the watercourses tend to limit some development. 2.3 Geology Geology is important to the occurrence and re lative effects of natural hazards such as earthquakes. Thus, it is important to unders tand the geologic setting and variation of bedrock and surficial formations in Nauga tuck. The following discussion highlights Naugatuck’s geology at several regional scales. Geologic information discussed in the following section was acquired from GIS av ailable from the Connecticut DEP. In terms of North American bedrock geology, the Borough of Naugatuck is located in the northeastern part of the Appalachian Orogenic Belt, al so known as the Appalachian Highlands. The Appalachian Highlands extend from Maine south into Mississippi and Alabama and were formed during the oroge ny that occurred when the super-continent Pangea assembled during the late Paleozoic era. The region is generally characterized by deformed sedimentary rocks cut through by numerous thrust faults. Regionally, in terms of New England bedr ock geology the Borough of Naugatuck lies primarily within the Eugeosyncline Sequence. Bedrock belonging to the Eugeosyncline NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-7 Sequence are typically deformed, metamorphosed, and intruded by small to large igneous plutons. The bedrock beneath the Borough of Naugatuck is almost entirely part of the Iapetos Terrane, comprised of remnants of the Iape tos Ocean that existed before Pangaea was formed. This terrane formed when Pangaea was consolidated and its boundaries are generally coincident with the Eugeosynclin e Sequence geologic province described above. The remaining bedrock in the Borough is related to the Iape tos Terrane. It is associated with the Proto-North American (Continental) Terrane / Taconic Allochthons and is known as “Displaced Iapetos Terrane.” The Borough of Naugatuck’s bedrock consists primarily of metasedimentary and metaigneous schists and secondarily of metamorphic amphibolite and granofels, and metasedimentary and metaigneous gneisses wi thin the Iapetos Terrane. The bedrock alignment trends generally southeast to nor thwest in the Borough, although regionally the bedrock formations appear to ring about Naugatuck while fa ult lines trend southwest to northeast. Refer to Figure 2-4 for a depict ion of the bedrock geology in the Borough of Naugatuck. The three primary bedrock formations in the Borough (from north to south) are Waterbury Gneiss, Taine Mountain and Collinsville Formation (undivided), and The Straits Schist. In addition, there is a small ar ea of Ultramafic Rock in the northern part of the Borough. Bedrock outcrops are prevalen t in Naugatuck, and are often be found at higher elevations and on hilltops. The primar y bedrock formations are described in more detail below: ‰ Waterbury Gneiss consists of gray to dark -gray fine to medium-grained schist and gneiss. Cwb DSt Ot+Oc DSt DSt u Figure 2-4: Naugatuck Bedrock Geology 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads ” )63 ” )68 Cwb DSt Ot+Oc u Bedrock Waterbury Gneiss Taine Mtn and Collinsville Formation Straits Schist Ultramafic Rock Source: “Ro ads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04 /08. “Town Boundary”, “B edrock”, DEP For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not b e exact. September 2008 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-9 ‰ The Taine Mountain and Collinsville Formation (undivided) consists of gray, medium grained, well-laminated granofels with gray and silvery, medium- to coarse-grained schist and dark, fine- to medium-gra ined amphibolite and hornblende gneiss. ‰ The Straits Schist is a silver to gray coarse-grained schist. One unnamed fault is located in Naugatuck in the far southeast corner of the Borough. The fault divides an area of the Straits Schist and forms a portion of the boundary between the Straits Schist and the Taine Mount ain and Collinsville Formation in this area of the Borough. This small fault runs sout hwest to northeast, eventually joining the Western Border Fault in Southington. Th e Western Border Fault is a large fault extending along the western edge of the Meso zoic Basin and stretches from Milford northwards into Massachusetts. None of these faults are active. At least twice in the late Pleistocene, con tinental ice sheets moved across Connecticut. As a result, surficial geology of the Bor ough is characteristic of the depositional environments that occurred during glacial a nd postglacial periods. Refer to Figure 2-5 for a depiction of surficial geology. Much of the Borough is covered by glacial till. Tills contain an unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders deposited by glaciers as a ground moraine. This area includes nearly all of Naugatuck with the ex ception of the river valleys associated with the Naugatuck River and its tributary streams. Stratified sand and gravel (“stratified drift”) areas are associated with the Na ugatuck River, Long Meadow Pond Brook, Hop Brook, Fulling Mill Brook, and Hollow Brook and their tributaries. These deposits accumulated by glacial meltwater streams duri ng the outwash period following the latest glacial recession. T T T SG TT T SG/S T T SG/S SG T TT SG TT T TT TT TT G/S TT SG/S TT A/S T SG SG SG/S SG W A/S SG/S G SG A/S G A/S SW A/SG SG SG A/S SW SG W SG A/SG T SG SG/S SG SG W A/SG A/SG T SG A/S A/SG G G A/SG SG SG SG TT A/SG A/SG Figure 2-5: Naugatuck Surficial Geology 0 0.5 1Mile s COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 Surficial Materials Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not b e exact. Source: “Ro ads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04 /08. “Town Boundary”, “S urficial Materials”, DE P September 2008 ” )63 ” )68 Till Thick Till Sand and Gravel Alluvium OverlyingSand and Gravel Gravel Overlying Sand Sand and GravelOverlying Sand Alluvium Overlying Sand Water Swamp Gravel A/S A/SG G G/S SG SG/S SW T TT W NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-11 The amount of stratified drift present in the Borough is important for several reasons: ‰ First, thicker sequences of the stratified drift are currently used by the Connecticut Water Company to provide drinking water and fire protection water via wells. ‰ Second, with regard to flooding, areas of stra tified materials are generally coincident with inland floodplains. This is because these materials were deposited at lower elevations by glacial streams, and these valleys later were inherited by the larger of our present-day streams and rivers. However, smaller glacial till watercourses can also cause flooding, though flooding on such watercourses is rare in Naugatuck. ‰ Finally, the amount of stratified drift also has bearing on the relative intensity of earthquakes and the likelihood of soil subsidence in areas of fill. These topics will be discussed in later sections. In terms of soil types, approximately 58% of the Borough falls within the Charlton- Chatfield complex, Paxton and Montauk fine sandy loams, Udorthents-Urban land complex, Hinckley Gravelly sandy loam, Woodbridge fine sandy loam, and Hollis- Chatfield rock outcrop co mplex (Table 2-2). The following soil descriptions are taken in part from the official series descriptions from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) website. ‰ The Charlton-Chatfield complex consists of moderately deep to deep, well-drained, and somewhat excessively drained soils formed in glacial till. They are very nearly level to very steep soils on gl aciated plains, hills, and ridges. The soil is often stony or very stony. Slope ranges from three to fo rty-five percent. Crystalline bedrock is at depths of 20 to 40 inches. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-12 Table 2-2 Soils by Taxonomic Class Soil Type Area (acres) Pct. Charlton-Chatfield complex 2,172 20.6 Paxton and Montauk fine sandy loams 1,400 13.3 Udorthents-Urban land complex 949 9.0 Hinckley gravelly sandy loam 890 8.5 Woodbridge fine sandy loam 684 6.5 Hollis-Chatfield Rock outcrop complex 572 5.4 Canton and Charlton soils 491 4.7 Ridgebury, Leicester, and Whitman soils 426 4.1 Paxton-Urban land complex 330 3.1 Agawam Fine Sandy Loam 268 2.6 Charlton-Urban land complex 238 2.3 Urban land 240 2.3 Urban land-Charlton Chatfield complex 229 2.2 Hinckley-Urban land complex 220 2.1 Sutton fine sandy loam 216 2.0 Water 119 1.1 Other (18 types) 1,076 10.2 Total 10,520 100.0% Source: 2005 Soil Survey Geog raphic (SSURGO) database for the State of Connecticut ‰ The Paxton and Montauk series consists of very deep, well-drained loamy soils formed in lodgment till derived primarily fr om granitic materials. The soils are very deep to bedrock and moderately deep to a de nsic contact. They are nearly level to steep soils on upland till plains, hills, moraines, and drumlins. Slope ranges from 0 to forty-five percent. ‰ The Udorthents-Urban land complex cons ists of moderately well drained to excessively drained soils that have been di sturbed by cuffing or filling, and areas that are covered by buildings and pavement. The ar eas are mostly larger than five acres. The complex is about 70 percent Udorthen ts, 20 percent Urban land, and 10 percent other soils. Udorthents are in areas that have been cut to a depth of two feet or more or are on areas with more than two feet of fill. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-13 The continued increase in precipitation only heightens the need for hazard mitigation planning, as the occurrence of floods may change in accordance with the greater precipitation. ‰ Hinckley Gravelly sand loam consists of ve ry deep, excessively drained soils formed in water-sorted material. They are near ly level to very steep soils on terraces, outwash plains, deltas, kames, and eskers. Slope ranges from 0 to 60 percent. ‰ Woodbridge fine sandy loam consists of moderately well drained loamy soils formed in subglacial till. They are very deep to bedrock and moderately deep to a densic contact. They are nearly level to modera tely steep soils on till plains, hills, and drumlins. Slope ranges from 0 to 25 percen t. Depth to bedrock is commonly more than six feet. ‰ The Hollis-Chatfield rock outcrop complex consists of shallow, well-drained and somewhat excessively drained soils formed in a thin mantle of till derived mainly from gneiss, schist, and granite. They are nearly level to very steep upland soils on bedrock-controlled hills and ri dges. Slope ranges from three to forty-five percent. Depth to bedrock ranges from ten to 40 inches with outcrops present. The remainder of the Borough has soil types of consisting primarily of various fine to gravelly sandy loams, wetla nd soils, and urban land. 2.4 Climate Naugatuck has an agreeable climate, characterized by moderate but distinct seasons. The average mean temperature is approximately 48 degrees, with summer temperatures in the mid-80s and winter temperatures in the upper 20’s to mid-30s, Fahrenheit. Extreme conditions raise summe r temperatures to near 100 degrees and winter temperatures to below zero. Median snowfall is just over 30 inches per year as NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-14 measured at the Mount Carmel weather station in Hamden (NCDC, 2007). Median annual precipitation is 44 inches, spread evenly over the course of a year. By comparison, average annual st ate-wide precipitation based on more than 100 years of record is nearly the same, at 45 inches. However, average annual precipitation in Connecticut has been increasing by 0.95 in ches per decade since the end of the 19 th century (Miller et. al., 2002; NCDC, 2005). Likewise, total annual precipitation in the Borough has increased over time. 2.5 Drainage Basins and Hydrology The Borough of Naugatuck drains to six major watersheds corresponding to the Naugatuck River, Hop Brook, Long Meadow Pond Brook, Fulling Mill Brook, Beacon Hill Brook, and Little River. These are described below. Various ponds and streams are found within both the eastern and western se ctions of the Borough, which is divided by the southward-flowing Naugatuck River. All of the watersheds in Naugatuck are part of the regional Naugatuck River basin that ultimat ely discharges into the Housatonic River. The drainage basins are described below, and summarized in Table 2-3. Table 2-3 Drainage Basins Drainage Basin Area (sq. mi) Percent of Borough Naugatuck River 5.96 36.2% Long Meadow Pond Brook 3.26 19.9% Fulling Mill Brook 2.96 18.0% Beacon Hill Brook 2.65 16.1% Hop Brook 1.60 9.7% Little River 0.01 0.1% Total 16.44 100.0% Source: Drainage Basins, 2008 CT DEP GIS Data for Connecticut NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-15 Naugatuck River The Naugatuck River originates near the C ity of Torrington and flows south almost 40 miles to meet the Housatonic River in the C ity of Derby, giving it a total basin area of 311 square miles. It is the only major river in Connecticut whose headwaters are within the boundaries of the state. The Naugatuck Ri ver is well-known for its rich industrial history and the many defunct dams a ssociated with these industries. All of the land in Naugatuck eventually drains into the Naugatuck River, but only 5.96 square miles (sq. mi) or 36.2% of the land area drai ns directly into the river. This area is comprised of a north-south corridor that passes through the center of the Borough. The Naugatuck River also makes up a portion of the Borough’s southern boundary. The river is joined by a number of tributaries as it flows through the Borough, including Long Meadow Pond Brook, Hop Brook, Fulling Mill Brook, Cold Spring Brook, and several unnamed streams. Egypt Brook and L ittle River drain through portions of the Borough before their confluence with the Na ugatuck River downstream of Naugatuck, and Spruce Brook and Beacon Hill Brook join the Naugatuck River at the boundary between Naugatuck and Beacon Falls. Much of the land surrounding the Naugatuck River is urbanized, however there are large areas in the watershed that are undeveloped, such as the area near Spruce Brook which flows through the Naugatuck State Forest in the southwest section of the watershed. Long Meadow Pond Brook Long Meadow Pond Brook drains 3.26 sq. mi. of land in the eastern section of the Borough (19.9% of Naugatuck’s total land area). Its headwaters are located in Lake Elise in western Middlebury. From the lake, Long Meadow Pond Brook flows southward into Long Meadow Pond, a body of water with a su rface area of approximately 100 acres. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-16 Long Meadow Pond Brook continues to meander eastward through the Town of Oxford into Naugatuck, collecting a number of unnamed tributaries before passing underneath a downtown factory and falling into the Naugatuck River. Development in the watershed is concentrated in the lower reaches. Two dams lie along its reach in Naugatuck, impounding the Armory Pond and the Naugatuck Ice Company Pond. Fulling Mill Brook Fulling Mill Brook drains 2.96 s quare miles of land (18.0% of the Borough’s land area) in the northeastern corner of Naugatuck. It ha s its headwaters in central Prospect near Brewster Pond. The Brook begins at the west edge of Brew ster Pond at the Salem Road Pond Dam, and flows westward and northward across Prospect into Beer Pond. After passing through Beer Pond, the brook fl ows westward into Naugatuck. Once entering Naugatuck, the Brook joins an unnamed tributary that drains Schildgen Pond, and Cold Spring Brook in the vicinity of City Hill Road and North Main Street before flowing into the Naugatuck River. In total, the Fulling Mill Brook drainage basin covers 5.38 square miles in Nauga tuck, Prospect, and Waterbury. Beacon Hill Brook Beacon Hill Brook forms the Borough’s south eastern boundary with the Town of Beacon Falls. The brook drains a total of 2.65 square miles of land within Naugatuck (16.1% of the Borough’s land area) in the so utheastern section of the Borough. Beacon Hill Brook has its headwaters near th e Bethany-Prospect Town line along State Route 69. It drains southwest into Betha ny, entering the Long Hill Reservoir. Beacon Hill Brook flows west out of the reservoir through southeastern Naugatuck towards Straitsville. It is joined by Marks Brook west of Horton Hill Road and by Straitsville NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-17 Brook near Beacon Valley Road. The brook then begins to form the boundary between Beacon Falls and Naugatuck, eventually passing under Route 8 and reaching its confluence with the Naugatuck River. In total, Beacon Hill Brook drains 10.22 square miles of land across Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Bethany and Prospect. Hop Brook Hop Brook drains 1.60 square miles of land in the northwestern section of Naugatuck (approximately 9.7% of the Borough’s total land area). It originates in northwestern Middlebury and flows through parts of Watertown and Middlebury before joining the Naugatuck River in Naugatuck near the inters ection of Church Street and Bridge Street. The largest body of water that Hop Brook passes through is Hop Brook Lake, a flood control reservoir located on th e border between Waterbury and Middlebury, just to the north of Naugatuck. In addition to a number of unnamed tribut aries, there are several smaller named tributaries that flow into Hop Brook, including Goat Brook, Long Swamp Brook, and Welton Brook in Middlebury, and Pigeon Brook in Naugatuck. In total, Hop Brook drains 17.40 square miles of land located within the municipalities of Naugatuck, Waterbury, Middlebury, Watertown and Woodbury. Little River A small portion in the southwestern corner of Naugatuck (0.01 sq. mi. or 0.1% of the Borough’s land area) drains to the southwest into the Little River watershed. The Little River originates in western Oxford and flows generally south-southeast towards Seymour. It is joined by se veral unnamed tributaries and larger tributaries including Jacks Brook and Towantic Brook before its confluence with the Naugatuck River near Route 67 in Seymour. In total, the Little River watershed drains 15.50 square miles of land in Seymour, Beacon Falls, Oxford, Middlebury and Naugatuck. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-18 2.6 Population and Demographic Setting The total CNV Region estimated 2005 populatio n is 281,895 persons. The total land area is 309 square miles, for a regional populati on density of 912 persons per square mile. Naugatuck has a population density of 374 individuals per square mile. By comparison, Waterbury has the highest population density in the region with 3,757 individuals per square mile; Bethlehem has the lowest population density in the region with 185 individuals per square mile (Table 2-4). Table 2-4 Population Density by Municipalit y, Region and State, 2005 Municipality Total Population Land Area (square miles) Population Density Beacon Falls 5,700 9.77 583 Bethlehem 3,577 19.36 185 Cheshire 28,833 32.90 876 Middlebury 7,132 17.75 402 Naugatuck 31,872 16.39 1,945 Oxford 12,309 32.88 374 Prospect 9,264 14.32 647 Southbury 19,686 39.05 504 Thomaston 7,916 12.01 659 Waterbury 107,251 28.55 3,757 Watertown 22,329 29.15 766 Wolcott 16,269 20.43 796 Woodbury 9,757 36.46 268 CNV Region 281,895 309.02 912 Connecticut 3,495,753 4844.80 722 Source: United States Census Bureau, 2005 Population Estimates Naugatuck is 30 th out of 169 municipalities in Connecticut in terms of population, with an estimated population of 31,872 in 2006. The Borough is the 22 nd most densely populated municipality in the state. The population of Naugatuck increased by 18% between 1960 and 1970, by 15% between 1970 and 1980, and by 16% between 1980 and 1990. These three decades were representative of the last true development surge in recent history., as growth then dropped to 1% from 199 0-2000. Growth from 2000 through 2006 was approximately 3%. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-19 Based on analysis by the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley in its 2008 Regional Plan, population in the region outside of Waterbury is estimated to grow about 10% from 2005 to 2025, while the state of Connecticut is expected to grow about 5% during this same timeframe. The Conn ecticut Office of Policy and Management estimates population growth in Naugatuck fr om 2005 to 2020 to be about 7%. According the Connecticut Economic Resource Center, th e median sales price of owner-occupied housing in the Borough of Naugatuck in 2006 was $233,580, which is sligh tly lower than the statewide median sales price of $275,000. Naugatuck has populations of people who are elderly, linguistically isolated, and/or disabled. These are depicted by the five cen sus blocks in Naugatuck on Figures 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, and 2-9. The populations with these characteristics have numerous implications for hazard mitigation, as they may require sp ecial assistance or different means of notification before disasters o ccur. These will be addressed as needed in subsequent sections. 2.7 Governmental Structure The Borough of Naugatuck is governed by a Mayor-Council form of government in which legislative responsibilities are the re sponsibility of the Council members (known as Burgesses) and the Mayor serves as the ch ief executive. In addition to the Burgesses, there are boards, commissions and committees providing input and direction to Borough administrators. Also, Borough departments pr ovide municipal services and day-to-day administration. Many of these commissions and departments play a role in hazard mitigation, including the Planning Commission, the Zoning Commission, the Conservation Commission, the Inland Wetland Commission, the Emergency Management Department, the Building Inspector, the Fire Department, the Police Department, and the Public Works/Streets Department. 130 165 321 183 148 183 71 288 145 198 169 171 331 270 141 119 396 50 66 88 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not b e exact. September 2008 Figure 2-6: Naugatuck Elderly Population Legend Major Roads Percent age of P er sons Aged 65 or ol der Bloc k Group Boun dary Tow n Boun dary 30.1 – 1 00% 20.1 – 3 0.0% 10.1 – 2 0.0% 0.0 – 10 .0 % * Numbers on map represent total population aged 65 or older in each block group Source: “Roads”, c 1984 – 2008 Tele A tlas, Rel. 04/08. “T own Bo undary”, DEP “A ge”, “Block Groups”, 20 00 Census 0 9 34 36 8 22 16 7 15 5 18 47 41 19 14 18 16 0 17 20 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not b e exact. September 2008 * Numbers on map represent total households that are linguistically isolated in each block group Data based on block gro up geography . A linguistica lly iso lated house hold is one in which no memb er 14 years o ld and over (1) spea ks o nly English or (2) sp eaks a no n-English la nguage and speaks E nglish “v ery well.” In other words, al l members 14 years ol d and over hav e at le ast some difficulty with Eng lish. Legend Tow n Bo und ary Major Roads Block Gr oup Bound ary Perc en tage of Ho useh olds Linguistica lly Iso lated 0.0 – 4.9 % 5.0 – 9.9 % 10.0 – 14.9 % greater than 15% Source: “Roa ds”, c1984 – 2008 T ele Atlas, R el. 04/08. “T own Bound ary”, DEP “Ling uistically Isolated”, “Block Groups”, 20 00 Censu s Figure 2-7: Naugatuck Linguistically Isolated Households 382 694 638 453 482 883 851 183 505 669 272 543 236 703 136 316 690 207 266 170 Figure 2-8: Naugatuck Disabilities Map 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not b e exact. September 2008 Major Roads Bloc k Grou p Bound ary Town B oundar y Legend Total Disabilities Tallied of People Aged 5 and Older > 600 0 – 200 201 – 400 401 – 600 Disabilities are categorized as sensory, physical, mental, self-care, go-outside-home, and employment * Numbers on map represent total disabilities tallied for people aged 5 or older in each block group Source: “Roads”, c 1984 – 2008 Tele A tlas, Rel. 04/08. “T own Bo undary”, DEP “Dis ability”, “Bl ock Group s”, 2000 Ce nsus NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-23 The Department of Public Works is the principal municipal department that responds to problems caused by natural hazards. Complaints related to Borough maintenance issues are routed to the Department of Public Works. These complaints are usually received via phone, fax, mail, or email and are recorded in a book. The complaints are investigated as necessary until remediation surrounding the individual complaint is concluded. 2.8 Development Trends Naugatuck was settled in 1701 but the Bo rough was not incorporated until 1844. The settlement was agrarian in its origins, but as time passed industry developed using the Naugatuck River as a power source. Initial industries included woolen mills and metal factories. Several landmarks in Naugatuck are representa tive of its prominent historic industry. Naugatuck was the site of the invention of vulcanized rubber by Charles Goodyear in the mid-1800s. As a result, Naugatuck led in th e manufacturing of rubber-soled shoes, tires and other rubber-based products. The Unite d States Rubber Company, later known as Uniroyal, was founded in 1892; the headquarters was relocated in the 1980s. The organization manufactured Keds shoes and the artificial leather known as Naugahyde. Another landmark, the Peter Paul Company, ma nufactured candy bars at a large factory on Route 63 starting in 1922 until the facility was closed in 2007. The Borough has developed zoning and subdivision regulations that have general implications regarding hazard mitigation. For example, cul-de-sacs in new developments are discouraged and connectivity of roads is encouraged. Specifically, the Borough requires a 50-foot right of way for local resi dential streets with a turnaround located at the end of dead end streets. Cul-de-sacs can have no more than 20 homes or can be no longer than 1,000 feet, whichever constraint is more stringent. Subdivisions featuring cul-de-sacs offer a single acces s point for emergency services, lengthening emergency NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-24 response times and rendering those residential areas vulnerable if access is cut off by flooding or downed tree limbs. The Borough of Naugatuck retained a consultant to review Zoning and Subdivision Regulations in 2008. The review was completed in November 2008. Most of the recommendations are related to incorporating elements of low impact development into the regulations, especially with regard to st ormwater management. In some cases, this may result in modifications to roadway and cu l-de-sac widths and dimensions. However, the recommendations provide for emergency service officials to continue reviewing development plans in order to ensure that any reductions in paved surface areas will not impair the ability to respond to emergencies. The Naugatuck Subdivision Regulations require that utilities serving new developments must be installed underground wherever possibl e. Exceptions due to shallow bedrock are granted on a case-by-case basis. Public water supply is available th roughout the majority of Naugatuck and connectivity is recomme nded for new developments. Where public water supply is unavailable, 25,000-gallon cist erns are required for fire protection. Residential Development Conventional subdivision applications have ta pered off since booming in the late 1980’s. In the 1990’s, the average number of housing units approved in Naugatuck was about 95 per year. There are a number of residen tial developments under construction or being planned for the Borough, as follows: ‰ Approved Developments: Ö A 264 home subdivision locat ed near Hunters Mountain with connections to Andrews Mountain Road and Hunters Mountain Road. The stream corridor within the property has an a ssociated 500-year floodplain. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-25 Ö A development of 30 condominiums off Route 63 (New Haven Road) known as “Springbrook.” Ö A development of 30 homes off Maple Hill Road in the eastern part of the Borough. Ö A 95 home development located off of Maple Hill Road, between Mulberry Street and Victoria Lane. The stream corridor within the property has an associated 500-year floodplain. Ö The development of 150 homes between Candee Road and Osborn Road with connections to Candee Road and Osborn Road. Ö 20 single-family units located along R oute 63 (Church Street) near Hop Brook and Mill Street, adjacent to the 500-year floodplain of Pigeon Brook. Ö 15 single-family units situated around Ba rbers Pond off King Street, adjacent to the 500-year floodplain of Pigeon Brook and Barbers Pond. ‰ Potential Developments: Ö A development of 85 single-family units is planned between Andrews Mountain Road and Guntown Road close to Long Meadow Pond Brook. The stream corridors within the property have associated 500-year floodplains. Ö There is a proposed Senior Housing de velopment located near Spring Street. Ö Renaissance Place is a $707 million public/p rivate, transit-oriented development to be located on 60 acres fronting the Na ugatuck River. This is the first development of its kind being designed to have a carbon neutral footprint. Much of this area is within the 500-year flo odplain of the flood-controlled river. Flood control along the Naugatuck River is disc ussed in more detail in Section 3.0. Commercial and Industrial Development and Open Space Based on the Borough’s 2001 Plan of Conser vation and Development, a primary objective in Naugatuck is to protect na tural and physical resources. Specific NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-26 recommendations to achieve this goal include efforts to increase open space acquisition. Nevertheless, the Borough is also interest ed in development and redevelopment as needed to ensure economic growth. Potential industrial or commercial developments in the Borough include the following: ‰ The sprawling Uniroyal industria l property is planned to be redeveloped at some time in the future. ‰ Additional commercial development along R oute 63 (New Haven Road) is planned in the Straitsville section of Naugatuck. ‰ The Peter Paul Company’s candy factory cl osed in 2007, and it is hoped that this property will be redeveloped. 2.9 Critical Facilities and Sheltering Capacity The Borough considers its police, fire, govern mental, service and major transportation facilities to be its most important critical f acilities, for these are needed to ensure that emergencies are addressed while day-to-day management of Naugatuck continues. Educational institutions are incl uded in critical facilities as well, as these can be used as shelters. In addition, Borough personnel consider public and private water, sewer, electric, and communication utilities to be critical facilities. A map of critical facilities is shown in Figur e 2-9, and the associated list of critical facilities is provided in Table 2-5. Shelters, transportati on, communications, and utilities are described in more detail below, along with a summary of the potential for these facilities to be impact ed by natural hazards. 9 a © © ª 9: ¨ nn n n n n n n n n n Figure 2-9: Naugatuck Critical Facilities 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 City Hill Middle School Maple HillSchool Central Avenue School Cross StSchool Andrew Avenue School Naugatuck High School Western School Salem School Prospect Street School Hillside Middle School Public Works/Ambulance Services Fire Dept Town Hall Police Dept Hop Brook School For gen eral pla nning purpos es only . Delin eations may n ot be e xact. Source : “R oads”, c198 4 – 200 8 Tele Atlas, R el. 04/ 08. “To wn Bou ndary”, DE P “Fa cilities”, Na ugatuc k Octobe r 2008 Z CL&P Substation 374 Senior Center Æ V Food Bank Legend Major Roads Local Roads Town Boundary Eastside Fire Station Algonquin Gas Pipeline 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations Water Streams Schools n Public Works 9: ¨ ª Ambulance Services Z CL&P Substation 374Æ V Senior Center Ecumenical Food Bank Gas Pipeline NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-28 Table 2-5 Critical Facilities in Naugatuck Type Name Address Located in Floodplain? Municipal Offices Borough of Naugatuck Offices 229 Church Street 500-year Police Station Borough of Naugatuck Police Department 211 Spring Street No Fire Department Naugatuck Fire Headquarters 41 Maple Street 500-year Fire Department Eastside Fire Station Intersection of May Street & Osborn Road No EMT – Ambulance Borough of Naugatuck Ambulance Services 246 Rubber Avenue No Public Works Borough of Naugatuck Public Works Department 246 Rubber Avenue No Utility – Sewer Wastewater Treatment Plant 500 Cherry Street 500-year Utility – Water Connecticut Water Company (Infrastructure) Some Utility – Phone Southern New England Telephone (Infrastructure) Some Utility – Electric Connecticut Light & Power South Naugatuck Substation Cherry Street 500-year Utility – Gas Algonquin Gas Pipeline Northern Naugatuck Some Senior Center Naugatuck Senior Center 300 Meadow Street No Food Bank Ecumenical Food Bank 75 Spring Street 500-year School Borough of Naugatuck High School 543 Rubber Avenue No School City Hill Middle School 441 City Hill Street No School Hillside Middle School 51 Hillside Avenue No School Cross Street Intermediate School 120 Cross Street No School Hop Brook Intermediate Sc hool 75 Crown Street 500-year School Andrew Avenue Elementary School 140 Andrew Avenue No School Central Avenue Elementary School 28 Central Avenue No School Maple Hill Elementary School 641 Maple Hill Road No School Prospect Elementary School 100 Prospect Street No School Salem Elementary School 124 Meadow Street No School Western Elementary School 100 Pine Street No Source: Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley; Borough of Naugatuck Shelters Emergency shelters are considered to be an im portant subset of critical facilities, as they are needed in most emergency situations. The Borough of Naugatuck has designated the local schools as shelters, but none of the st ructures have emergency generators. Hop NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-29 Brook Intermediate School is the only designated shelter located in the 500-year floodplain, and therefore could not be used in the event of an extreme flood. City Hill School and Naugatuck High School are curre ntly designated as emergency supply distribution points. The specific location(s) used as shelters during an event depends on the nature and extent of the incident. The Borough currently does not have the capacity to shelter 10% of its population due to lack of trained staff to operate shelters. The Borough currently recommends that people shelter in place unless relocation is necessary due to an imminent threat, such as severe flooding. If there is a single sh elter open for a local event, the Borough would rely on volunteers from the American Red Cross to staff the shelter. Some of the local emergency volunteers have received shelter training. If th e event requires several shelters, especially if the affected area extends beyond Naugatu ck, the Borough would not have enough staff on hand to maintain the shelters. Regiona lly-located mass care facilities operated and paid for by the American Red Cross may be available during recovery operations when additional sheltering services are necessary. The Naugatuck Emergency Management Advisory Council plans on addressing sheltering issues in 2009. In case of a power outag e, it is anticipated that 10-20% of the population would relocate, although not all of those relocating would necessarily utilize the shelte r facilities. While the Borough has no elderly housing facilities , The Borough Emergency Operations Plan includes a list of addresses of special needs persons that would require special assistance during an emergency. In addition, the Borough realizes that the influx of active adult housing in Borough is increasing the amount of population that requires more assistance during emergencies, and plan s to account for these populatio ns in its emergency plan updates. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-30 Transportation The Borough of Naugatuck does not have any hospitals or medical centers. Instead, residents use the nearby facilities in Der by and Waterbury. As a means of accessing these facilities, Naugatuck has convenient access on Route 8 that functions as the major transportation artery. Naugatuck’s full-ti me ambulance corps staffs the ambulance service to these hospitals. If paramedics are needed, they are called in from Waterbury. Evacuation routes are regionally defined by the Regional Evacuation Plan. No formal local evacuation plan exists. Route 8, whic h runs north-south through central Naugatuck, provides access to Waterbury and Interstate 84 to the north and Bridgeport and Route 15 and Interstate 95 to the south. State Route 68 also runs from Prospect in the east and merges with State Route 63 in the center of the Borough. South Main Street (Route 63) is also an evacuation route into the Town of Bethany. Communications The primary answering point for emergency calls is the Police Department on Spring Street. The Borough also uses enhanced 9-1-1 service through the Northwest Connecticut Public Safety Co mmunication Center, Inc. to facilitate ambulance dispatch. Borough personnel supplement 9-1-1 service w ith radios. The Borough uses phone lines to enhance their radio communi cations. If phone service is cut off, Borough personnel rely on low-band radios and cellular communi cations. The Borough has also recently contracted with Emergency Communications Network, Inc. to provide “CodeRED” high- speed telephone emergency notif ication services. The CodeRED system is capable of telephoning warnings into areas likely to be impacted by a disaster, or into the entire Borough, at a rate of 60,000 calls per minute. The Borough of Naugatuck is in the southeas t portion of Region 5 of the Connecticut Emergency Medical Service regions. The Bo rough dispatch center has a high band radio NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-31 compatible with Region 5, which contains most of the COGCNV municipalities. Thus, it is important that Naugatuck maintain emergency notification systems compatible with those of Region 5, which contains most of the COGCNV municipalities. The Borough’s enhanced 9-1-1 service is alre ady compatible with much of Region 5, and Region 2 to the south. As development continues in the eastern portion of Borough, it is also important for Naugatuck ‘s system to be compatible with Prospect’s (also Region 2) to the east. The Borough also has mutual aid agreemen ts with all neighboring communities. Utilities Water service is a critical component of hazard mitigation, especially in regards to fighting wildfires. It is also necessary for everyday residential, commercial, and industrial use. The Connecticut Water Comp any provides potable and fire fighting water to the majority of the Borough. The Fire De partment uses alternative water supplies to fight fires in the less developed areas of Naugatuck, including fire ponds and underground water tanks, and brings as much water in its tankers as possible to these fires. This is discus sed further in Section 9.0. Sewer service is an often overlooked critic al facility. The Naugatuck Wastewater Treatment Plant is located at the south end of Cherry Street and serves most of the developed area of Naugatuck. Other utilities important enough to be considered critical facilities include the electric substation on Cherry Street, the Algonquin Gas Pipeline that traverses northern Naugatuck, and the electr ic and telephone lines in the Borough. Gas and electricity are important for both day-to -day living and emergency usage, and the telephone is used to complement em ergency communications in the Borough. Potential Impacts from Natural Hazards Critical facilities are not regularly impacted by flooding in the Borough of Naugatuck, despite several critical facilities being located in the 500-year floodplain. Major NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 2-32 transportation arteries, such as State roads, are largely unaffected by flooding, and the emphasis on creating through streets has provided multiple modes of egress to the majority of neighborhoods in Naugatuck. No critical facilities are pa rticularly susceptible to wind, summer storms, winter storms, or earthquakes more than the rest of the Borough. However, the Public Works Department, Ambulance Services, Fire Depa rtment, Borough Offices, South Naugatuck CL&P Substation, and Hop Brook School are all located within a mapped dam failure inundation area, and Maple Hill School is locat ed on the edge of a wildfire risk area. Subsequent sections will discu ss each natural hazard in detail and include a description of populations at-risk. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-1 3.0 INLAND FLOODING 3.1 Setting According to FEMA, most municipalities in th e United States have at least one clearly recognizable flood-prone area around a river, stream, or large body of water. These areas are outlined as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SF HA) and delineated as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Flood- prone areas are addressed through a combination of floodplain management criteri a, ordinances, and community assistance programs sponsored by the NFIP and individual municipalities. Many communities also have localized floodi ng areas outside of SFHAs. These floods tend to be shallower and chronically reoccur in the same area due to a combination of factors. Such factors include ponding, poor drainage, inadequate storm sewers, clogged culverts or catch basins, sheet flow, obstr ucted drainageways, sewer backup, or overbank flooding from small streams. In general, flooding affects small areas within of Naugatuck with moderate to frequent regularity. Areas impacted by overflow of the Naugatuck River and major watercourses are generally limited to river corridors and fl oodplains. Indirect flooding that occurs in the floodplains adjacent to the rivers and lo calized nuisance flooding along tributaries is a more common problem in the Borough. This type of flooding occurs particularly along roadways as a result of inadequate drainage and other factors. The frequency of flooding in Naugatuck is considered highly likely for any given year, but flooding damage only has a limited geographic effect (refer to Appended Table 2). NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-2 Floodplains are lands along watercourses that are subject to periodic flooding; floodways are those areas within the floodplains that convey floodwaters. Floodways are subject to water being carried at relative ly high velocities and forces. The floodway fringe contains those areas of the 100-year floodplain that are outside the floodway and are subject to inundation but do not convey the floodwaters. 3.2 Hazard Assessment Flooding represents the most common and cos tly natural hazard in Connecticut. The state typically experiences floods in the ear ly spring due to snowmelt and in the late summer/early autumn due to frontal systems and tropical storms, although localized flooding caused by thunderstorm activity can be significant. Flooding can occur as a result of other natural hazards, including hurricanes, summer storms, and winter storms. Flooding can also occur as a re sult of dam failure, which is discussed in Section 8.0, and may also cause landslides and slumps in affected areas. In order to provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the 100-year flood has been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for purposes of floodpl ain management and to determine the need for insurance. This flood has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. The risk of having a flood of this magnitude or greater increases when periods longer than one year are considered. For example, FEMA notes that a structure loca ted within a 100-year flood zone has a 26% change of suffering flood damage during the term of a 30-year mortgage. Similarly, a 500-year flood has a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in a given year. The 500-year floodplain indicates areas of moderate flood hazard. Flooding presents several safety hazards to people and property. Floodwaters cause massive damage to the lower levels of buildings, destroying business records, furniture, and other sentimental papers and artifacts. In addition, floodwaters can prevent emergency and commercial egress by blocking streets, deteriorate municipal drainage systems, and divert municipal staff and resources. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-3 Furthermore, damp conditions trigger the growth of mold and mildew in flooded buildings, contributing to alle rgies, asthma, and respiratory infections. Snakes and rodents are forced out of thei r natural habitat and into clos er contact with people, and ponded water following a flood presents a br eeding ground for mosquitoes. Gasoline, pesticides, and other aqueous pollutants can be carried into areas and buildings by flood waters and soak into soil, build ing components, and furniture. SFHAs in Naugatuck are delineated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Studies (FIS). An initial Fl ood Hazard Boundary Map was identified on June 28, 1974. The FIRM delineates areas within Naugatuck that are vulnerable to flooding and was published on August 15, 1979. The FIS was originally published in February 1979, and neither the FIS nor the FIRMs have b een updated. Refer to Figure 3-1 for the areas of Naugatuck susceptible to flooding based on FEMA flood zones. Table 3-1 describes the various zones depicted on the FIRM panels for Naugatuck. Table 3-1 FIRM Zone Descriptions Zone Description A An area inundated by 100-year flooding, for which no base flood elevations (BFEs) have been determined. AE An area inundated by 100-year flooding , for which BFEs have been determined. Area Not Included An area that is located within a community or county that is not mapped on any published FIRM. X An area that is determined to be outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains. X500 An area inundated by 500-year flooding; an area inundated by 100-year flooding with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; or an area protected by levees from 100-year flooding. 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not b e exact. September 2008 Figure 3-1: FEMA Flood Zones in Naugatuck X500 Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads Water Waterbodies Flood Zone A AE Source: “Roads” , c1984 – 2008 Tel e Atlas , Rel. 04/08. “Town Bou ndary”, “Hydrograp hy”, “Flood Zones”, DEP NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-5 In some areas of Naugatuck, flooding occurs with a much higher frequency than those mapped by FEMA. This nuisance flooding occurs from heavy rains with a much higher frequency than those used to calculate th e 100-year and 500-year flood events, and often in different areas than thos e depicted on the FIRM panels. These frequent flooding events occur in areas with insufficient drainage; where conditions may cause flashy, localized flooding; and where poor maintena nce may exacerbate drainage problems. These areas are discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.5. During large storms, the recurrence interval level of a flood discharge on a tributary tends to be greater than the recurrence interval le vel of the flood discharge on the main channel downstream. In other words, a 500-year flood event on a tributary may only contribute to a 50-year flood event downstream. This is due to the distribution of rainfall and the greater hydraulic capacity of th e downstream channel to convey floodwaters. Dams and other flood control structures can also reduce the magnitude of peak flood flows. Such dams are located on the Naugatuck River upstream of the Borough of Naugatuck, in Thomaston and Torrington. The recurrence interval level of a precipitat ion event also generally differs from the recurrence interval level of the associated flood. An example would be Tropical Storm Floyd in 1999, which caused rainfall on the order of a 250-year event while flood frequencies were slightly greater than a 10-year event on the Naugatuck River in the adjacent Town of Beacon Falls, immediately downstream of Naugatuck. Flood events can also be mitigated or exacerbated by in-c hannel and soil conditions, such as low or high flows, the presence of frozen ground, or a deep or shallow water table, as can be seen in the following historic record. 3.3 Historic Record In every season of the year throughout its recorded history, the Borough of Naugatuck has experienced various degrees of flooding. Melting snow combined with early spring NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-6 rains have caused frequent spring flooding. Numerous flood events have occurred in late summer to early autumn resulting from storms of tropical origin moving northeast along the Atlantic coast. Winter floods result fr om the occasional thaw, particularly during years of heavy snow, or periods of rainfa ll on frozen ground. Other flood events have been caused by excessive rainfalls upon satu rated soils, yielding greater than normal runoff. Notable historic floods have occurred al ong the Naugatuck River in Naugatuck in November 1927, March 1936, September 1938, January 1949, and August and Octob er 1955. All of these floods were the result of hi gh intensity rainfall falling on saturated or frozen ground. In terms of damage to the Borough of Naugatu ck, the most severe of these was due to Hurricane Diane in August 1955. Peak dail y flows along the Naugatuck River were gauged by the USGS to be 53,400 cubic feet per second (cfs) in Thomaston and 106,000 cfs in Beacon Falls, equivalent of a greater than 500-year flood event on the Naugatuck River. This hurricane is the storm of record for both stations. The August 1955 flood resulted in the loss of 36 lives and caused over $193 million dollars in physical damages in areas downstream of the Thomaston Dam. Flood heights related to the August 1955 storm we re estimated to have a return period of 250 years in Naugatuck. The October 1955 flood had a recurrence interval of just over 100 years, and the 1936, 1938, and 1948 floods had recurrence intervals greater than 50, greater than 50, and approximately 100 years, respectively as measured in Beacon Falls. According to the National Climatic Data Ce nter (NCDC) Storm Events Database, there have been 28 flooding events and 20 flas h flood events in New Haven County since 1993. The following are descriptions of more recent examples of floods in and around the Borough of Naugatuck as described in the NCDC Storm Events Database, and based on correspondence with municipal officials. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-7 ‰ April 16, 1996: A low pressure system produced heavy rainfall in New Ha ven and Middlesex Counties, with 12-hour rainfa ll amounts in New Haven County ranging from 2.8 to 6.1 inches. The storm caused th ree dams in Middletown and one dam in Wallingford to breach and resulted in un-insured flood damages of approximately $1.5 million. ‰ March 9, 1998: Two low pressure system s formed over the southeastern United States that brought thunderstorms and hea vy rainfall to New Haven County, resulting in widespread urban and small stream fl ooding. Water inundated several basements in Naugatuck. The storm produced wind gus ts up to 55 miles per hour (mph) that contributed to scattered power outages. Ra infall amounts ranged from two and a half to four inches. ‰ January 15, 1999: A combination of hea vy rain falling on frozen ground, snow and ice melting, and partially clogge d storm drains caused widespread flash flooding of low-lying and poor drainage areas acro ss Fairfield and New Haven Counties. Waterbury experienced significant widespread street and basement flooding. ‰ September 16, 1999: Torrential record rain fall preceding the remnants of Tropical Storm Floyd caused widespread urban, sma ll stream, and river flooding. A total of 6.18 inches of rain was recorded in the nearby Town of Ansonia, and wind gusts peaked at up to 60 mph. Fairfield County was declared a disaster area, along with Litchfield and Hartford Counties. Initial cost estimates for damages to the public sector was $1.5 million for those three count ies. These estimates do not account for damages to the private sector and are based on information provided by the Connecticut Office of Emergency Manageme nt. Serious wide-spread flooding of low-lying and poor drainage ar eas resulted in the closure of many roads and basement flooding across Fairfield, New Have n, and Middlesex Counties. ‰ April 21, 2000: A series of intense thunderstorms accompanied by two to four inches of rainfall produced lightning strikes and widespread flooding of small streams, brooks, rivers, and low-lying and poor dr ainage areas. Hockanum Brook in the NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-8 adjacent Town of Beacon Falls was about two feet over its banks as a result of this storm. ‰ October 2005: Although the c onsistent rainfall of October 7-15, 2005 caused flooding and dam failures in most of Connecticut (m ost severely in northern Connecticut), the precipitation intensity and duration was such that only minor flooding occurred in Naugatuck. The Naugatuck River at B eacon Falls and Waterbury experienced significant rises within its banks. ‰ April 22-23, 2006: A sustained heavy rainfa ll caused streams to overtop their banks and drainage systems to fail through out New Haven County. Rainfall amounts ranged from three to six inches across the region, including 4.34 inches in Naugatuck. ‰ June 2, 2006: An isolated severe thunders torm produced up to eight inches of heavy rainfall that caused widespread damage in Waterbury, Wolcott, and Prospect. The storm caused slumps and drainage failures throughout the adjacent City of Waterbury, and several streets were flooded and damaged in all three municipalities. ‰ April 15-16, 2007: A spring nor’easter dropped ov er six inches of rain in the Greater Waterbury area, causing widespread flooding. ‰ July 19, 2007: Route 8 in the adjacent Town of Beacon Falls was closed due to flash flooding. 3.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Regulations and Other Methods of Prevention The Borough of Naugatuck has in place a number of measures to prevent flood damage. These include regulations and plans that co ntrol encroachment and development in and near floodplains and floodways. Regulations, codes, and ordinances that apply to flood hazard mitigation in conjunction with and in addition to NFIP regulations include: ‰ Floodplains (Section 29 of the Naugatuck Zoning Regulations). This section recognizes areas of special flood hazards w ithin the Borough as a zoning overlay and NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-9 establishes minimum standards and review procedures over the use of the land in order to reduce flooding hazard to human life and health, reduce flood damages to public and private property, minimize disruptions of commerce and governmental services, protect values, maintain the natural drainage system’s capacity to safely store and transport flood water and mi nimize damaging flood erosion and any increases in downstream flood pot ential. It establishes the FIRMs and the FIS as the official maps for delineating areas of special flood hazard. Ö Section 29.5.1 requires new construction and substantial improvements to be anchored and resistant to flood damage. Ö Section 29.5.3.1 requires that no new constr uction be permitted in A zones with established flood elevations if the base flood elevation would be increased by more than one foot. Ö Section 29.6.1 requires that new construction and substantial improvements of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including the basement, elevated at least two f eet above the base flood. Ö Section 29.6.2 requires that new construction and substantial improvements of any nonresidential structure shall have th e lowest floor, including the basement, elevated at least two feet above the base flood, or flood proofed. Ö Section 29.6.3 provides additional requi rements for mobile home parks. Ö Sections 29.6.4 and 29.7 control encroachment into floodways. Ö Section 29.6.8 requires floodplain compensati on for development that reduces the holding capacity of floodplains. An application for approval of a developm ent in a flood plain must be submitted to the Zoning Enforcement Officer and be approved before construction can begin. ‰ Open Space Subdivision Plans (Section 35 of the Naugatuck Zoning Regulations). This sections allows for the proposal and permitting of an “open space subdivision” to NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-10 preserve land as unsubdivided and undeveloped; for parks; for conserving natural resources; and to protect streams, rivers and ponds to avoid “flooding” and “erosion.” ‰ The Naugatuck Subdivision Regulations contain numerous provisions relative to flood hazard mitigation: Ö Section 3.2.4 requires that an Engineering Report be submitted with all applications, and that it shall address im pacts on floodplains, aquifers, watersheds, greenways and natural featur es. This report shall also include summaries of stormwater drainage designs. Ö Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.2 require that existing and proposed watercourses, wetlands, ponds, swamps, shorelines, fl oodplain or flood boundaries be shown on site plans. Ö Section 4.7.7 requires delineation of floodplain or flood boundaries and base flood elevation data within the subdivision. Ö Section 5.2 requires that any lot which is “found to be unsuitable for occupancy and buildings by reason of water or flooding conditions, unsuitable soil, topography, ledge, rock or other conditions shall be combined with another contiguous lot that is suitable.…” Ö Section 5.8 guides stormwater management and drainage system design to ensure peak flow attenuation or other mitigation. Ö Section 5.9 guides stormwater conveyance and stipulates the storm frequencies that must be conveyed by bridges, culverts, catch basins, etc. ‰ Flood Hazard Standards (Section 5.12 of the Subdivision Regulations) requires that: Ö 5.12.1 – Proposed subdivisions shall be cons istent with the need to minimize flood damage Ö 5.12.2 – Public utilities, in cluding adequate storm drainage, shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize flood damage. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-11 Ö 5.12.3 – Adequate storm drainage shall be provided to reduce exposure to flood damage. Ö 5.12.4 – Base flood elevation data shall be provided for all land proposed to be subdivided, whether or not it is available from FEMA. ‰ Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Section 4.6 of the Naugatuck Subdivison Regulations and Section 36 of the Naugatuck Zoning Regulations). These sections require the submittal of a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan with any application in which the disturbed area of such development is cumulatively more than one-half acre. ‰ Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations . These regulations define in detail the Borough of Naugatuck’s requirements regarding development near wetlands, watercourses, and water bodies. Section 2 defines “Regulated Activities” covered by the Regulations. Section 4 states that no person may conduct or maintain a regulated activity without obtaining a permit. Section 7 outlines the application requirements, and requires the delineation of the boundaries of all wetlands and watercourses on the plans for Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission submittals. In particular: Ö Section 7.5.9 requires delineation of “fl oodplain limits and elevations,… drainage systems and channels….” Ö Section 7.6.7 requires additional information regarding measures that “prevent flooding,… erosion and sedimentation and obstruction of drainage….” Ö Section 8.6 requires providing a hydrologi c analysis of runoff and peak flow. Ö Section 10.2.1 states that the Commissi on must consider the environmental impact of the proposed action, including the effects on the watercourse’s natural capacity to support fish a nd wildlife, to prevent flooding, to supply and protect surface and ground waters, to control sediment , to facilitate drainage, to control pollution, to support recreationa l activities, and to promote public health safety and welfare. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-12 Ö Section 10.2.7 requires evaluation of the impact of the activity on upstream and downstream wetlands and watercourses as well as impacts on the overall watershed. Ö Section 10.2.9 requires evaluation of stormwater management. Ö Section 10.2.10 requires cons ideration of, among other things, management of open spaces and detention basins. ‰ Aquifer Protection Regulations . These regulations replaced Section 28 of the Zoning Regulations subsequent to the State’s adoption of the model aquifer protection ordinance. The regulations apply to the two aquifer protection zones in the Borough, located around the Indian Field groundwater su pply in nearby Prospect (with the zone extending into Naugatuck) and the Marks Br ook groundwater supply in southeastern Naugatuck. Although the regulations primarily address land uses that involve use, storage, or transfer of hazardous materials or chemicals within the aquifer protection zones, they provide an additional level of protection in the floodplains within each zone. Although the Indian Field wells are located in a floodplain in Prospect, the Marks Brook aquifer protection zone incl udes portions of the Marks Brook and Beacon Hill Brook floodplains in Naugatuck. ‰ Plan of Conservation & Development. This document from 2001 noted that about 3,028 acres of open space exists within the Borough, with approximately 1,468 acres (14%) of open space under public/private ownership and 1,560 acres (15%) of open space including lands that are not perman ently protected. Section 3.C.2 identifies priority conservation areas (watercourses, water bodies, wetlands, slopes in excess of 15%, and ridgelines) and important cons ervation areas (public water supply watersheds, and aquifers and recharge area s, and unique or special habitat areas). The intent of these regulations is to promot e the public health, safety, and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas of the Borough of Naugatuck by the establishment of standards designed to: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-13 ‰ Protect human life a nd public health; ‰ Minimize expenditure of money for costly flood control projects; ‰ Minimize the need for rescue and reli ef efforts associated with flooding; ‰ Ensure that purchasers of property ar e notified of special flood hazards; ‰ Ensure that all land approved for subdivision shall have proper provisions for water, drainage, and sewerage and in areas conti guous to brooks, rivers, or other bodies of water subject to flooding, and that proper provisions be made for protective flood control measures; ‰ Ensure that property owners ar e responsible for their actions; ‰ Ensure the continued eligibility of owners of property in Naugatuck for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. The Borough of Naugatuck retained a consultant to review Zoning and Subdivision Regulations in 2008. The review was completed in November 2008. Most of the recommendations are related to incorporating elements of low impact development into the regulations, especially with regard to stormwater management. In no case did a recommendation reduce any requirements relate d to flood hazard mitigation, and in fact, the recommendations will provide for enha nced peak flow management in new developments, if implemented. The proce ss also resulted in a new checklist for developers, entitled “Subdivision/Site Plan Checklist for Drainage Designs” (with revision date November 2008). A copy can be found in Appendix C. The Borough of Naugatuck Zoning Enforcement O fficer serves as the NFIP administrator and oversees the enforcement NFIP regulat ions under the authority of the Zoning Commission. The Borough has not completed an update of its flood hazard regulations, and currently has no plans to enroll in th e Community Rating System program. The Borough of Naugatuck uses the 100-year flood lines from the FIRM and FIS delineated by FEMA as the official maps and report for determining special flood hazard NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-14 areas. FEMA has commenced its “Map Mod” program to revise the FIRMs for each County in Connecticut, and this program has been completed for parts of New Haven County. This program will create a si ngle FIRM for New Haven County. Many municipalities with revised FIRMs from th e Map Mod program are finding that more properties are in floodplains than originally believed. Zoning and subdivision regulations require that all structures in flood hazard areas have their lowest floor (including basement) be two feet above es tablished base flood elevations. Standards require that all proposals be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage, that public facili ties and utilities be located and constructed to minimize flood damage, and that adequate drainage is provided. Wet floodproofing is required for buildings that include a fully enclosed sp ace below the base flood elevation formed by foundation or other exterior walls. No encr oachment on floodways is allowed that will raise the level of base flood elevation. The Naugatuck Inla nd Wetlands Commission also reviews new developments and existi ng land uses on and near wetlands and watercourses. Flood Control Projects Subsequent to the devastati ng floods of 1955, extensive flood control modifications have been made to the Naugatuck River basin, incl uding the construction of five flood control dams by the ACOE. Three of these dams are located upstream of Naugatuck in the Town of Thomaston, and two others are located fu rther upstream in Torrington. These dams are further described in Section 8.3. Accord ing to the FEMA FIS for Thomaston, these five dams can store all runoff up to a 100-year storm and provide a controlled release to the channel downstream. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-15 The Borough of Naugatuck can access the National Weather Service website at http://weather.noaa.gov/ to obtain the latest flood watches and warnings before and during precipitation events. Emergency Services The Naugatuck Department of Public Works is in charge of the maintenance of the Borough’s drainage systems, and performs clearing of bridges and culverts and other maintenance as needed. Drainage complaints are routed to the department and recorded. The Borough uses these documents to iden tify potential problems and plan for maintenance and upgrades. The Borough can also access the Automated Flood Warning System to monitor precipitation totals. Th e Connecticut DEP installed the Automated Flood Warning System in 1982 to monitor rain fall totals as a mitigation effort for flooding throughout the state. The National Weather Service issues a flood watch or a flash flood watch for an area when conditions in or near the area are favorable for a flood or flash flood, respectively. A flash flood watch or flood watch does not necessarily mean that flooding will occur. The National Weather Service issues a flood warning or a flash flood warning for an area when parts of the area are either currently flooding, highly likely to flood, or when flooding is imminent. In summary, the Borough of Naugatuck prim arily attempts to mitigate flood damage and flood hazards by restricting building activities in side flood-prone areas. This process is carried out through both the Zoning Commission and the In land Wetlands Commission. All watercourses are to be encroached minimally or not at all to maintain the existing flood carrying capacity. These regulations rely primarily on the FEMA-defined 100-year flood elevations to determine flood areas. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-16 3.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment This section discusses specific areas at risk to flooding w ithin the Borough. Major land use classes and critical facil ities within these areas are identified. According to the FEMA FIRMs, approximately 219 acres of land in Naugatuck are located within the 100- year flood boundary and 575 acres of land are located within the 500-year flood boundary. In addition, indirect and nuisance flooding occurs near streams and rivers throughout Naugatuck due to inadequate drainage and other factors. The primary waterway in the Borough is the Naugatuck River, which flows north to south through the Borough. The remaining waterways in Naugatuck are mostly small streams and brooks significant for water s upply and conservation purposes, with only Hop Brook noted as recreational resource. R ecall from Figure 3-1 that floodplains with defined elevations are delineated for th e Naugatuck River, Hop Brook, Long Meadow Pond Brook, Fulling Mill Brook, Cold Spring Brook, and Beacon Hill Brook. These watercourses, along with several additional smaller streams, have 500-year floodplains delineated by approximate methods. All of these delineated floodplains are generally limited to the areas adjacent to the streams. Due to the large amount of buffer capacity provided by the ACOE flood control dams upstream, there is little wide-scale flooding in Naugatuck. Specific areas susceptible to flooding were identified by Borough personnel and observed by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. staff during field inspec tions as described in Section 1.5. Most flooding occurs due to large amounts of rainfall, sometimes falli ng in conjunction with snowmelt, and it often occurs due to undersized road cu lverts and drainage problems. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-17 Priority Areas of Concern ‰ Spencer Street Corridor/Cherry Street/Pleasant Avenue – This area was cited as a significant flood-prone area during the data collection meeting, although severe damage does not occur and nuisance flooding appears to be the problem; repetitive loss properties are not located in this area. A review of historical topographic maps reveals that an unnamed stream was former ly located in this area in 1947, flowing from west to east, but it has been locate d in a culvert underground since at least 1954. Refer to Figure 3-2 for a depiction of the watercourse in 1947, Figure 3-3 for a depiction of the area in 1954, and Figure 3- 4 for a depiction at the present time. Figure 3-2 – View of 1947 Topogra phic Map, Spencer Street Corridor NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-18 Figure 3-3 – View of 1954 Topogra phic Map, Spencer Street Corridor Currently, there is a deten tion pond near this area with an adjacent swale from a hillside; and a stream daylights to the west of Lewis Street. Streets and homes can flood within the development during periods of heavy rainfall. Stormwater systems tied to this watercourse are also affected. It has been reported that water levels can rise so rapidly that a “geyser” forms in the storm drainage system when water gets backed up following periods of high rainfall . In fact, the historic Grant House on Cherry Street Extension was damaged due to pressures within the stormwater system. 2004 CLEAR, CT DEP H:Figure3-4S pencer. mxd 2937- 02 Na uga tuck Pre-Disa ste r Na tural Ha zard Mi tiga tion Plan Naugat uc k, CT Spenc er Street/C herry St reet/ Pl eas ant Avenue St udy Ar ea Figur e 3-4 LOCATION : Date: Ja n. 2009 Sca le: 1″ = 500′ SHEET : 99 R ealt y D rive Cheshire, Connecticut 0 6410 (203 ) 271-1773 Fax: (203) 272 -9733 www .milonean dm acbroom .com NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-20 ‰ Long Meadow Pond Brook – The corridor of this stream and its tributary (depicted on Figure 3-5) were noted by Borough personnel as experiencing flooding during heavy rainfall. The specific area of concern is located adjacent to the Long Meadow Pond Brook and its tributary near Rubber Avenue and Harlow Court, near Mountview Plaza and north of the Baummer Dam. The flooding at this site is partly associated with water entering from the vicinity of Webb Road. There have been approximately four residential or commercial sites that have been flooded in this location, though repetitive loss properties are not located in this area. ‰ Arch Street – The lower portion of Arch Street at Long Meadow Pond Brook receives three feet of standing water during large rain fall events. A storm drain near a vacant building is sometimes clogged, causing storm water to back up and build in the street during these storms. On one account, the st anding water caused a dumpster to float. ‰ Beacon Valley Road – Flooding has been reported along Beacon Valley Road near Beacon Falls. This neighborhood becomes inundated with water from Beacon Hill Brook after heavy rains. See Figure 3-6 for a vicinity map. Other Areas of Concern ‰ Cold Spring Brook – Although not mentioned at the data collection kick-off meeting, this corridor was investigated. The brook is very close to Brook Street and flooding could affect homes and acce ss to Cold Spring Circle. ‰ Crown Spring Bridge – This bridge over Hop Brook on Bridge Street has recurring problems with flooding after periods of heavy rainfall. 2004 CLEAR, CT DEP H:Figure3-3Lon g.mxd 2937- 02 Na uga tuck Natural Ha zard Pre- Di saste r Mi tiga tion Plan Naugat uc k, CT Long Meadow Pond B rook St udy Ar ea Figur e 3-5 LOCATION : Date: Ja n. 2009 Sca le: 1″ = 600′ SHEET : 99 R ealt y D rive Cheshire, Connecticut 0 6410 (203 ) 271-1773 Fax: (203) 272 -9733 www .milonean dm acbroom .com BEACON V ALLEY R OA D STUD Y AR EA NAT UR AL HA ZARD PRE-DISASTER MI TIGA TION PL AN BOR OU GH OF NA UGA TUC K, C ONN ECTIC UT SJB SJB DM 1″ = 600’ JANUARY 2009 2937-02 H:Figure3-2Beacon.mxd FIGURE 3-6 99 Rea lty Dr ive Cheshire, Con necticut 06410 (203) 271-177 3 Fax (203 ) 272-9733 www. milonea ndma cbroom.com REVISIONS DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED SCALE: DATE: PROJECT NO: MXD N AME: SHEET NO. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-23 ‰ East Waterbury Road – The portion of East Water bury Road below the Union Ice Company Dam now becomes flooded after h eavy rains. As a result of the pond losing storage due to sedimentation, th is problem may be worsening. During substantial rain events, the dam overtops and water spills onto East Waterbury Road. The water runs down the road and eventually re-enters the tributary to Fulling Mill Brook. Under certain conditions, water can enter homes. ‰ Fulling Mill Brook along Route 68 – Flooding of Route 68 has been known to occur during periods of heavy rain. The channel is near street level in some areas, and when water is overbank, it causes minor flooding. ‰ Highland Street near Galpin Street – This area was reporte d to have flooding issues after substantial rain events. The area was inspected but the alleged drainage problems were not apparent. Problems may occur under more significant events. ‰ May Street – The nearby unnamed stream may have the tendency to jump the culvert at the intersection with Bird Road an d cause washouts in a resident’s yard. ‰ Nichols Garage (Irving Gas Station) – This site marks the point at which Pigeon Brook flows underground before entering Hop Brook. There is a pond adjacent to the garage at this site that may have mitigated flooding problems in the past, but it has become filled with silt. ‰ Maple Street – A sinkhole approximately 100 feet long formed in July 2008 near the Naugatuck Fire Headquarters. The sinkhole wa s the result of the failure of an old storm drain. Correspondence with the State of Connecticut NFIP Coordinator revealed that there is one Repetitive Loss Property listed for the Borough of Naugatuck. The property had one NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-24 reported flood claim in 1982 and one in 1985. It is believed that this property may be listed in error for several reasons: ‰ First, the NFIP Repetitive Loss Update Wo rksheet lists the “NFIP Community Name” as being Ottawa County, and the “Comm unity ID#” as being 390432, placing the property in Ohio. ‰ Second, the “Current Property Address” is listed as being 67 Meadow Lart Road in Naugatuck, Connecticut. No “Meadow La rt” Road or “Meadow Lark” road was found on Google Maps for Ottawa County, Ohio. However, the Meadow Lark Road in Naugatuck does not have a number 67. ‰ Finally, the Meadow Lark Road in Naugatu ck is on a hill away from streams and floodplains, making it unlikely that there is a chronic flooding problem in the area. The fact that the last flood claim for this a ddress occurred in 1985 supports this belief. Critical Facilities and Emergency Services Critical facilities are not regularly impacted by flooding in the Borough of Naugatuck, despite several critical facil ities (listed in Table 2-5) ha ving locations in the 500-year floodplain. Major transportation arteries, such as State roads, are largely unaffected by flooding, and the emphasis on creating through streets has provided multiple modes of egress to the majority of neighborhoods in Naugatuck. 3.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives A number of measures can be taken to reduce the impact of a local or nuisance flood event. These include measures that prevent increases in flood losses by managing new development, measures that reduce the expos ure of existing development to flood risk, and measures to preserve and restore natura l resources. These are listed below under the categories of prevention, property protection , structural projects, public education and awareness, natural resource protection , and emergency services. All of the NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-25 recommendations discussed in the subsections below are reprinted in a bulleted list in Section 3.7. 3.6.1 Prevention Floodplain regulations and rede velopment policies are the most common form of flood damage prevention. These are usually admi nistered by building, zoning, planning, and/or code enforcement offices through capital improvement programs and through zoning, subdivision, and wetland ordinances. It is important to promote coordination among the various departments that are responsible for different aspects of fl ood mitigation. Coordination and cooperation among departments should be reviewed every few years as specific responsibilities and staff changes. Municipal departments should identify areas for acquisition to maintain flood protection. Acquisition of heavily damaged structures after a flood may be an economical and practical means to accomplish this. Policies can also include the design and location of utilities to areas outside of flood hazard areas, and the placement of utilities underground. Planning and Zoning : Zoning ordinances should regul ate development in flood hazard areas. Flood hazard areas should reflect a ba lance of development and natural areas. In addition, delineated Aquifer Protection Areas (APA) in Connecticut are often located near floodplains and can indirectly provide a level of protection against the development of certain commercial an d industrial properties. Floodplain Development Regulations : Development regulations encompass subdivision regulations, building codes, a nd floodplain ordinances. Site plan and new subdivision regulations should include the following: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-26 ‰ Requirements that every lot have a bu ildable area above the flood level; ‰ Construction and location standards for th e infrastructure built by the developer, including roads, sidewalks, utility lines , storm sewers, and drainage ways; and ‰ A requirement that developers dedicate open space and flood flow, drainage, and maintenance easements. Building codes should ensure that the foundatio n of structures will withstand flood forces and that all portions of the bu ilding subject to damage are above or otherwise protected from flooding. Floodplain ordinances should at minimum follow the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program for subdivi sion and building codes. These could be included in the ordinances for zoning and bu ilding codes, or could be addressed in a separate ordinance. The Borough should consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System to reduce the cost of flood insurance for its residents, and should consider using Borough topographic maps to develop a more accurate regulatory flood-hazard map using the published FEMA flood elevations. According to the FEMA, communities are encouraged to use different, more accurate base maps to expand upon the FIRMs published by FEMA. This is because many FIRMs were originally create d using United States Geological Survey quadrangle maps with 10-foot contour interv als, but most municipalities today have contour maps of one or two-foot intervals th at show more recently constructed roads, bridges, and other anthropologic features. Another approach is to record high-water marks and establish those areas inundate d by a recent severe flood to be the new regulatory floodplain. Adoption of a different floodplain map is allo wed under NFIP regulations as long as the new map covers a larger floodplain than th e FIRM. It should be noted that the community’s map will not affect the current FIRM or alter the SFHA used for setting insurance rates or making map determinations; it can only be used by the community to NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-27 regulate floodplain areas. The FEMA Region I office has more information on this topic; contact information can be found in Section 11. Reductions in floodplain area or revisions of a mapped floodplain can only be accomplished through revised FEMA-sponsored engineering studies or Letters of Map Change (LOMC). To date, one Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) and no Letters of Map Revision (LOMR) have been issued under the LOMC program for the Borough of Naugatuck, so such updates are c onsidered rare for the Borough. Stormwater Management Policies : Development and redevelopment policies to address the prevention of flood losses must include e ffective stormwater management policies. Developers should be required to build detention and retention facilities where appropriate. Infiltration can be enhanced to reduce runoff volume, including the use of swales, infiltration trenches, vegetative filter strips, and permeable paving blocks. Generally, post-development stormwater shoul d not leave a site at a rate higher than under pre-development conditions. Standard engineering practice is to avoid the use of detention measures if the project site is located in the lower one-third of the ove rall watershed. The effects of detention are least effective and even detrimental if used at such locations because of the delaying effect of the peak discharge from the site th at typically results when detention measures are used. By detaining stormwater in close proximity of the stream in the lower reaches of the overall watershed, the peak discharge fr om the site will occur later in the storm event, which will more closely coincide with the peak discharge of the stream, thus adding more flow during the peak discharge during any given storm event. Due to its topography, Naugatuck is situated in the upper and lower parts of several watersheds. Developers should be required to demonstrate whether detention or retention will be the best management practice for stormw ater at specific sites in regards to the position of each project site in the surrounding watershed. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-28 Drainage System Maintenance : An effective drainage system must be continually maintained to ensure efficiency and functi onality. Maintenance should include programs to clean out blockages caused by overgrowth and debris. Culverts should be monitored, and repaired and improved when necessary. The use of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology can greatly aid the iden tification and location of problem areas. Education and Awareness : Other prevention techniques include the promotion of awareness of natural hazards among citizens, property owners, developers, and local officials. Technical assistance for local offi cials, including workshops, can be helpful in preparation for dealing with the massive uph eaval that can accompany a severe flooding event. Research efforts to improve knowledge, develop standards, and identify and map hazard areas will better prepare a community to identify relevant hazard mitigation efforts. The Borough of Naugatuck Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) administers the wetland regulations and the Naugatuck Zoning Co mmissions administer the Zoning and Subdivision regulations. The regulations simultaneously restrict development in floodplains, wetlands, and other flood prone ar eas. The Zoning Enforcement Officer and the IWC (or its agents) are charged with ensuring that development follows the floodplain management regulations and inland wetlands regulations. Based on the above guidelines and the existing roles of the IWC, the Planning Commission, the Zoning Comm ission, and the Zoning Enforcement Officer, one preventive mitigation measure is recommended. A checklist should be developed that cross-references the bylaws, regulations, a nd codes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to a proposed projec t. This will streamline the permitting process and ensure maximum education of a developer or applicant, just as the “Subdivision/Site Plan Checklist for Drainage Designs” (re vision date November 2008) attempts to accomplish. This checklist could be provided to a land use or development applicant at NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-29 Dry floodproofing refers to the act of making areas below the flood level water-tight. Wet floodproofing refers to intentionally letting floodwater into a building to equalize interior and exterior water pressures. several Borough departments. A sample checklist for the Borough of Naugatuck is included as Appended Table 3. 3.6.2 Property Protection Steps should be taken to prot ect existing public and private properties. Non-structural measures for public property protection include acquisition and relocation of properties at risk for flooding, purchase of flood insurance, and relocating valuable belongings above flood levels to reduce the amount of damage caused during a flood event. Structural flood protection techniques applicable to property protection include the construction of barri ers, dry floodproofing, and wet floodproofing techniques. Barriers include levees, floodwalls, and berms, and are useful in areas subject to shallow flooding. These structural projects are discussed in Section 3.6.6 below. For dry floodproofing, walls may be coated with compound or plastic sheathing. Openings such as windows and vents should be either permanently closed or covered with removable shields. Flood protection shoul d only be two to three feet above the top of the foundation because bu ilding walls and floors cannot withstand the pressure of deeper water. Wet floodproofing should only be used as a la st resort. Furniture and electrical appliances should be moved away from advancing floodwaters. All of the above property protection mitigation measures may be useful for Borough of Naugatuck residents to prevent damage fr om inland and nuisance flooding. The Borough NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-30 may wish to work with property owners along Long Meadow Pond Brook, Hop Brook, Beacon Hill Brook, Cold Spring Brook, and Fulling Mill Brook to pursue wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, or elevation of structures. If FEMA funds are to be pursued, a cost-benefit analysis for each home will help determine whether wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, or el evation of any given structure is most appropriate. 3.6.3 Emergency Services A natural hazard pre-disaster mitigation plan addresses actions that can be taken before a disaster event. In this context, emergency services that would be appropriate mitigation measures for inland flooding include: ‰ Forecasting systems to provide information on the time of occurrence and magnitude of flooding; ‰ A system to issue flood warnings to th e community and responsible officials; ‰ Emergency protective measures, such as an Emergency Operations Plan outlining procedures for the mobilization and position of staff, equipment, and resources to facilitate evacuations and em ergency floodwater control; and ‰ Implementing an emergency notification system that combines database and GIS mapping technologies to deliver outbound em ergency notifications to geographic areas; or specific groups of people, such as emergency responder teams. Many of the above mitigation measures are al ready in practice to some degree in the Borough of Naugatuck. Based on the above gui delines, a number of specific proposals for improved emergency services area recommended to prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding. These are common to all haza rds in this plan, and are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-31 Measures for preserving floodplain functions and resources typically include: ‰ Adoption of floodplain regulations to control or prohibit development that will alter natural resources; ‰ Development and redevelopment policies focused on resource protection; ‰ Information and education for both community and individual decision-makers; and ‰ Review of community programs to identify opportunities for floodplain preservation. 3.6.4 Public Education and Awareness The objective of public educati on is to provide an understanding of the nature of flood risk, and the means by which that risk can be mitigated on an individual basis. Public information materials should encourage individuals to be aware of flood mitigation techniques, including discouraging the public from changing channel and detention basins in their yards, and dumping in or otherwise altering watercourses and storage basins. Individuals should be made aware of drainage system maintenance programs and other methods of mitigation. The public shou ld also understand what to expect when a hazard event occurs, and the procedures and time frames necessary for evacuation. Based on the above guidelines, a number of specific proposals for improved public education are recommended to prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding. These are common to all hazards in this plan, and are listed in Section 10.1. 3.6.5 Natural Resource Protection Floodplains can provide a number of natural resources and benefits, including storage of floodwaters, open space and recreation, water quality protection, erosion control, and preservation of natural habitats. Retaining the natural resources and functions of floodplains can not only reduce the frequency and consequences of flooding, but also minimize stormwater management and non-point pollution problems. Through natural resource planning, these objectives can be achieved at substantially reduced overall costs. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-32 Projects that improve the natural condition of areas or to restore diminished or destroyed resources can re-establish an environment in which the functions and values of these resources are again optimized. Administrativ e measures which assist such projects include the development of land reuse pol icies focused on resource restoration and review of community programs to identify opportunities for floodplain restoration. Based on the above guidelines, the following specific natural resource protection mitigation measures are recommended to help prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding: ‰ Pursue the acquisition of additional municipal open space properties. ‰ Selectively pursue conservation objectives li sted in the Plan of Conservation and Development or more recent pl anning studies and documents. ‰ Continue to regulate development in prot ected and sensitive areas, including steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains. 3.6.6 Structural Projects Structural projects include the construction of new structures or modification of existing structures (e.g. floodproofing) to lessen the impact of a flood event. Stormwater controls such as drainage systems, detention dams and reservoirs, and culverts should be employed to lessen floodwater runoff. On-site detention can provide temporary storage of stormwater runoff. Barriers such as le vees, floodwalls, and dikes physically control the hazard to protect certain areas from floodwat ers. Channel alterations can be made to confine more water to the channel and accelerat e flood flows. Care should be taken when using these techniques to ensure that problems are not exacer bated in other areas of the impacted watersheds. Individuals can protect private pr operty by raising structures, and constructing walls and levees around structures. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-33 Based on the above guidelines, the following specific structural mitigation measures are recommended to prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding: ‰ Consider performing a Borough-wide analysis to help identify undersized and failing portions of the stormwater and drainage sy stems. Prioritize repairs as needed. Incorporate anecdotal information where ap propriate, such as observation described in this plan regarding the nui sance flooding at May Street. ‰ Upgrade the drainage systems in downtown Naugatuck where necessary to enhance drainage. ‰ Increase maintenance of the storm drainage system near the building on Arch Street near Long Meadow Pond Brook to pr event flooding of this area. ‰ If necessary, increase the conveyance cap acity of Crown Spring Bridge over Hop Brook at Bridge Street. ‰ Assess dredging options for the sediment laden Union Ice Company Pond to potentially increase its potential for flood mitigation. ‰ Increase the conveyance capacity of the culv ert for the tributary to Fulling Mill Brook under East Waterbury Road downstream of the Union Ice Company Pond. ‰ Upgrade the drainage system on Highland Avenue near Galpin Street to mitigate future nuisance flooding. ‰ Evaluate flood mitigation options, such as dredging of the silted pond adjacent to Nichols Garage/Irvin Gas Station, where Pigeon Brook flows underground before entering Hop Brook. ‰ Pursue flood mitigation along the unnamed str eam associated with the Spencer Street corridor, including increased conveyance capac ity of the culverted portions of the stream, channel restoration or maintenance of the un-culverted section of the stream, and/or siting of detention systems. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-34 3.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Many potential mitigation concepts and activit ies were presented above in Section 3.6. The recommended mitigation strategies for addressing flooding problems in the Borough of Naugatuck are listed below. Prevention ‰ Streamline the permitting process and work toward the highest possible education of a developer or applicant. Develop a checklist that cross-references the bylaws, regulations, and codes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to the proposed project. This list could be provided to an applicant at any Borough department. A sample checklist for the Borough of Naugatuck is included as Appended Table 3. ‰ Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System. ‰ Continue to require applications for appr oval of a development in a floodplain for activities within SFHAs. ‰ Consider requiring buildings constructed in floodprone areas to be protected to the highest recorded flood level, regardle ss of being within a defined SFHA. ‰ Ensure new buildings be designed and grad ed to shunt drainage away from the building. ‰ After Map Mod has been completed, consid er restudying local flood prone areas and produce new local-level regulatory fl oodplain maps using more exacting study techniques, including using more accurate contour information to map flood elevations provided with the FIRM. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-35 Property & Natural Resource Protection ‰ Pursue the acquisition of additional muni cipal open space properties inside SFHAs and set it aside as greenways, parks, or other non-residential, non-commercial, or non-industrial use. ‰ Selectively pursue conservati on recommendations listed in the Plan of Conservation and Development and other studies and documents. ‰ Continue to regulate development in prot ected and sensitive areas, including steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains. ‰ Work with property owners along Long Meadow Pond Brook, Hop Brook, Beacon Hill Brook, Cold Spring Brook, Fulling Mill Bro ok, and their tributaries to pursue wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, or elevation of structures. If FEMA funds are to be pursued, a cost-benefit analysis for each home will help determine whether wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, or elevation of any given structure is most appropriate. Structural Projects ‰ Consider performing a Borough-wide analysis to help identify undersized and failing portions of the stormwater and drainage sy stems. Prioritize repairs as needed. Incorporate anecdotal information where ap propriate, such as observation described in this plan regarding the nui sance flooding at May Street. ‰ Upgrade the drainage systems in downtown Naugatuck where necessary to enhance drainage. ‰ Increase maintenance of the storm drainage system near the building on Arch Street near Long Meadow Pond Brook to pr event flooding of this area. ‰ If necessary, increase the conveyance cap acity of Crown Spring Bridge over Hop Brook at Bridge Street. ‰ Assess dredging options for the sediment laden Union Ice Company Pond to potentially increase its potential for flood mitigation. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 3-36 ‰ Increase the conveyance capacity of the culv ert for the tributary to Fulling Mill Brook under East Waterbury Road downstream of the Union Ice Company Pond. ‰ Upgrade the drainage system on Highland Avenue near Galpin Street to mitigate future nuisance flooding. ‰ Evaluate flood mitigation options, such as dredging of the silted pond adjacent to Nichols Garage/Irving Gas Station, wher e Pigeon Brook flows underground before entering Hop Brook. ‰ Pursue flood mitigation along the unnamed str eam associated with the Spencer Street corridor, including increased conveyance capac ity of the culverted portions of the stream, channel restoration or maintenance of the un-culverted section of the stream, and/or siting of detention systems. In addition, mitigation strategies important to all hazards are included in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-1 A Hurricane Watch is an advisory for a specific area stating that a hurricane poses a threat to coastal and inland areas. Individuals should keep tuned to local television and radio for updates. A Hurricane Warning is then issued when the dangerous effect s of a hurricane are expected in the area within 24 hours. 4.0 HURRICANES 4.1 Setting Hazards associated with tropical storms and hurricanes include winds, heavy rains, and inland flooding. While only some of the areas of Naugatuck are susceptible to flooding damage caused by hurricanes, wind damage can occur anywhere in the Borough. Hurricanes therefore have the potential to affect any area within the Borough of Naugatuck. A hurricane striki ng the Borough of Naugatuck is considered a possible event each year that could cause critical da mage to the Borough and its infrastructure (refer to Appended Table 1). 4.2 Hazard Assessment Hurricanes are a class of tropical cyclones that are defined by the National Weather Service as non- frontal, low-pressure large scale systems that develop over tropical or subtropical water and have definite organized circulations. Tropical cyclones are categorized based on the speed of the sustained (1-minute average) su rface wind near the center of the storm. These categories are: Tropical Depression (w inds less than 39 mph), Tropical Storm (winds 39-74 mph, inclusive) and Hurri canes (winds at least 74 mph). The geographic areas affected by tropical cyclones are called tropi cal cyclone basins. The Atlantic tropical cyclone ba sin is one of six in the world and includes much of the North Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and th e Gulf of Mexico. The official Atlantic NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-2 hurricane season begins on June 1 and extends through November 30 of each year, although occasionally hurricanes oc cur outside this period. Inland Connecticut is vulnerable to hurricane s despite moderate hurricane occurrences when compared with other areas within the Atlantic Tropical Cyclone basin. Since hurricanes tend to weaken within 12 hours of landfall, inland areas are less susceptible to hurricane wind damages than coastal areas in Connecticut; however, the heaviest rainfall often occurs inland. Therefore, inland areas are vulnerable to inland flooding during a hurricane. The Saffir / Simpson Scale The Saffir / Simpson Hurricane Scale, which has been adopted by the National Hurricane Center, categorizes hurricanes based upon their intensity, and relates this intensity to damage potential. The Scale uses the sust ained surface winds (1-minute average) near the center of the system to classify hurricane s into one of five categories. The Saffir / Simpson scale is provided below. ‰ Category 1: Winds 74-95 mph (64-82 kt or 119- 153 km/hr). Storm surge generally 4-5 ft above normal. No real damage to building structures. Damage primarily to unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and tree s. Some damage to poorly constructed signs, coastal road flooding, and minor pier damage. Ö Hurricane Diane was a Category 1 hurrica ne when it made landfall in North Carolina in 1955, and weakened to a tropical storm before reaching the Connecticut shoreline. Ö Hurricane Agnes of 1971 was a Category 1 hurricane when it hit Connecticut. Ö Hurricanes Allison of 1995 and Danny of 1997 were Category 1 hurricanes at peak intensity. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-3 ‰ Category 2: Winds 96-110 mph (83-95 kt or 154-177 km/hr). Storm surge generally 6-8 feet above normal. Some roofing material, door, and window damage of buildings. Considerable damage to shrubbe ry and trees with some trees blown down. Considerable damage to mobile homes, poorly constructed signs, and piers. Coastal and low-lying escape routes flood two to f our hours before arrival of the hurricane center. Small craft in unprotected anchorages break moorings. Ö Hurricane Bonnie of 1998 was a Category 2 hurricane when it hit the North Carolina coast. Ö Hurricane Georges of 1998 was a Category 2 hurricane when it hit the F lorida Keys and the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Ö Hurricane Bob was a Category 2 hurricane wh en it m ade landfall in southern New England and New York in August of 1991. Ö Hurricane Ike was a strong Category 2 hurri cane when it struck Galveston and Houston in September 2008. ‰ Category 3: Winds 111-130 mph (96-113 kt or 178-209 km/hr). Storm surge generally 9-12 ft above normal. Some stru ctural damage to small residences and utility buildings with a minor amount of curtainwall fa ilures. Damage to shrubbery and trees with foliage blown off trees and large trees blown down. Mobile homes and poorly constructed signs are destroyed. Low-lying escape routes are cut by rising water three to five hours befo re arrival of the center of the hurricane. Flooding near the coast destroys smaller structures with larger structures damaged by battering from floating debris. Terrain con tinuously lower than five feet above mean sea level may be flooded inland eight miles (13 km) or mo re. Evacuation of low-lying residences within several blocks of the shoreline may be required. Ö The Great New England Hurricane of 1938 was a Category 3 hurricane when it hit New York and southern New England. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-4 Ö The Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 wa s a Category 3 hurricane when it made landfall in North Carolina, Virginia, New York, and southern New England. Ö Hurricane Carol of 1954 was a Category 3 hur ricane when it struck Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island. Ö Hurricane Connie of 1955 was a Category 3 hurricane when it made landfall in North Carolina. Ö Hurricane Gloria of 1985 was a Category 3 hurricane when it made landfall in North Carolina and New York, and weaken ed to a Category 2 hurricane before reaching Connecticut. Ö Hurricanes Roxanne of 1995 and Fran of 1996 were Category 3 hurricanes at landfall on the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico and in North Carolina, respectively. Ö Hurricane Katrina of August 2005 was a Category 3 hurricane when it stru ck Louisiana and Mississipp i. Ö Hurricane Rita of September 2005 reached Category 3 as it struck Louisiana. Ö Hurricane Wilma of October 2005 was a Ca tegory 3 hurricane when it made landfall in southw estern Florida. ‰ Category 4: Winds 131-155 mph (114-135 kt or 210-249 km/hr). Storm surge generally 13-18 ft above normal. More extensive curtainwall failures with some complete roof structure failures on small residences. Shrubs, trees, and all signs are blown down. Complete destruction of m obile homes. Extensive damage to doors and windows. Low-lying escape routes may be cut by rising water three to five hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Major damage to lower floors of structures near the shore. Terrain lower than 10 ft above sea level may be flooded requiring massive evacuation of re sidential areas as far inland as six miles (10 km). Ö Hurricane Donna of 1960 was a Category 4 hurricane when it made landfall in southwestern Florida, and weakened to a Category 2 hurricane when it reached Connecticut. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-5 Ö Hurricane Luis of 1995 was a Category 4 hurricane while moving over the Leeward Islands. Ö Hurricanes Felix and Opal of 1995 also reached Ca tegory 4 status at peak intensity. ‰ Category 5: Winds greater than 155 mph (135 kt or 249 km/hr). Storm surge generally greater than 18 ft above normal. Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings. Some complete bu ilding failures with small utility buildings blown over or away. All shrubs, trees, a nd signs blown down. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Severe and extensive window and door damage. Low-lying escape routes are cut by rising water three to five hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Major damage to lower floors of all structures located less than 15 ft above sea level and within 500 yards of the shoreline. Massive evacuation of residential areas on low ground within 5-10 m iles (8-16 km) of the shoreline may be required. Ö Hurricane Andrew was a Category 5 hu rricane when it made landfall in southeastern Florida in 1992. Ö Hurricane Mitch of 1998 was a Category 5 hurricane at peak intensity over the western Caribbean. Ö Hurricane Gilbert of 1988 was a Category 5 hur ricane at peak intensity and is one of the strongest Atlantic tr opical cyclones of record. Table 4-1 lists the hurr icane characteristics mentioned above as a function of category, as well as the expected central pressure. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-6 Table 4-1 Hurricane Characteristics CENTRAL PRESSURE WIND SPEED Category Millibars Inches MPH Knots SURGE Feet Damage Potential 1 >980 >28.9 74-95 64-83 4-5 Minimal 2 965-979 28.5-28.9 96-110 84-96 6-8 Moderate 3 945-964 27.9-28.5 111-130 97-113 9-12 Extensive 4 920-644 27.2-27.9 131-155 114-135 13-18 Extreme 5 <920 155 >135 >18 Catastrophic The Saffir / Simpson Hurricane Scale assumes an average, uniform coastline for the continental United States and was intended as a general guide for use by public safety officials during hurricane emergencies. It does not reflect the effects of varying localized bathymetry, coastline configuration, astronomical tides, barriers or other factors that may modify storm surge heights at the local leve l during a single hurricane event. For inland communities such as the Borough of Nauga tuck, the coastline assumption is not applicable. According to Connecticut’s 2007 Natural H azard Mitigation Plan Update, a moderate Category 2 hurricane is expect ed to strike Connecticut once every ten years, whereas a Category 3 or Category 4 hurricane is expect ed before the year 2040. These frequencies are based partly on the historic reco rd, described in the next section. 4.3 Historic Record Through research efforts by NOAA’s National Climate Center in cooperation with the National Hurricane Center, records of tropica l cyclone occurrences within the Atlantic Cyclone Basin have been compiled from 1851 to present. These re cords are compiled in NOAA’s Hurricane database (HURDAT), which contains historical data in the process of being reanalyzed to current sc ientific standards, as well as the most current hurricane NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-7 data. During HURDAT’s period of record, 29 hurricanes and 67 tropical storms have passed within a 150-mile radius of Newport, Rhode Island. Since 1900, eight direct hits and two hurricanes that did not make landfall (but passed close to the shoreline) were recorded along the Connecticut coast, of which there were four Category 3, two Category 2, and two Catego ry 1 hurricanes (two of the ten struck Connecticut before the Saffir / Simpson scal e was developed). Of the four Category 3 hurricanes, two occurred in September and two occurred in August. The most devastating hurricane to strike C onnecticut, and believed to be the strongest hurricane to hit New England in recorded history, was believed to be a Category 3 hurricane. Dubbed the “Long Island Expre ss of September 21, 1938”, this name was derived from the unusually high forward speed of the hurricane, estimated to be 70 mph. The hurricane made landfall at Long Isla nd, New York and moved quickly northward over Connecticut into northern New England. The majority of damage was caused from storm surge and wind damage. Surges of 10 to 12 feet were recorded along portions of the Long Island and Connecticut Coast, and 130 mile per hour winds flattened forests, destr oyed nearly 5,000 cottages, farms, and homes, and damaged an estimated 15,000 more th roughout New York and southern New England. Overall, the storm left an estimat ed 700 dead and caused physical damages in excess of 300 million 1938 United States dollars (USD). The “Great Atlantic Hurri cane” hit the Connecticut co ast in September 1944. This Category 3 hurricane brought rainfall in excess of six inches to most of the state and rainfall in excess of eight to ten inches in Fairfield County. Most of the wind damage from this storm occurred in southeastern C onnecticut. Injuries and storm damage were lower in this hurricane than in 1938 because of increased warning time and the fewer structures located in vulnerabl e areas due to the lack of rebuilding after the 1938 storm. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-8 Another Category 3 hurricane, Hurricane Carol, struck in August of 1954 shortly after high tide and produced storm surges of 10 to 15 feet in southeastern Connecticut. Rainfall amounts of six inches were recorded in New London, and wind gusts peaked at over 100 mph. Near the coast, the combinati on of strong winds and storm surge damaged or destroyed thousands of buildings, and the winds toppled trees that left most of the eastern part of the state w ithout power. Overall damages were estimated at $461 million (1954 USD), and 60 people died as a direct result of the hurricane. Western Connecticut was largely unaffected by Hurricane Carol due to the compact nature of the storm. The following year, back-to-back hurricanes Connie and Diane caused torrential rains and record-breaking floods in Connecticut. Hurricane Connie was a declining tropical storm when it hit Connecticut in August of 1955, producing hea vy rainfall of four to six inches across the state. The saturated soil conditions exacerba ted the flooding caused by Diane five days later, a Category 1 hurricane and the wett est tropical cyclone on record for the Northeast. Diane produced 14 inch es of rain in a 30-hour period, causing destructive flooding conditions along nearly ev ery major river system in the state. The Mad and Still Rivers in Winsted, the Naugatuck, the Farmington, and the Quinebaug River in northeastern Connectic ut caused the most damage. The floodwaters resulted in over 100 deaths, left 86,000 unemployed, and caused an estimated $200 million in damages (1955 USD). For comparison, the tota l property taxes levied by all Connecticut municipalities in 1954 amounted to $194.1 million. A description of damage caused by the storm in the Borough of Naugatuck was included in Section 3.3. As a result o f the 1955 flooding, the ACOE installed flood control dams in the Naugatuck River watershed, as detailed in Section 3 and Section 8. More recently, flooding and winds associated with hurricanes have caused extensive shoreline erosion and related damage. In September of 1985, hurricane Gloria passed over the coastline as a Category 2 hurricane. The hurricane struck at low tide, resulting in low to moderate storm surges along the co ast. The storm produced up to six inches of NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-9 rain in some areas and heavy winds which damaged structures and uprooted trees. Over 500,000 people suffered significant power outages. Hurricane Bob, a Category 2 hurricane that made landfall in 1991, caused storm surge damage along the Connecticut coast, but was more extensively felt in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Heavy winds were felt across eastern Connecticut with gusts up to 100 mph recorded, and the storm was responsible for six deaths in the state. Total damage in southern New England was approximately $1.5 billion (1991 USD). The most recent tropical cyclone to impact Connecticut was tropical storm Floyd in 1999. Floyd is the storm of record in the Connecticut Natural Ha zard Mitigation Plan and is discussed in more detail in Section 3.3. Tropical Storm Floyd caused power outages throughout New England and at l east one death in Connecticut. 4.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Existing mitigation measures appropriate fo r inland flooding have been discussed in Section 3. These include ordinances, codes, and regulations that have been enacted to minimize flood damage. In addition, various st ructures exist to protect certain areas, including dams and riprap. Wind loading requirements are addressed through the state building code. The Connecticut Building Code was amended in 200 5 and adopted with an effective date of December 31, 2005. The new code specifies the design wind speed for construction in all the Connecticut municipalities, with the addi tion of split zones for some municipalities. For example, for municipalities along the Merritt Parkway such as Fairfield and Trumbull, wind speed criteria are different no rth and south of the Parkway in relation to the distance from the shoreline. Effectiv e December 31, 2005, the design wind speed for Naugatuck is 100 miles per hour. Naugatuck has adopted the Connecticut Building Code as its building code. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-10 Parts or all of tall and older trees may fall during heavy wind events, potentially damaging structures, utility lines, and ve hicles. Currently tree maintenance is coordinated by the Borough Engine ering Department and the Tree Warden, who is part of the Department of Public Works. Naugatu ck residents can request a review of any hazardous trees that they believe belongs to the Borough and is creating a hazardous condition. The Engineering Depart ment will dispatch a crew to determine if the tree is on Borough property and Naugatuck’s Tree Warden will determine if the tree must be trimmed or removed. The Borough will only rem ove or trim trees that are determined to be hazardous, dead, or obstructing vision for ve hicular traffic. CL&P also performs tree maintenance, but landowners are primarily responsible for conducting tree maintenance on private property away from Borough propert y. The Borough attempts to close roads at convenient intersections rather than at the location of the downed tree or branch. In addition, all utilities in new subdivisions mu st be located underground whenever possible in order to mitigate storm-related damages. As explained in Section 2.9, the Borough of Naug atuck has buildings that can be used as shelters for evacuees. However, as none of these buildings have generators, and as the Borough has limited staffing available, the Bo rough generally has residents shelter in place unless there is an immediate need for ev acuation. As hurricanes generally pass an area within a day’s time, additional shelters can be set up after the storm as needed for long-term evacuees, or regional mass care fac ilities operated by the American Red Cross could be utilized. The Borough relies on radio and television to spread information on the location and availability of shelters. During a disaster , the Borough will notify residents of emergency information on a neighborhood basis using its CodeRED emergency notification service. Prior to severe storm events, the Borough en sures that warning/notification systems and communication equipment is working properly, and prepares for the possible evacuation of impacted areas. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-11 4.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment It is generally believed that New England is long overdue for another major hurricane strike. Recall that according to the 2007 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, a moderate Category II storm is expected to strike the state once per decade. The Borough of Naugatuck is less vulnerable to hu rricane damage than coastal municipalities in Connecticut because it does not need to deal with the effects of storm surge. The Borough of Naugatuck is vulnerable to hurricane damage from wind and flooding, and from any tornadoes accompanying the stor m. Areas of known and potential flooding problems are discussed in Section 3, and tornadoes will be discussed in Section 5. Hurricane-force winds can easily destroy poorly constructed buildings and mobile homes. Debris such as signs, roofi ng material, and small items left outside become flying missiles in hurricanes. Extensive damage to trees, towers, aboveground and underground utility lines (from uprooted trees), and falle n poles cause considerable disruption for residents. Streets may be flooded or bl ocked by fallen branches, poles, or trees, preventing egress. Downed power lines from heavy winds can also start fires, so adequate fire protection is important. There are five mobile home parks in the Borough of Naugatuck that are considered to be at increased risk of being da maged by high winds associated with tropical storm systems: ‰ Idleview Mobile Home Park on Lewis Hill off Duncan Avenue in the northwestern section of Naugatuck; ‰ Riverview Mobile Home Estates on Thunde rbird Drive in the northern part of Naugatuck overlooking the Naugatuck River; ‰ The Davis Mobile Home Park at 117 Lewis Street; ‰ The Weber Mobile Home Park at 137 Lewis Street; and ‰ Gendron’s Valley Mobile Home Park at 108 Clark Hill Road. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-12 As the residents and businesses of the State of Connecticut become more dependent on the internet and mobile communications, the impact of hurrica nes on commerce will continue to increase. A major hurricane has the potential of causing complete disruption of power and communications for up severa l weeks, rendering electronic devices and those that rely on utility towers and lines inoperative. According to the Connecticut DEP, this is a significant risk that cannot be quantitatively estimated. As the Borough of Naugatuck is not affected by storm surge, hurricane sheltering needs have not been calculated by the Army Corp s of Engineers for the Borough. The Borough of Naugatuck determines sheltering need based upon areas damaged within the Borough. Under limited emergency conditions, a high percen tage of evacuees will seek shelter with friends or relatives rather than go to es tablished shelters. During extended power outages, it is believed that only 10% to 20% of the affected population of Naugatuck will relocate, though many of this number will again stay with friends or relatives rather than go to established shelters. 4.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Many potential mitigation measures for hurricanes include those appropriate for inland flooding. These were presented in Section 3.6. However, hurricane mitigation measures must also address the effects of heavy winds that are inherently caused by hurricanes. Mitigation for wind damage is therefore emphasized in the subsections below. 4.6.1 Prevention Although hurricanes and tropical storms cannot be prevented, a number of methods are available to continue preventing damage from the storms, and perhaps to mitigate damage. The following actions have been id entified as potential preventive measures: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-13 ‰ Continue Borough-wide tree limb inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that the potential for downed power lines is diminished. ‰ Continue location of utiliti es underground in new developments or as related to redevelopment. ‰ As required by law, continue to review th e currently enacted Emergency Operations Plan for the Borough and update when necessary. 4.6.2 Property Protection Potential mitigation measures include designs for hazard-resistant construction and retrofitting techniques. These may take the form of increased wind and flood resistance, as well as the use of storm shutters over exposed glass and the inclusion of hurricane straps to hold roofs to buildings. Complia nce with the amended Connecticut Building Code for wind speeds is necessary. Literature should be made available by the Building Department and the Planning and Zoning Commission to developers during the permitting process regarding these design standards. 4.6.3 Public Education and Awareness The public should be made aware of evacuati on routes and available shelters. A number of specific proposals for improved public education are recommended to prevent damage and loss of life during hurricanes. These are common to all hazards in this plan, and are listed in Section 10.1. 4.6.4 Emergency Services The Emergency Operation Plan of the Bor ough of Naugatuck includes guidelines and specifications for communication of hurricane wa rnings and watches, as well as for a call NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-14 for evacuation. The public needs to be made aware in advance of a hurricane event of evacuation routes and the locations of public shelters, which could be accomplished by placing this information on the Borough website and by creating informational displays in local municipal buildings. In addi tion, Naugatuck should identify and prepare additional facilities for evacuation and shelte ring needs. The Borough should also review its mutual aid agreements and update as necessa ry to ensure help is available as needed. 4.6.5 Structural Projects Structural projects for wind damage mitigation are not possible. 4.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives While many potential mitigation activiti es were addressed in Section 4.6, the recommended mitigation strategies for mitigating hurricane and tropical storm winds in the Borough of Naugatu ck are listed below. ‰ Continue Borough-wide tree limb inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that the potential for downed power lines is diminished. ‰ Focus tree limb maintenance and inspectio ns along Route 63, Route 68, Spring Street, Union City Road, and other evacuation r outes. Increase inspections of trees on private property near power lines and Borough right-of-ways. ‰ Continue to require that utilities be placed underground in new developments and pursue funding to place them undergr ound in existing developed areas. ‰ Review potential evacuation plans to ensu re timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Naugatuck, and pos t evacuation and shelter information on the Borough website and in municipal buildings. ‰ Provide for the Building Department to have literature available regarding appropriate design standards for wind. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 4-15 In addition, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-1 5.0 SUMMER STORMS & TORNADOES 5.1 Setting Like hurricanes and winter st orms, summer storms and tornad oes have the potential to affect any area within the Bo rough of Naugatuck. Furthermore, because these types of storms and the hazards that result (flash flooding, wind, hail, and lightning) might have limited geographic extent, it is possible for a su mmer storm to harm one area within the Borough without harming another. The en tire Borough of Naugatuck is therefore susceptible to summer storms (including heavy rain, flash flooding, wind, hail, and lightning) and tornadoes. Based on the historic record, it is consider ed highly likely that a summer storm that includes lightning will impact the Borough of Naugatuck each year, although lightning strikes have a limited effect. Strong winds and hail are consid ered likely to occur during such storms but also generall y have limited effects. A tornado is considered a possible event in New Haven County each year that could cause significant damage to a small area (refer to Appended Table 2). 5.2 Hazard Assessment Heavy wind (including tornadoes and downbursts) , lightning, heavy rain, hail, and flash floods are the primary hazards associated w ith summer storms. Inland flooding and flash flooding caused by heavy rainfall was covered in Section 3.0 of this plan and will not be discussed in detail here. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-2 Tornadoes Tornadoes are spawned by certain thundersto rms. NOAA defines a tornado as “a violently rotating column of air extending from a thunders torm to the ground.” The Fujita scale was accepted as the official clas sification system for tornado damage for many years following its publication in 1971. Th e Fujita scale rated the intensity of a tornado by examining the damage caused by the tornado after it has passed over a man- made structure. The scale ranked tornadoes using the now-familiar notation of F0 through F5, increasing with wind speed and in tensity. The following graphic of the Fujita scale is provided by FEMA. A description of the scale follows in Table 5-1. Fujita Tornado Scale Table 5-1 Fujita Scale F-Scale Number Intensity Wind Speed Type of Damage Done F0 Gale tornado 40-72 mph Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes over shallow-rooted trees; damages sign boards. F1 Moderate tornado 73-112 mph The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off the roads; attached garages may be destroyed. F2 Significant tornado 113-157 mph Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-3 Table 5-1 (Continued) Fujita Scale F-Scale Number Intensity Wind Speed Type of Damage Done F4 Devastating tornado 207-260 mph Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated F3 Severe tornado 158-206 mph Roof and some walls torn off well constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted F5 Incredible tornado 261-318 mph Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel re- enforced concrete structures badly damaged. F6 Inconceivable tornado 319-379 mph These winds are very unlikely. The small area of damage they might produce would probably not be recognizable along with the mess produced by F4 and F5 winds that would surround the F6 winds. Missiles, such as cars and refrigerators, would do serious secondary damage that could not be directly identified as F6 damage. If this level is ever achieved, evidence for it might only be found in some manner of ground swirl pattern, for it may never be identifiable through engineering studies. According to NOAA, weak tornadoes (F0 a nd F1) account for approximately 69% of all tornadoes. Strong tornadoes (F2 and F3) account for approximately 29% of all tornadoes. Violent tornadoe s (F4 and above) are rare but extremely destructive, and account for only 2% of all tornadoes. The Enhanced Fujita Scale was released by NOAA for implementation on February 1, 2007. According to the NOAA web site, the En hanced Fujita Scale was developed in response to a number of weaknesse s to the Fujita Scale that were apparent over the years, including the subjectivity of the original scale based on damage, the use of the worst damage to classify the tornado, the fact th at structures have different construction depending on location within the United Stat es, and an overestimation of wind speeds for F3 and greater. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-4 The Enhanced F-scale is still a set of wind estimates based on damage. It uses three- second gusts estimated at the point of damage based on a judgment of eight levels of damage to 28 specific indicators. Table 5-2 relates the Fujita and enhanced Fujita scales. Table 5-2 Enhanced Fujita Scale Fujita Scale Derived EF Scale Operational EF Scale F Number Fastest 1/4- mile (mph) 3 Second Gust (mph) EF Number 3 Second Gust (mph) EF Number 3 Second Gust (mph) 0 40-72 45-78 0 65-85 0 65-85 1 73-112 79-117 1 86-109 1 86-110 2 113-157 118-161 2 110-137 2 111-135 3 158-207 162-209 3 138-167 3 136-165 4 208-260 210-261 4 168-199 4 166-200 5 261-318 262-317 5 200-234 5 Over 200 The historic record of tornadoes is discusse d in Section 5.3. The pattern of occurrence in Connecticut is expected to remain uncha nged according to the Connecticut Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2007). The highest relative risk fo r tornadoes in the state is Litchfield and Hartford Counties, followe d by New Haven, Fairfield, Tolland, Middlesex, Windham, and finally New London County. By virtue of its location in New Haven County, the Borough of Naugatuck is therefore at a relatively higher risk of tornadoes compared to most of the state. Lightning Lightning is a circuit of electricity that o ccurs between the positive and negative charges within the atmosphere or between the atmosphe re and the ground. In the initial stages of development, air acts as an insulator be tween the positive and negative charges. However, when the potential between the positive and negative charges becomes too great, a discharge of electr icity (lightning) occurs. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-5 In-cloud lightning occurs between the positive charges near the top of the cloud and the negative charges near the bottom. Cloud to cloud lightning occurs between the positive charges near the top of the cloud and the negative charges near the bottom of a second cloud. Cloud to ground lightning is the most dangerous. In summertime, most cloud to ground lightning occurs between the negative charges near the bottom of the cloud and positive charges on the ground. According to NOAA’s National Weather Service, lightning reportedly kills an average of 80 people per year in the United States, in a ddition to an average of 300 lightning injuries per year. Most lightning deaths and inju ries occur outdoors, with 45% of lightning casualties occurring in open fields and ballparks, 23% unde r trees, and 14% involving water activities. Only 15 li ghtning-related fatalities occu rred in Connecticut between 1959 and 2005, and only one occurred between 1998 and 2007. Most recent ly, on June 8, 2008, lightning struck a pavilion at Hammona ssett Beach in Madison, Connecticut, injuring five and killing one. Thunderstorms occur 18 to 35 days each year in Connecticut. According to a report by meteorologist Joe Furey on Fox 61 News, 2008 was an abnormal year for thunderstorms, with 20 days of thunderstorm activity occurring by the end of July. In general, thunderstorms in Connecticut are more frequent in the western and northern parts of the state, and less frequent in the southern and eastern parts. Although lightning is usually associated with thunderstorms, it can occur on almost any day. The likelihood of lightning strikes in the Naugatuck area is very high during any given thunderstorm, although no one area of the Borough is at higher risk of lightning strikes. Downbursts A downburst is a severe localized wind blas ting down from a thunderstorm. They are more common than tornadoes in Connecticut. These “straight line” winds are NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-6 Downbursts may be categorized as microbursts (affecting an area less than 2.5 miles in diameter) or macrobursts (affecting an area at least 2.5 miles in diameter). distinguishable from tornad ic activity by the pattern of destruction and debris. Depending on the size and location of these even ts, the destruction to property may be significant. Downbursts may be categorized as microbursts (affecting an area less than 2.5 miles in diameter) or macrobursts (affecti ng an area at least 2.5 miles in diameter). It is difficult to find statistic al data regarding frequency of downburst activity. However, downburst activity is, on occasion, mistaken for tornado activity in Connecticut, indicating that it is a rela tively uncommon yet persistent hazard. The risk to the Borough of Naugatuck is believed to be low to moderate for any given year. Hail Hailstones are chunks of ice that grow as updrafts in thunderstorms keep them in the atmosphere. Most hailstones are smaller in diameter than a dime, but stones weighing more than a pound have been recorded. While crops are the major victims of hail, it is also a hazard to vehicles and property. Hailstorms typically occur in at least one pa rt of Connecticut each year during a severe thunderstorm. As with thunderstorms, hailstorm s are more frequent in the northwest and western portions of the state, and less frequent in the southern and eastern portions. Overall, the risk of at least one hailstorm occurring in Naugatuck is moderate in any given year. 5.3 Historic Record The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) lists 13 tornado events in New Haven County since 1950. This includes one F4 rated tornado, two F3 rated tornadoes, three F2 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-7 rated tornadoes, three F1 rated tornadoes, two F0 rated tornadoes, and two undefined tornadoes. Property damages from torna dos in the County totaled approximately 280 million dollars. Table 5-3 lists the tornado events for New Haven County. Table 5-3 Tornado Events in New Haven County Since 1950 Date Fujita Tornado Scale Property Damage Wind Speed October 24, 1955 F2 $3,000 113 – 157 mph August 29, 1959 F- $0 Unknown May 24, 1962 F3 $2,500,000 158 – 206 mph July 29, 1971 F3 $250,000 158 – 206 mph September 18, 1973 F2 $0 113 – 157 mph July 28, 1982 F1 $3,000 73 – 112 mph July 10, 1989 F2 $25,000,000 113 – 157 mph July 10, 1989 F4 $250,000,000 207 – 260 mph May 29, 1995 F- $10,000 Unknown May 29, 1995 F1 $50,000 73 – 112 mph July 23, 1995 F0 $0 40 – 72 mph July 3, 1996 F1 $2,000,000 73 – 112 mph May 31, 2002 F0 $0 40 – 72 mph A limited selection of summer storm damage in and around Naugatuck, taken from the NCDC Storm Events database, is listed below: ‰ September 9, 1994 – Lightning strikes were reported from Milford to Naugatuck. ‰ April 4, 1995 – A roof was blown off of one house and two other homes were damaged by thunderstorm winds in Naugatuck. ‰ May 29, 1995: Severe thunderstorm winds were reported in the vicinity of Seymour and Naugatuck. ‰ August 2, 1995 – Severe thunderstorms were reported between Oxford and Naugatuck. The storm downed several tr ees and power lines as it moved across Connecticut. ‰ October 21, 1995 – A squall line generated thunderstorms that downed several trees and power lines. Several vehicles were damaged by the falling trees. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-8 ‰ July 15, 1997: Clusters of slow-movi ng severe thunderstorms produced high winds (50 miles per hour), hail, and heavy rain across New Haven County. Lightning struck four hilltop houses in eastern Naugatuck, causing minor damage. ‰ June 30, 1998: Two rounds of thunderstorm s affected New Haven County, producing frequent lightning and heavy rain. Light ning struck a house in the Ridge Subdivision of Naugatuck, causing damage to a bedroom wall in the morning. In the afternoon, severe thunderstorms produced high winds, large hail, a nd frequent lightning that downed many trees in New Haven County. ‰ August 11, 1998: An isolated severe thunders torm produced a wet microburst of high winds and heavy rain over Naugatuck. The 61 mph winds caused a three-quarter of a mile wide area of widespread tree damage from Highland Avenue to Woodland Street (about one to one and a half miles in lengt h). Two people were injured when a large tree fell on their second fl oor porch on High Street. ‰ January 18, 1999: Thunderstorms produced a brief period of high winds, lightning, and torrential rain. Lightning struck a house on Osborn Road in Naugatuck, and struck a house on Keefe Street in Waterbur y. The rainfall caused minor flooding of low-lying and poor drainage areas including streets and basements. ‰ September 16, 1999 – In addition to the fl ooding damages described in Section 3.3, the remnants of Tropical Storm Floyd al so produced wind gusts up to 60 miles per hour in New Haven County, causing widespr ead downing of trees and power lines. Significant power outages were reported. ‰ May 18, 2000: A line of severe thunderst orms produced damaging wind gusts up to 70 mph, primarily small hail, heavy rain, and lightning. Spotters reported downed trees, tree limbs, and wires in Waterbury, and one-half inch diameter hail was reported in Naugatuck. ‰ June 11, 2001: Locally severe thunderstorms produced high winds that downed trees and power lines across portions of southern Connecticut, and heavy rains that caused areas of flooding on roadways and in low-lying areas. 50 mph winds were reported in Naugatuck. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-9 A severe thunderstorm watch is issued by the National Weather Service when the weather conditions are such that a severe thunderstorm (winds greater than 58 miles per hour, or hail three-fourths of an inch or greater) is likely to develop. A severe thunderstorm warning is issued when a severe thunderstorm has been sighted or indicated by weather radar. ‰ June 16, 2002 – A severe thunderstorm produced large hail and damaging wind gusts as it moved east across Connecticut. Spotte rs reported 0.75-inch diameter hail in Waterbury, and high winds dow ned trees in Naugatuck. ‰ August 21, 2004 – Trees were downed in Beaco n Falls and Southbury as a result of thunderstorms accompanied by 50 mph wind gusts. ‰ July 28, 2006 – Severe thunderstorms produced high winds up to 50 mph that downed many trees and power lines across the stat e, including in nearby Beacon Falls. ‰ June 5, 2007: Severe thunderstorms pr oduced large hail (up to 1.75 inches in diameter) that accumulated up to one inch in depth along the Interstate 84 corridor. The storms also produced damaging winds and two to three inches of heavy rainfall that caused flash flooding throughout the ar ea. The flash flooding resulted in lane closures on Prospect Street in Naugatuck. ‰ July 28, 2007: Thunderstorms produced torrential rain and high winds and flash flooding in parts of New Have n and Middlesex Counties. Old Firehouse Road in Naugatuck was closed due to flooding. 5.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Warning is the primary method of existing mitigation for tornadoes and thunderstorm-related hazards. Tables 5-4 and 5-5 list the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Watches and Warnings, respectively, as pertaining to actions to be taken by emergency management personnel in connection with summer storms and tornadoes. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-10 Table 5-4 NOAA Weather Watches Weather Condition Meaning Actions Severe Thunderstorm Severe thunderstorms are possible in your area. Notify personnel, and watch for severe weather. Tornado Tornadoes are possible in your area. Notify personnel, and be prepared to move quickly if a warning is issued. Flash Flood It is possible that rains will cause flash flooding in your area. Notify personnel to watch for street or river flooding. Table 5-5 NOAA Weather Warnings Weather Condition Meaning Actions Severe Thunderstorm Severe thunderstorms are occurring or are imminent in your area. Notify personnel and watch for severe conditions or damage (i.e. downed power lines and trees. Take appropriate actions listed in local emergency plans. Tornado Tornadoes are occurring or are imminent in your area. Notify personnel, watch for severe weather and ensure personnel are protected. Take appropriate actions listed in emergency plans. Flash Flood Flash flooding is occurring or imminent in your area. Watch local rivers and streams. Be prepared to evacuate low- lying areas. Take appropriate actions listed in emergency plans. Aside from warnings, several other methods of mitigation for wind damage are employed in Naugatuck. Continued location of utilities underground is an important method of reducing wind damage to utilities and the re sulting loss of services. The Connecticut Building Codes include guidelines for Wind Lo ad Criteria that are specific to each municipality, as explained in Section 4.0. In addition, specific mitigation measures address debris removal and tree trimming. In the Borough of Naugatuck, the local utilities are responsible for tree branch removal and maintenance above and near their lines. In addition, all new developments in NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-11 Naugatuck must place utilities underground wherever possible. The Public Works Department also performs annual tree ma intenance on municipal right of ways. Municipal responsibilities relative to torn ado mitigation and preparedness include: ‰ Developing and disseminating emergency public information and instructions concerning tornado safety, especially gui dance regarding in-home protection and evacuation procedures, and lo cations of public shelters. ‰ Designate appropriate shelter space in the community that could potentially withstand tornado impact. ‰ Periodically test and exercise tornado response plans. ‰ Put emergency personnel on standby at tornado ‘watch’ stage. 5.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment The central and southern portions of the Unite d States are at higher risk for lightning and thunderstorms than is the northeast. Howeve r, more deaths from lightning occur on the East Coast than elsewhere, according to FE MA. Lightning-related fatalities have declined in recent years due to in creased education and awareness. Most thunderstorm damage is caused by straight-line winds exceeding 100 mph. Straight-line winds occur as the first gust of a thunderstorm or from the downburst from a thunderstorm, and have no associated rotation. Naugatuck is particularly susceptible to damage from high winds due to its high el evation and heavily treed landscape. Heavy winds can take down trees near power lines, leading to the start and spread of fires. Such fires can be extremely danger ous during the summer months during dry and drought conditions. Most downed power lines in Naugatuck are detected quickly and any associated fires are quickly extinguished. Ho wever, it is important to have adequate water supply for fire protection to ensure this level of safety is maintained. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-12 More information is available at: FEMA – http://www.fema.gov/library/ NOAA – http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/NWSTornado/ According to Borough personnel, the most su sceptible areas of Borough to wind damage are the mobile home parks listed in Section 4.5. Other areas of Borough are more susceptible to damage from falling branch es and trees than from actual wind damage. 5.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Both the FEMA and the NOAA websites contain valuable information regarding preparing for a protecting oneself during a tornado, as well as inform ation on a number of other natural hazards. Available information from FEMA includes: ‰ Design and construction guidance for creati ng and identifying community shelters; ‰ Recommendations to better protect your business, community, and home from tornado damage, including construction and design guidelines for structures; ‰ Ways to better protect property from wind damage; ‰ Ways to protect property from flooding damage; and ‰ Construction of safe rooms within homes. NOAA information includes a discussion of fa mily preparedness procedures and the best physical locations during a storm event. Although tornadoes pose a legitimate threat to public safety, their occurrence is considered t oo infrequent to justify the construction of tornado shelters. Residents should be en couraged to purchase a NOAA weather radio containing an alarm feature. The recent implementation of the CodeRED em ergency notification system in Naugatuck is beneficial for warni ng residents of an impending tornado. The Emergency Management Department has a page on its website NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-13 (http://www.naugatuck-ct.gov/Emergency_Management.htm) to encourage residents to become part of the CodeRED database. A community warning system that relies on radios and television is less effective at warning residents during the night when the majority of the community is asleep. This f act was evidenced most recently by the severe storm that struck Lake County, Florida on February 2, 2007. This powerful storm that included several tornadoes stuck at about 3: 15 AM. According to National Public Radio, local broadcast stations had difficultly warni ng residents due to the lack of listeners and viewers and encouraged those awake to tele phone warnings into the affected area. Specific mitigation steps that can be taken to prevent property damage and protect property are given below. Prevention ‰ Continue or increase tree limb inspection programs to ensure that the potential for downed power lines is minimized. ‰ Continue to place utilities underground. Property protection ‰ Continue to require compliance with the amended Connecticut Building Code for wind speeds. ‰ Provide for the Building Department to make literature available during the permitting process regarding appropriate design standards. 5.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives The following actions are recommended to mitigate for winds, hail, tornadoes, and downbursts: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 5-14 ‰ Increase tree limb maintenance and inspect ions, especially in the downtown areas. ‰ Perform outreach regarding dangerous trees on private property. ‰ Continue to require that utilities be placed underground in new developments and pursue funding to place them underground in existing developed areas ‰ Continue to require compliance with the amended Connecticut Building Code for wind speeds. ‰ Provide for the Building Department or the Planning and Zoning Commission to make literature available during the permitting process regarding appropriate design standards. In addition, important recommendations that a pply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-1 According to the National Weather Service, approximately 70% of winter deaths related to snow and ice occur in automobiles, and approximately 25% of deaths occur from people being caught in the cold. In relation to deaths from exposure to cold, 50% are people over 60 years old, 75% are male, and 20% occur in the home. 6.0 WINTER STORMS 6.1 Setting Similar to summer storms and tornadoes, winter storms have the potential to affect any area of the Borough of Naugatuck. However, unlike summer storms, winter events and the hazards that result (wind, snow, and ice) have more widespread geographic extent. The entire Borough of Naugatuck is susceptibl e to winter storms. In general, winter storms are considered highly likely to occur each year (major storms are less frequent), and the hazards that result (nor’easter winds, snow, and blizzard conditions) can potentially have a significant effect over a large area of the Borough (refer to Appended Tables 1 and 2). 6.2 Hazard Assessment This section focuses on those effects commonly associated with winter storms, including those from blizzards, ice storms, heavy snow, freezing rain and extreme cold. Most deaths fr om winter storms are indirectly related to the storm, such as from traffic accidents on icy roads and hypothermia from prolonged exposure to cold. Damage to trees and tree limbs and the resultant downing of utility cables are a common effect of these types of events. Secondary effects include loss of power and heat. The classic winter storm in New England is the nor’easter, which is caused by a warm moist, low pressure system moving up from the south colliding with a cold, dry high pressure system moving down from the north. The nor’easter derives its name from the northeast winds typically accompanying such st orms, and such storms tend to produce a NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-2 large amount of precipitation. Severe winter storms can produce an array of hazardous weather conditions, including heavy snow, blizzards, freezing rain and ice pellets, flooding, heavy winds, and extreme cold. The National Weather Service defines a blizzard as having winds over 35 mph with snow with blowing snow that reduces visibility to less than one-quarter mile for at least three hours. Connecticut experiences at least one severe winter storm every five years, although a variety of small and medium snow and ice storms occur nearly every winter. The likelihood of a nor’easter occurring in any give n winter is therefore considered high, and the likelihood of other winter storms occurring in any given winter is very high. The Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS ) was developed by Paul Kocin and Louis Uccellini ( Kocin and Uccellini, 2004) and is us ed by NOAA to characterize and rank high-impact Northeast snowstorms. These storms have wide areas of snowfall with accumulations of ten inches and above. NESIS has five categories: Extreme, Crippling, Major, Significant, and Notable. The index di ffers from other meteorological indices in that it uses population inform ation in addition to meteorological measurements, thus giving an indication of a stor m’s societal impacts. NESIS values are calculated within a geograp hical information system (GIS). The aerial distribution of snowfall and population inform ation are combined in an equation that calculates a NESIS score, which varies from around one for smaller storms to over ten for extreme storms. The raw score is then convert ed into one of the five NESIS categories. The largest NESIS values result from stor ms producing heavy snowfall over large areas that include major metropolitan centers. Tabl e 6-1 presents the NESIS categories, their corresponding NESIS values, a nd a descriptive adjective. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-3 Table 6-1 NESIS Categories Category NESIS Value Description 1 1—2.499 Notable 2 2.5—3.99 Significant 3 4—5.99 Major 4 6—9.99 Crippling 5 10.0+ Extreme 6.3 Historic Record Seven major winter nor’easters have occurred in Connecticut during the past 30 years (in 1979, 1983, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2003, and 2006). The 1992 nor’easter, in particular, caused the third-highest tides ever reco rded in Long Island Sound and damaged 6,000 coastal homes. Inland areas received up to f our feet of snow. Winter Storm Ginger in 1996 caused up to 27 inches of snow 24 hours an d shut down the State of Connecticut for an entire day. The nor’easter which occurr ed on February 12 and 13, 2006 resulted in 18 to 24 inches of snow across Connecticut and was rated on NESIS as a Category 3 “Major” storm across the north east. This storm ranked 20 th out of 33 major winter storms ranked by NESIS for the northeastern United States since 1956, and produced 21 inches of snow in Seymour and 23 inches of snow in Waterbury. The most damaging winter storms are not always nor’easters. According to the NCDC, there have been 135 snow and ice events in the State of Connecticut between 1993 and March 2008, causing over $18 million in damages. Notably, heavy snow in December 1996 caused $6 million in property damage. Snow removal and power restoration for a winter storm event spanning March 31 and April 1, 1997 cost $1 million. On March 5, 2001, heavy snow caused $5 million in damages, followed by another heavy snow event four days later that caused an additional $2 million in damages. The last documented NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-4 winter storm event that qualified as a blizzard was Winter Storm Ginger in January of 1996. These events were recorded for va rious counties throughout the state. Catastrophic ice storms are less frequent in Connecticut than the rest of New England due to the close proximity of the warmer wate rs of the Atlantic Ocean and Long Island Sound. The most severe ice storm in Conn ecticut on record was Ice Storm Felix on December 18, 1973. This storm resulted in two deaths and widespread power outages throughout the state. An ice storm in November of 2002 that hit Litchfield and western Hartford Counties resulted in $2.5 mill ion in public sector damages. Additional examples of recent winter storms to affect New Haven County, taken from the NCDC database, include: ‰ March 13 to 14, 1993 – A powerful storm caused blizzard conditions and up to 21 inches of snow in Litchf ield County, with less snowfall occurring in New Haven County. 40,000 power outages and $550,000 in property damage was report ed throughout Connecticut. ‰ December 23, 1994 – An unusual snow-less late December storm caused gale force winds across the state. The high winds caused widespread power outages affecting up to 130,000 customers statewide. Numer ous trees and limbs were blown down, damaging property, vehicles, and power lines to a total of five million dollars in damages. Peak wind gusts of up to 64 miles per hour were reported. ‰ January 12, 1995 – Light snow and sleet ch anged to light freezing rain, coating highways with ice. Up to 200 accidents occurred on state highways. ‰ April 9, 1996 – A late winter storm produced heavy wet snow across most of southern Connecticut. The weight of the snow cause d numerous trees and power lines to fall. Snowfall amounts ranged from three to 14 inches across New Haven County. ‰ April 1, 1997 – A low pressure system produced morning rain and afternoon wet snow during the afternoon. Strong gusty wi nds up to 40 mph combined with the wet NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-5 snow to cause power lines and trees to fall. Nine inches of snow was reported in Beacon Falls. ‰ December 29, 1997 – A low pressure system produced sustained winds of 30 to 40 mph with gusts up to 59 knots, with damage to trees and power lines reported in Ansonia and Naugatuck. ‰ January 15, 1998 – An ice storm caused wide spread and numerous traffic accidents across northern New Haven County, with at least one-half inch of ice accumulating on trees and power lines. Several road s were closed due to severe icing. ‰ March 15, 1999 – Light rain changed to we t snow that became heavy overnight, downing numerous tree limbs and power lin es across the region. Snowfall amounts in New Haven County ranged from eight to 11 inches. ‰ January 25, 2000 – A winter storm produced up to two inches of snow per hour in northern New Haven County, whic h changed into sleet and freezing rain as the storm progressed. Snowfall was measured at 6.3 inches in neighboring Beacon Falls and seven inches in neighboring Waterbury, and the snow was accompanied by wind gusts up to 45 mph. ‰ December 12, 2000 – High winds produced peak wind gusts of up to 58 mph in northern New Haven County, downing many tr ees onto houses, cars, power lines, and streets and causing signifi cant property damage and power outages in Naugatuck and Waterbury. ‰ December 30, 2000: A winter storm produced six to 12 inches of snow across northern New Haven County. There were numerous reports of thunder and lightning along with high winds that caused near-blizz ard conditions. Twelve inches of snow was reported in Naugatuck. ‰ February 5, 2001 – A winter storm produced bands of heavy wet snow across New Haven County, with amounts ranging from ten to 20 inches reported. The heavy snow caused numerous fallen tree limbs that snapped power lines, power outages, and caused many traffic accidents. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-6 ‰ November 27, 2002 – Bands of heavy snow passed over northern New Haven County, producing seven inches of snow in neighboring Beacon Falls and nine inches in neighboring Waterbury. ‰ December 5, 2003 – A winter storm produced occasionally heavy snow with accumulations of up to 13 inches in Oxford. Wind gusts of at least 35 mph combined with the snow to create “white-out” conditions that caused major widespread impacts to mass transit acro ss the entire region. ‰ January 28, 2004: A winter storm produced six to 11 inches of snow across Connecticut, and produced six inches of snow in Naugatuck and eight in Waterbury. ‰ February 25, 2005 – A winter storm produced snow amounts of five to 10 inches across the state. ‰ March 8, 2005 – A strong arctic cold front intensified as it swept across Connecticut, causing rain to change to snow and temperat ures to fall from the 40s to the 20s, and produced northwest winds up to 55 mph. Near blizzard conditions occurred for a short time, with snowfall amounts ranging from three to six inches. The sudden drop in temperature resulted in a “flash-freeze” across roads that resulted in hundreds of vehicle accidents. ‰ March 12, 2005 – A band of heavy snow orie nted from south to north across New Haven County produced snowfall totaling nine in ches at rates in excess of two inches per hour as measured in neighboring Beacon Falls. ‰ March 24, 2005 – A late winter storm produ ced six inches of snow in neighboring Beacon Falls. ‰ December 9, 2005 – A winter storm produced six to 12 inches of snow across Connecticut. ‰ January 9, 2008 – Gusty winter winds cause d a partial collapse of a building under construction in neighboring Oxford. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-7 6.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Existing programs applicable to flooding and wind are the same as those discussed in Sections 3.0 and 4.0. Programs that are specif ic to winter storms are generally those related to preparing plows, sand and salt truc ks; tree-trimming to protect power lines; and other associated snow remova l and response preparations. As it is almost guaranteed that winter storms will occur annually in Connecticut, it is important for municipalities to budget for and then allocate fiscal resources for snow management. The Borough ensures that al l warning/notification and communications systems are ready before a storm, and ensure s that appropriate equipment and supplies, especially snow removal equipment, are in place and in good working order. The Borough also prepares for the possible evacuation and sheltering of some populations which could be impacted by the upcoming stor m (especially the elderly and special needs persons). The Borough of Naugatuck’s streets are plow ed with a combination of Borough trucks and private contractors. Each section of the Borough has a crew assigned to it. Plow trucks are first dispatched to the areas of Nauga tuck with higher elevations as it begins to snow. During emergencies, a plow vehicle can be dispatched ahead of an emergency vehicle. 6.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment As mentioned for summer storms, the heav ily treed landscape in close proximity to densely populated residentia l areas in the Borough of Naugatuck poses problems in relation to blizzard condition damage. Tree limbs and some building structures may not be suited to withstand high wind and snow loads. Ice can damage or collapse power NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-8 lines, render steep gradients impassable for motorists, undermine foundations, and cause “flood” damage from freezing water pipes in basements. In addition, winter storms present additional problems for motorists all over the state. As the population of Connecticut and its dependenc e on transportation continues to increase, the vulnerability of the state to winter storms also increases. There is a high propensity for traffic accidents and traffic jams during heavy snow and even light icing events. Roads may become impassable, inhibiting the ability of emergency equipment to reach trouble spots and the accessibility to medical and shelter facilities. Stranded motorists, especially senior and/or handi capped citizens, are at particul arly high risk of injury or death from exposure during a blizzard. Afte r a storm, snow piled on the sides of roadways can inhibit line of sight and re flect a blinding amount of sunlight, making driving difficult. When coupled with slippery road conditions, poor sightlines and heavy glare create dangerous driving conditions. As there is over 720 feet in elevation difference between th e high point and low point in the Borough, Naugatuck can experience snow in the hills while it rains in the downtown area. The Borough relies on its personnel to report areas receiving snow in the higher elevations, as there are many hills in Naugatu ck which can make driving difficult in icy weather. As for other winter hazards, dr ifting snow is not as large a problem in Naugatuck as in other areas, but it can still occur. This pr oblem is mitigated through municipal plowing efforts. Ice jams are not a problem in Naugatuck. Recall from Figure 2-7, Figure 2-8, and Figure 2-9 that elderly, linguistically isolated, and disabled populations resi de in the Borough of Naugatuck. It is possible that significant populations impacted by a severe winter storm could consist of the elderly, linguistically isolated households, and people with disabilities. Thus, it is important for NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-9 Naugatuck’s emergency personnel to be prepared to assist these special populations during emergencies such as winter storms. 6.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Potential mitigation measures for flooding caused by nor’easters include those appropriate for flooding. These were presented in Section 3.6. Winter storm mitigation measures must also address blizzard, snow , and ice hazards. These are emphasized below. Note that structural projects are ge nerally not applicable to hazard mitigation for wind, blizzard, snow, and ice hazards. 6.6.1 Prevention Cold air, wind, snow, and ice can not be prev ented from impacting any particular area. Thus, mitigation should be focused on prope rty protection and emergency services (discussed below) and prevention of damage as caused by breakage of tree limbs. Previous recommendations for tree limb inspections and maintenance in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 are thus applicable to wi nter storm hazards, as well. As mentioned previously, utilities in Naugatuck should continue to be placed underground where possible. This can occur in connection with new deve lopment and also in connection with redevelopment work. Underg round utilities cannot be damaged by heavy snow, ice, and winter winds. 6.6.2 Property Protection Property can be protected duri ng winter storms through the use of shutters, storm doors, and storm windows. Where flat roofs are used on structures, snow removal is important as the heavy load from collecting snow may exceed the bearing capacity of the structure. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-10 Heating coils may be used to remove snow from flat roofs. Pipes should be adequately insulated to protect against fr eezing and bursting. All of these recommendations should apply to new construction, although they may al so be applied to existing buildings during renovations. Finally, as recommended in previous sections, compliance with the amended Connecticut Building Code for wind speeds is necessary. 6.6.3 Public Education and Awareness The public is typically more aware of the hazardous effects of snow, ice, and cold weather than they are with rega rd to other hazards discussed in this plan. Nevertheless, people are still stranded in automobiles, get caught outside their homes in adverse weather conditions, and suffer heart failure while shoveling during each winter in Connecticut. Public education should therefore focus on safety tips and reminders to individuals about how to prepare for cold and icy weather, including stocking homes, preparing vehicles, and taking care of themselves during winter storms. 6.6.4 Emergency Services Emergency services personnel and departments such as Police and Fire should identify areas which may be difficult to access during winter storm events and devise contingency plans to continue servicing those areas during moderate st orms. The creation of through streets with new developments increases the amount of egress for residents and emergency personnel in to neighborhoods. The Borough of Naugatuck has established plowi ng routes that prioritize access to and from critical facilities. Residents should be made aware of the plow routes in order to plan how to best access crit ical facilities during storms, perhaps by posting the general routes on the Borough website. Such routes should also be posted other municipal buildings, such as the library and the post office. It is rec ognized that plowing critical NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 6-11 facilities may not be a priority to all residents, as people typically expect their own roads to be cleared as soon as possible. Available shelters shou ld also be advertised and their locations known to the public prior to a storm event. Local schools, which are designated as shelters, should be equipped with emergency generators to provide backup power. Finally, mutual aid agreements with surrounding municipalities should be reviewed and updated as necessary to ensure help will be available when needed. 6.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Most of the recommendations in Sections 3.6 for mitigating flooding are suitable for mitigation of flooding caused by winter storms. These are not repeated in this subsection. While many potential mitigation activities for the remaining winter storm hazards were addressed in Section 6.6, the recommended mitigation strategies for mitigating wind, snow, and ice in the Borough of Naugatuck are listed below. ‰ Increase tree limb maintenance and inspect ions, especially in the downtown areas. ‰ Continue to require that utilities be placed underground in new developments and pursue funding to place them underground in existing developed areas ‰ Review and post evacuation plans to ensu re timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Naugatuck. ‰ Post a list of Borough sheltering facilities and snow plowing prioritization in the municipal offices and on the Borough’s webs ite so residents can best plan how to access to critical faci lities during a winter storm event. ‰ Continue to encourage two modes of eg ress into every neighborhood by the creation of through streets. In addition, important recommendations that a pply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-1 7.0 EARTHQUAKES 7.1 Setting The entire Borough of Naugatuck is suscepti ble to earthquakes. However, even though earthquakes have the potential to occur anywhere both in the Borough and in the northeastern United States, the effects may be felt differently in some areas based on the type of geology. In general, ear thquakes are considered a hazard that is possible to occur, but that may cause significan t effects to a large area of the Borough (Appended Table 1). 7.2 Hazard Assessment An earthquake is a sudden rapid shaking of the earth caused by the breaking and shifting of rock beneath the earth’s surface. Earthquakes can cause buildings and bridges to collapse, disrupt gas, electric and telephone lines, and often cause landslides, flash floods, fires, avalanches, and tsunamis. Earthquakes can occur at any time without warning. The underground point of origin of an earthqu ake is called its focus; the point on the surface directly above the focus is the epicenter. The magnitude and intensity of an earthquake is determined by the use of th e Richter scale and the Mercalli scale, respectively. The Richter scale defines the magnitude of an earthquake. Magnitude is related to the amount of seismic energy released at the hypocenter of the earthquake. It is based on t he amplitude of earthquake waves recorded on instruments which have a common calibration. The magnitude of an earthqua ke is thus represented by a single, instrumentally determined va lue recorded by a seismograph, which record the varying amplitude of ground oscillations. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-2 The magnitude of an earthquake is determined from the logarithm of the amplitude of recorded waves. Being logarithmic, each whole number increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in measured strength. Earthquakes with a magnitude of about 2.0 or less are usually called micro-earthquakes, and are generally only recorded locally. Earthquakes with magnitudes of 4.5 or greater are strong enough to be recorded by seismographs all over the world. The effect of an earthquake on the Earth’s surface is called the intensity. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale consists of a series of key responses such as people awakening, movement of furniture, damage to chimneys, and total destruction. This scale, composed of 12 increasing levels of intensity that range from imperceptible shaking to catastrophic destruction, is designated by Roman numerals. It is an arbitrary ranking based on observed effects. Unlike seismic activity in Califor nia, earthquakes in Connecticut are not associated with specific known faults. Instead, earthquakes with epicenters in Connecticut are referred to The following is a description of the 12 levels of Modified Mercalli intensity from the USGS. I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. II. Felt only by a few person s at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing. III. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated. IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes and windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. VI. Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. VII. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. XI. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. XII. Damage total. Lines of sight and level are destroyed. Object thrown in the air. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-3 as intra-plate activity. Bedrock in Connecticut and New England in general is highly capable of transmitting seismic energy; thus, the area impacted by an earthquake in Connecticut can be four to 40 times greater than that of California. In addition, population density is up to 3.5 times greater in Connecticut than in California, potentially putting a greater number of people at risk. The built environment in Connecticut includes old, non-reinforced masonry that is not seismically designed. Those who live or wo rk in non-reinforced masonry buildings, especially those built on filled land or unstable soils are at the highest risk for injury due to the occurrence of an earthquake. 7.3 Historic Record According to the USGS Earthquake Hazards Pr ogram, Connecticut is a region of very minor seismic activity. This assessment is based on lack of historical and instrumental reports of strong earthquakes. However, ea rthquakes do occur in this region. The New England states regularly re gister seismic events. According to the Northeast Region Emergenc y Consortium, there were 137 recorded earthquakes in Connecticut between 1568 and 1989. The mo st severe earthquake in Connecticut’s history occurred at East Haddam on May 16, 1791. Stone walls and chimneys were toppled during this quake. Additional instances of seismic activity occurring in and around Connecticut includes is provided below, based on information provided in USGS documents, the Connecticut Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2007), other municipal hazard mitigation plans, and newspaper articles. ‰ A devastating earthquake near Three Ri vers, Quebec on February 5, 1663 caused moderate damage in parts of Connecticut. ‰ Strong earthquakes in Massachusetts in November 1727 and November 1755 were felt strongly in Connecticut. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-4 ‰ In April 1837, a moderate tremor occurred at Hartford, causing alarm but little damage. ‰ In August 1840, another moderate tremor with its epicenter 10 to 20 miles north of New Haven shook Hartford buildings but caused little damage. ‰ In October 1845, an Intensity V earthquake occurred in Bridgeport. An Intensity V earthquake would be approximately 4.3 on the Richter scale. ‰ On June 30, 1858, New Haven and Derby we re shaken by a moderate tremor. ‰ On July 28, 1875, an early morning tremor caused Intensity V damage throughout Connecticut and Massachusetts. ‰ The second strongest earthqua ke to impact Connecticut occurred near Hartford on November 14, 1925. No significant damage was reported. ‰ The Timiskarning, Ontario earthquake of November 1935 caused minor damage as far south as Cornwall, Connecticut. This earthquake affected one million square miles of Canada and the United States. ‰ An earthquake near Massena, New York in September 1944 produced mild effects in Hartford, Marion, New Haven, and Meriden, Connecticut. ‰ An Intensity V earthquake was reported in Stamford in March of 1953, causing shaking but no damage. ‰ On November 3, 1968, another Intensity V earthquake in southern Connecticut caused minor damage in Madison and Chester. ‰ Recent earthquake activity has been recorded near New Haven in 1988, 1989, and 1990 (2.0, 2.8, and 2.8 in magnitude, respec tively), in Greenwich in 1991 (3.0 magnitude), and on Long Island in East Hampton, New York in 1992. ‰ The most recent earthquake to occur in Connecticut occurred on March 11, 2008. It was a 2.0 magnitude with its epicenter three m iles northwest of the center of Chester. 7.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures The Connecticut Building Codes include desi gn criteria for buildings specific to municipality, as adopted by the Building Officials and C ode Administrators (BOCA). NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-5 These include the seismic coefficients for building design in the Borough of Naugatuck. The Borough has adopted these codes for new construction and they are enforced by the Borough Building Inspector. Due to the infr equent nature of damaging earthquakes, land use policies in the Borough of Naugatuck do not directly address earthquake hazards. The Zoning Regulations of the Borough of Naugatuck (Section 24.10) states no more than 25 percent of the Minimum Buildable Area shall contain slopes in excess of 25 percent. Section 36.1 of the Zoning Regulatio ns requires a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan be submitted when the disturbed area of a site is greater than one-half acre. The Plan of Conservation and Development suggests that areas of greater than 15% slopes be defined as un-buildable area. In particular, Goal #3 item #4 of the Plan of Conservation and Development states “Establish devel opment standards for single-family housing on slopes.” 7.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment According to the USGS, Connecticut is at a low risk for experiencing a damaging earthquake. The USGS has determined that the State of Connecticut has a 10% chance that at some point in a 50-year period an earthquake would cause peak acceleration (ground shaking) values of 4% to 8% of th e force of gravity. To appreciate why these values of ground shaking are expres sed as a percentage of the force of gravity, note that it requires more than 100% of the force of gr avity to throw objects up in the air. In terms of felt effects and damage, ground mo tion at the level of several percent of gravity corresponds to the threshold of dama ge to buildings and houses (an earthquake intensity of approximately V). For compar ison, reports of “dishes, windows and doors disturbed” corresponds to an intensity of about IV, or about 2% of gravity. Reports of “some chimneys broken” correspond to an intens ity of about VII, or about 10% to 20% of gravity. According to the USGS Nationa l Seismic Hazard Mapping Project (2008), an NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-6 Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil are reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. It occurs in soils at or near saturation, especially the finer textured soils. The AEL is the expected losses due to earthquakes each year. Note that this number represents a long term average; thus actual earthquake losses may be much greater or non- existent for a particular year. earthquake impacting the Borough of Naugatuck has a 2% chance of exceeding a peak acceleration of 10-12% of the force of gravity in a 50-year period. According to the FEMA HAZUS-HM Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States (2008) document, FEMA used pr obabilistic curves developed by the USGS for the National Earthquakes Hazards Reduc tion Program to calculate Annualized Earthquake Losses (AEL) for the United Stat es. Based on the results of this study, FEMA calculated the AEL for Connectic ut to be $11,622,000. This value placed Connecticut 30 th out of the 50 states in terms of AEL. The magnitude of this value stems from the fact that Connectic ut has a large building inventory that would be damaged in a severe earthquake, and takes into account the lack of damaging earthquakes in th e historical record. The current Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2007) states that “there is a 66% chance that an earthquake of a 2.7 magnitude or greater” will occur in the area of Naugatuck. According to the previous C onnecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004), the State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Management noted the chance that a damaging earthqu ake of magnitude 5.0 or greater will occur within the State in any one year is 5% , and that the odds of an earthquake of magnitude 6.0 are about one in 300 each year. Therefore, the Borough of Naugatuck is unlikely to experience a damaging earthquake in any given year. This belief is reinforced by the timeline and damages recorded in the histor ical record presented in Section 7.3. Surficial earth materials behave differently in response to seismic activity. Unconsolidated materials such as sand and artificial fill can amplify the shaking associated with an earthquake. In addition, ar tificial fill material has NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-7 the potential for liquefaction. When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases, reducing the ability of soil to support building foundations or bridges is reduced. Increased shaking a nd liquefaction can cause greater damage to buildings and structures, and a grea ter loss of life. As explained in Section 2.3, several areas in the Borough of Naugatuck are underlain by sand and gravel. Figure 2-5 depicts surficia l materials in the Borough. Structures in these areas are at increased risk from earthqu akes due to amplification of seismic energy and/or collapse. The best mitigation for future development in areas of sandy material may be application of the most stringent bui lding codes, or possibly the prohibition of certain types of vulnerable construction in thes e areas. The areas that are not at increased risk during an earthquake due to unstable so ils are the areas in Figure 2-5 underlain by glacial till. One inactive fault is located in Naugatuck in the far southeast corner of the Borough. Even though this fault is inactive, the best mitigation for future development in the area of this fault would be to preserve or conve rt the fault area into municipal open space. Much of the fault area lies within the Naugatuck State Forest and the area is already set aside as rural. Areas of steep slopes can collapse during an earthquake, creating landslides. Seismic activity can also break utility lines, such as water mains, electric and telephone lines, and stormwater management systems. Damage to u tility lines can lead to fires, especially in electric and gas mains. Dam failure can also pose a significant threat to developed areas during an earthquake. For this Plan, dam failure has been addressed separately in Section 9.0. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 7-8 7.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives As earthquakes are difficult to predict and can affect the entire Borough of Naugatuck, potential mitigation can only include adherence to building code s, education of residents, and adequate planning. The following poten tial mitigation measures have been identified: ‰ Continue to require adherence to the state building codes. ‰ Preserve or convert areas of inactive faults to municipal open space. ‰ Consider preventing certain types of developm ent, such as residential development, in areas prone to collapse. ‰ Ensure that future implementation of Goal #3 item #4 of the Plan of Conservation and Development (“Establish development standards for single-family housing on slopes”) considers earthquake risks. ‰ Continue regulating development of slopes gr eater than 20%, and consider setting a prohibition on development of steep slopes. ‰ Ensure that municipal departments have ade quate backup facilities in case earthquake damage occurs. In addition, important recommendations that a pply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-1 8.0 DAM FAILURE 8.1 Setting Dam failures can be triggered suddenly, with little or no warning, from other natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes. Dam failures often occur during flooding when the dam breaks under the additional force of fl oodwaters. In addition, a dam failure can cause a chain reaction where the sudden re lease of floodwaters causes the next dam downstream to fail. With 16 registered dams and potentially se veral other minor dams in the Borough, dam failure can occur almost anywhere in Nauga tuck. In addition, parts of the Borough lie within inundation areas for several Class C dams. While flooding from a dam failure generally has a small geographic extent, th e effects are potentially catastrophic. Fortunately, a major dam failure is considered only a possible natural hazard event in any given year (Appended Table 2). 8.2 Hazard Assessment The Connecticut DEP administers the statew ide Dam Safety Program, and designates a classification to each state-registered dam based on its potential hazard. ‰ Class AA dams are negligible hazard potential dams that upon failure would result in no measurable damage to roadways and stru ctures, and negligible economic loss. ‰ Class A dams are low hazard potential dams th at upon failure would result in damage to agricultural land and unimproved road ways, with minimal economic loss. ‰ Class BB dams are moderate hazard potential dams that upon failure would result in damage to normally unoccupied storage structures, damage to low volume roadways, and moderate economic loss. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-2 ‰ Class B dams are significant hazard potential dams that upon failure would result in possible loss of life, minor damage to ha bitable structures, residences, hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, and the like, damage or interruption of service of utilities, damage to primary roadways, and significant economic loss. ‰ Class C dams are high potential hazard dams th at upon failure would result in loss of life and major damage to habitable structures, residences, hosp itals, convalescent homes, schools, and main highways with great economic loss. As of 1996, there were 16 DEP-registered dams within the Borough of Naugatuck, of which three are Class A, five are Class BB, f our are Class B, three are Class C and one is undefined. The list of Class B and C dams was updated by the DEP in 2007. These are listed in Table 8-1. Table 8-1 Dams Registered with the DEP in the Borough of Naugatuck Number Name Class 8801 Candee Reservoir Dam BB 8802 Thurston Pond Dam C 8803 May Street Pond South Dam B 8804 May Street Pond North Dam B 8805 Mulberry Reservoir Dam C 8806 Union Ice Company Pond Dam BB 8807 Schildgen Pond Dam BB * 8808 Baummer Dam A 8809 Armory Pond Dam A 8810 Uniroyal Diversion Dam – 8811 Straitsville Pond Dam A 8812 Union City Dam BB 8813 Straitsville Reservoir Dam B 8814 Hop Brook Dam C 8815 Ridge Lower Pond Dam BB 8816 Ridge Upper Pond Dam BB *Rated a Class B dam in 1996, but was no longer rated Class B in 2007. This section discusses only th e possible effects of failure of significant and high hazard (Class B & C) dams. Failure of a Class C dam has the potential for loss of life and NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-3 property damage totaling millions of dollars. Failure of a Class B dam has the potential for loss of life and minor damage to property and critical facilities. The three Class C dams located in the Bor ough of Naugatuck include the Thurston Pond Dam, the Mulberry Reservoir Dam, and the H op Brook Dam. In addition, there are four other Class C dams upstream of Naugatu ck whose failure would impact Borough residents, as listed in Table 8-2 below. B ecause the hazard areas overlap, these Class B and C dams, along with their dam failure i nundation areas are shown in Figures 8-1 and 8-2. Table 8-2 Class C Dams Upstream of the Borough of Naugatuck Number Name Watercourse in Naugatuck Municipality 803 Long Hill Reservoir Da m Beacon Hill Brook Bethany 14001 Thomaston Dam Naugatuck River Thomaston 14007 Black Rock Dam Naugatuck River Thomaston 14008 Northfield Brook Dam Naugatuck River Thomaston Note that the Black Rock Dam, Hop Brook Dam, and Thomaston Dam have progressively larger inundation areas depicted on Figur e 8-1. For example, the Thomaston Dam inundation area (purple) is only visible at the edges of the Black Rock Dam inundation area (yellow) although it completely underlies (is wider than) the Black Rock Dam inundation area. 8.3 Historic Record Approximately 200 notable dam and reservoi r failures occurred worldwide in the twentieth century. More than 8,000 people died in these disa sters. The following is a listing of some of the more ca tastrophic dam failures in Connecticut’s recent history: 9 a © % % % ª 9: ¨ nn n n n n n n n n n Figure 8-1: High Hazard Dams in Naugatuck 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 Thurston Pond Dam Mulberry Reservoir Dam Hop Brook Dam % C Dam Hazard Class For ge neral p lannin g purp oses o nly. D elinea tions m ay no t be ex act. Source : “Roads” , c1984 – 2 008 T ele A tlas, Re l. 04/0 8. “T own B ounda ry”, “Dams”, DEP “Facilitie s”, Naugat uck Octobe r 2008 Dam Inundation Area Hop Brook Dam Black Rock Dam Northfield Brook Dam Thomaston Dam Z 374 Æ V Legend Town Boundary Local Roads Major Roads © Fire Stations a Police Stations Water Streams Schools n Public Works 9: ¨ ª AmbulanceServices Z CL&P Substation 374Æ V Senior Center EcumenicalFood Bank 9 Town Offices 9 a © % % % ª 9: ¨ nn n n n n n n n n n Figure 8-2: High Hazard Dams in Naugatuck 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 Thurston Pond Dam Mulberry Reservoir Dam Hop Brook Dam % C Dam Hazard Class For ge neral p lannin g purp oses o nly. D elinea tions m ay no t be ex act. Source : “Roads” , c1984 – 2 008 T ele A tlas, Re l. 04/0 8. “T own B ounda ry”, “Dams”, DEP “Facilitie s”, Naugat uck Octobe r 2008 Z 374 Æ V Legend Town Boundary Local Roads Major Roads © Fire Stations a Police Stations Water Streams Schools n Public Works 9: ¨ ª AmbulanceServices Z CL&P Substation 374Æ V Senior Center EcumenicalFood Bank 9 Town Offices Dam Inundation Area Thurston Pond Dam Mulberry Reservoir Dam Moody Reservoir Dam Long Hill Reservoir Dam NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-6 ‰ 1938 and 1955: Exact numbers of dam failures caused by these floods are unavailable, but Connecticut DEP believes that more dams were damaged in these events than in the 1982 or 2005 flooding events. ‰ 1961: Crystal Lake dam in Middletown fa iled, injuring three and severely damaging 11 homes. ‰ 1963: Failure of the Spaulding Pond Dam in Norwich caused six deaths and six million dollars in damage (1963 dollars). ‰ June 5-6, 1982: Connecticut experienced a severe flood that caused 17 dams to fail and seriously damaged 31 others. Failure of the Bushy Hill Pond Dam in Deep River caused $50 million in damages, and the remaining dam failures caused nearly $20 million in damages. More recently, the NCDC reports that flas h flooding on April 16, 1996 caused three small dams in Middletown and one in Wallingford to breach, and the Connecticut DEP reported that the sustained heavy rainfall from Oct ober 7 to 15, 2005 caused 14 complete or partial dam failures and damage to 30 other dams throughout the State. A sample of damaged dams is summarized in Table 8-3: Table 8-3 Dams Damaged Due to Flooding from October 2005 Storms Number Name Location Class Damage Type Ownership —– Somerville Pond Dam Somers — Partial Breach DEP 4701 Windsorville Dam East Windsor BB Minor Damage Private 10503 Mile Creek Dam Old Lyme B Full Breach Private —– Staffordville Reservoir #3 Union — Partial Breach CT Water Co. 8003 Hanover Pond Dam Meriden C Partial Breach Meriden —– ABB Pond Dam Bloomfield — Minor Damage Private 4905 Springborn Dam Enfield BB Minor Damage DEP 13904 Cains Pond Dam Suffield A Full Breach Private 13906 Schwartz Pond Dam Suffield BB Partial Breach Private 14519 Sessions Meadow Dam Union BB Minor Damage DEP No major dam failures have occurred in the Borough of Naugatuck. According t o Borough personnel, the dams throughout Borough are in varying stages of condition, with NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-7 the Class C Hop Brook Dam (maintained by the ACOE) believed to be in good to excellent condition. The upstream flood contro l dams described in Section 3.4 are also reportedly in good to excellent condition. The following paragraphs provide a description and highlight the general condition of each Class C & B dam based on information available at the Connecticut DEP. Class C Dams Located within the Borough of Naugatuck ‰ Thurston Pond Dam – This dam, also known as the New Dam, is owned by Chemtura Corporation. Thurston pond is loca ted on Long Meadow Pond Brook at the southwest corner of the in tersection of Rubber Avenue and Melbourne Street and covers a surface area of approximately 4.5 acr es. It consists of an of an earth embankment with a stone masonry overflow spillway located at the right end of the dam, and outlet works located at the right abutment. The total length of the dam, including the spillway section, is 510 feet. The ma ximum height is 20 feet. The stone masonry overflow spillway section ha s an upstream earth embankment of unknown section, a concrete cap and a batter of six inches per vertical foot on the downstream face. The outlet wo rks consist of a concrete intake structure with inlet and outlet gates which can discharge wate r through a 24-inch concrete pipe to downstream locations or through an 18-inch co ncrete pipe into the stream below the dam. The spillway capacity is 2,500 cfs, or 37% of the Test Flood Outflow. The dam is believed to be in good condition. ‰ Mulberry Reservoir Dam – The Mulberry Reservoir is owned by the Connecticut Water Company and is used for public water supply. The reservoir covers a surface area of approximately 8.3 acres and it receives its inflow from a 2.4 acre wetland located approximately 1,040 feet upstream on an unnamed tributary. The dam consists of an earth embankment, constructe d of impervious materials with a pervious zone and toe drain on the downstream side. The dam is 580 feet in length with a top width of 20 feet, a maximum height of 66 feet, and upstream and downstream slopes NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-8 of two feet horizontal to one foot vertical. A 40-foot long concrete spillway with discharge chute and stil ling basin is located near the ri ght end of the dam. The outlet works located near the center of the dam c onsist of a 12-inch cast iron blowoff and a 12-inch cast iron supply main through the da m, both controlled by manually operated gates located in an upstream gatehouse. The dam is considered to be in good condition. ACOE hydraulic analyses indi cate that the capacity of the existing spillway is 1,600 cfs with the reservoir at elevation 574.78 (at top of dam). The calculations show the spillw ay is capable of passing 400% of the probable maximum flood without overtopping the dam. ‰ Hop Brook Dam – This ACOE flood control dam is located on Hop Brook at the Waterbury and Naugatuck corporate boundary. It consists of a rolled-earth fill with rock slope 520 feet long with a maximum height of 97 feet above the river bed. Outlet works include a three foot by five f oot concrete rectangular conduit founded in rock. The dam is maintained by the ACOE and is believed to be in excellent condition. Class C Dams Located Upstream of the Borough of Naugatuck ‰ Thomaston Dam – This ACOE flood control dam is located on the Naugatuck River in northeastern Thomaston and consists of an earth and rock-fill dam that was completed in 1970. The dam is 142 feet high and 2,000 feet long. Outlet works are founded on bedrock under the dam, and there is a side channel spillway 450 feet long on the left abutment. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 42,000 acre-feet. At spillway height, a 950 acre pool would extend about 6.5 miles upstream. The ACOE owns all the land behind the dam that woul d be affected by the backwater conditions up to 465 feet, and has flood easements in th is area up to an elevation of 499 feet, which is 5 feet above the spillway. The dam is maintained by the ACOE and is believed to be in excellent condition. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-9 ‰ Black Rock Dam – This ACOE flood control da m is located on Branch Brook downstream of Wigwam Dam along the T homaston-Watertown boundary in Black Rock State Park. It consists of an eart h-fill dam 933 feet long and 154 feet high and was completed in 1970. Outlet works include a gated four-foot by five-foot concrete conduit in the right abutment of the dam, and a chute spillway with a 140-foot long crest adjacent to the right abutment. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 8,700 acre-feet. At spillway height, a 190 acre pool would extend approximately 1.8 miles upstream. The ACOE owns all the land behi nd the dam that would be affected by the backwater conditions and has easements up to the spillway crest elevation. The dam is maintained by the ACOE and is believed to be in excellent condition. ‰ Northfield Brook Dam – This ACOE flood control da m is located on Northfield Brook approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the Naugatuck River in the Town of Thomaston. It consists of an earth-fill dam 810 feet long and 118 feet high and was completed in 1966. Outlet works include a chut e spillway with an ogee weir that is 72 feet long, and a three-by-three-foot ga te controlling discharged into a 36-inch conduit founded on rock in the right abutment. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 2,430 acre-feet. At spillway height, a 67 acre pool would extend approximately 1.25 miles upstream. The dam is maintained by the ACOE and is believed to be in excellent condition. Class B Dams Located within the Borough of Naugatuck ‰ May Street Pond North Dam – The May Street Pond Nort h Dam (Vanasse’s Pond) is owned by James, John and Robert Vanasse. The pond covers a surface area of approximately 2.5 acres and receives its in flow from an unnamed brook that drains a private pond located approximately 600 f eet upstream and approximately 260 feet west of Gabriel Drive. The dam is an ear then dam with a concrete spillway at the southwestern portion of the dam, and is believed to be in good condition. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-10 ‰ May Street Pond South Dam – The May Street Pond South (Griesbach’s Pond) Dam is owned by Dr. Hans Griesbach, a resident of May Street in Naugatuck. The pond covers a surface area of approximately 2.06 acr es and receives its inflow primarily from groundwater. The dam is an earthen dam with a concrete spillway at the southeastern portion of the dam, and is believed to be in good condition. ‰ Long Hill Reservoir Dam – The Long Hill Reservoir, also known as the New Naugatuck Reservoir, is owned by the C onnecticut Water Company and used for water supply. The reservoir covers a surface area of approximately 87.4 acres in the Towns of Bethany and Prospect, and the reservoir receives its inflow from Beacon Hill Brook and several unnamed tributaries. The dam is an earthen dam with a rock fill slope with a concrete spillway in the s outheastern portion of the dam. The dam is maintained by the Connecticut Water Comp any and believed to be in good to excellent condition. ‰ Straitsville Reservoir Dam – The Straitsville Reservoir is owned by the Connecticut Water Company and is used for water suppl y. The reservoir covers a surface area of approximately 2.07 acres in Naugatuck and Prospect, and the reservoir receives its inflow from Marks Brook. The dam is an ea rthen dam with a rock fill slopes with a spillway at the southeastern portion of the dam, and is believed to be in good to excellent condition. 8.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures The dam safety statutes are codified in S ection 22a-401 through 22a-411 inclusive of the Connecticut General Statutes. Sections 22a-409-1 and 22a-4 09-2 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, have been enacted which govern the registration, classification, and inspection of dams. Dams must be registered by the owner with the DEP, according to Connecticut Public Act 83-38. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-11 Dams regulated by the DEP must be designed to pass the 100-year rainfall event with one foot of freeboard, a factor of safety against overtopping. Critical and high hazard dams are required to meet a design standard greater than the 100-year rainfall event. Inundation areas are considered by the ACOE to be sensitive information. Figure 8- 1 in this Plan may not be reprinted as stand- alone information; it may only be disseminated within the c onfines of this Plan. For any questions regarding the use or disposition of this map please contact the ACOE Security Officer at (978) 318-8007. Dam Inspection Regulations require that ove r 600 dams in Connecticut be inspected annually. The DEP currently prioritizes inspections of those dams which pose the greatest potential threat to dow nstream persons and properties. Dams found to be unsafe under the inspection program must be repaired by the owner. Depending on the severity of the identified deficiency, an owner is a llowed reasonable time to make the required repairs or remove the dam. If a dam owner fails to make ne cessary repairs to the subject structure, the DEP may issue an administrativ e order requiring the owner to restore the structure to a safe condition and may refer noncompliance with such an order to the Attorney General’s Office for enforcement. As a means of last resort, the DEP Commissioner is empowered by stat ute to remove or correct, at the expense of the owner, any unsafe structures which present a clea r and present danger to public safety. Owners of Class C dams are required to maintain emergency operations plans. The ACOE is responsible for maintaining the plans for the Thomaston Dam, Hop Brook Dam, Northfield Brook Dam, and Black Rock Dam. The Connecticut Water Company maintains the plans for the Long Hill Reservoir Dam and the Mulberry Reservoir Dam. Chemtura Corporation is responsible for maintaining such a plan for the Thurston Pond Dam. 8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment The dam failure inundation areas described below for the four ACOE Class C dams were redrawn from inundation maps provided by the ACOE. Thus, the dam failure inundation areas shown in Figure 8-1 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-12 are for planning purposes only and do not replace the official ACOE maps. Similarly, the dam failure inundation areas for Long Hill Reservoir Dam, Mulberry Reservoir Dam, and Moody Reservoir Dam was redrawn from mappi ng provided by the Connecticut Water Company, and is for planning purposes only. By definition, failure of Class C dams may cause catastrophic loss of life and property. Of the seven Class C dams whose failure would be likely to impact the Borough of Naugatuck, the failure of Hop Brook Dam or Thomaston Dam would likely have the highest impact on the reside nts and infrastructure of the Borough of Naugatuck. However, the failure of any of these dams would have significan t impacts within the Borough. These impacts are descri bed in general detail below. Black Rock Dam Black Rock Dam is owned by the ACOE and provides flood control along Branch Brook in Black Rock State Park. Based on dam failure inundation maps provided by the ACOE, a dam failure at full pool height would cause flooding along the Branch Brook and Naugatuck River corridors all the way to downtown Beacon Falls. Flood heights would be outside the 500-year fl oodplain in the center of the Borough, though flood heights would be less than a failure of Hop Brook Dam. As with a Hop Brook Dam failure, several critical facilities in th e downtown area would be flooded. Hop Brook Dam Hop Brook Dam is owned by the ACOE and provides flood control along Hop Brook. Based on dam failure inundation maps provided by the ACOE, a dam failure at full pool height would cause flooding along Hop Brook a nd the Naugatuck River corridors all the way to Derby. The most concentrated damage would likely occur along the Route 63 corridor, and many of the cri tical facilities in the downtown area would be flooded. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-13 Long Hill Reservoir Dam Long Hill Reservoir is owned by the Conn ecticut Water Company. The downstream corridor is developed with many residentia l and some commercial and industrial properties. The dam failure inundation ar ea extends along Route 63 and Beacon Valley Road. Critical facilities in th e Borough of Naugatuck are not in the inundation area, but many residential structures south of Route 63 in the southeast section of the Borough would be flooded if the dam failed. A dam fa ilure could trap residents in the Cotton Hollow Road area as well if the bridge were undermined. Mulberry Reservoir Dam Mulberry Reservoir is owned by the Conn ecticut Water Company. The downstream corridor is undeveloped forested land for a pproximately 650 feet, after which there is a large area of residential developments. The dam failure inundation area follows the unnamed tributary to the Naugatuck River and would not appear to directly affect the residential developments south and southeast of the dam. The inundation area becomes wider after the unnamed tributary passes unde r Route 63, encompassing a large portion of Grove and St. James Cemeteries. Critical f acilities in the Borough of Naugatuck are not located in the inundation area. Northfield Brook Dam The Northfield Book impoundment is containe d by the ACOE-owned flood control dam. The downstream corridor is developed with ma ny residential properties. Based on dam failure inundation maps provided by the ACOE , a dam failure at full pool height would cause flooding along Northfield Brook and the Naugatuck River all the way into central Naugatuck. The inundation area is nearly coincidental with that of the Black Rock Dam failure inundation area. Flood heights would be less than the 500-year floodplain in the center of the Borough, however many of the critical facilities in the downtown area would be flooded. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-14 Thomaston Dam Thomaston Dam is owned by the ACOE and is designed to impound floodwaters from the Naugatuck River and Leadmine Brook. Based on dam failure inundation maps provided by the ACOE, a dam failure at full pool height (worst-case scenario) would cause flooding along the Naugatuck River corridor all the way to the Housatonic River in Derby. Much of downtown Naugatuck w ould experience some degree of flooding, including many of the critical fa cilities in the Borough (Figure 8-1). Such a failure would cause backwater conditions along Beacon Hill Brook and past St. James Cemetery up to the western end of Beacon Valley Road. A br each at full height would cause flooding greater than the mapped 500-year flood event for Naugatuck. Thurston Pond Dam Thurston pond is owned by Chemtura Corpor ation. The downstream corridor is a mixture of medium density residential development and commercial and industrial developments. Based on dam failure inundati on maps in the Emergency Operations Plan on file at the DEP, a dam failure at fu ll pool height would cause flooding along Long Meadow Brook all the way to the central portion of the Borough along the Naugatuck River. Critical facilities such as Publ ic Works and Ambulance Services would be affected by this flooding. The dam is believed to be in good condition. Other Dams There are other dams within and around Naugatu ck that could impact on the residents or infrastructure of the Borough if they failed. Some are Class B (significant hazard) dams, while the others are lower hazard or minor dams with problems have been brought to the attention of the Borough. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-15 ‰ May Street Pond North (Vanasse’s Pond) Dam : Should this Class B dam fail, 10-15 houses along June Street, Bird Road, Spruce Drive, and Homestead Avenue could experience flooding. ‰ May Street Pond South (Griesbach’s Pond) Dam : Should this Class B dam fail, a few houses along the dead-end streets of Hickory Road and Woodland Street would likely experience flooding, and a few homes on High Street could also be flooded. ‰ Straitsville Reservoir Dam : Should this Class B dam fa il, the initial impact area would be the condominium development along Ho rton Road. It is anticipated that the peak outflow of 6,200 cfs would raise the water elevation downstream between one foot and six feet, with a ma ximum of three to four feet of flooding expected within the condominiums. It is expected that the condominiums would flood within minutes and hit maximum flood level in ten to fifteen minutes. Flooding in this area would be exacerbated if the failure of Moody Reservoir Dam (a Class B dam located upstream in Prospect) triggered the failure of Straitsville Reservoir Dam. In this scenario, the dam failure inundation area would be simila r to the inundation area shown for Moody Reservoir Dam on Figure 8-2. ‰ Ridge Lower Pond Dam : This Class BB dam impounds a retention pond located at the end of Warren Avenue below the Ridge Development. It was noted by Borough personnel as needing repair at the data co llection meeting. The insufficiency of the dam poses a threat to buildings on Warre n Avenue and (to a lesser extent) on New Haven Road. ‰ Donovan Road Dam : This unregistered dam on the pond labeled as “Water Company Pond No. 1” on USGS Topographic Maps wa s mentioned at the data collection meeting as having the pote ntial to cause flooding. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-16 8.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives The Dam Safety Section of the DEP Inland Water Resources Division is charged with the responsibility for administrati on and enforcement of Connecticut’s dam safety laws. The existing statutes require that permits be obtained to construc t, repair, or alter dams, and that existing dams be registered and periodi cally inspected to assure that their continued operation does not constitute a hazard to life, health, or property. The Borough of Naugatuck should work with C onnecticut DEP to stay up to date on the evolution of Emergency Operations Plans and Dam Failure Analyses for the Class C ACOE dams and Connecticut Water Company dams in Thomaston, Naugatuck, Prospect and Bethany, as well as the three Class C dams within the Borough. When possible, copies of these documents should be made av ailable at the Borough Offices for reference and public viewing. Regarding lower hazard dams, the Borough should assess the condition and performance of the Donovan Road Dam and upgrade as necessary, and upgrade and repair the Ridge Lower Pond Dam located along Warren Avenue. The latter project should be coordinated with the DEP. The Borough shoul d also consider implementing occasional Borough inspections of lower hazard dams in the Borough. The Connecticut DEP also administers th e Flood and Erosion Control Board program, which can provide non-competitive state funding fo r repair of municipality-owned dams. Funding is limited by the state bond commission. State statute Section 25-84 allows municipalities to form Flood and Erosion Cont rol Boards, but municipalities must take action to create the board with in the context of the local government, such as by revising the municipal charter. The Borough of Naugatuck may wish to establish such a Flood and Erosion Control Board to oversee loca l flooding and erosion problems and municipal dams. More information regarding the Flood and Erosion Control Board program can be found at http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/water_inland/ flood_mgmt/fecb_program.pdf. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 8-17 The Borough of Naugatuck should consider including dam failure areas in its CodeRED emergency notification system. This sy stem combines database and GIS mapping technologies to deliver outbound emergency noti fications to geographic areas or specific groups of people such as emergency responde r teams at a rate of up to 60,000 calls per hour. This technology should be used to wa rn downstream residents of an impending dam failure and facilitate evacuation. In addition, there are several suggested potential mitigation strategies which are applicable to all hazards in this plan . These are outlined in the Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 9-1 9.0 WILDFIRES 9.1 Setting The ensuing discussion about wildfires is focused on the undeveloped woo ded and shrubby areas of Naugatuck, along with low-de nsity and medium density suburban type development found at the margins of thes e areas known as the wildland interface. Structural fires in higher density areas are not considered. The Borough of Naugatuck is considered a low-ri sk area for wildfires. Wildfires are of particular concern in wooded areas and other areas with poor access for fire-fighting equipment. Figure 9-1 presents the wildfire risk areas for the Borough of Naugatuck. Hazards associated with wildfires include prop erty damage and loss of habitat. Wildfires are considered a likely event each year, but when one occurs it is generally contained to a small range with limited damage to non-forested areas. 9.2 Hazard Assessment The current Connecticut Hazard Mitigation Plan does not specifically define wildfires separate from forest fires, but wildfires are well-defined by the Massachusetts Hazard Mitigation Plan as being “hi ghly destructive, uncontrollable fires.” Although the term brings to mind images of tall trees engulfed in flames, wildfires can occur as brush and shrub fires, especially under dry conditi ons. Wildfires are also known as “wildland fires.” Nationwide, humans have caused approximately 90% of all wildfires in the last decade. Accidental and negligent act s include unattended campfires, sparks, burning debris, and irresponsibly discarded cigarettes. The re maining 10% of fires are caused mostly by lightning. ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ 9 a © © ª 9: ¨ n n n n n n n n n n n Figure 9-1: Naugatuck Wildfire Risk Area 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )8 ” )63 ” )63 ” )68 Z 374 Æ V Legend Major Roads Local Roads Town Boundary 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations Water Streams Schools n Public Works 9: ¨ ª Ambulance Services Z CL&P Substation 374 Æ V Senior Center Ecumenical Food Bank ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ Wildfire Risk Area For gen eral pla nning purpos es only . Delin eations may n ot be e xact. Source : “R oads”, c198 4 – 200 8 Tele Atlas, R el. 04/ 08. “To wn Bou ndary”, DE P “Fa cilities”, Na ugatuc k “W ildfire”, COG CNV Octobe r 2008 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 9-3 Nevertheless, wildfires are also a natural process, and their suppression is now recognized to have created a larger fire h azard, as live and dead vegetation accumulates in areas where fire has been prevented. In addition, the absence of fire has altered or disrupted the cycle of natural plant succe ssion and wildlife habitat in many areas. Consequently, federal, state and local agen cies are committed to finding ways such as prescribed burning to reintroduce fire into na tural ecosystems, while recognizing that fire fighting and suppression are still important. Connecticut has a particular vulnerability to fire hazards where urban development and wildland areas are in close proximity. Th e “wildland/urban interface” is where many such fires are fought. Wildland areas are subj ect to fires because of weather conditions and fuel supply. An isolated wildland fire may not be a threat, but the combined effect of having residences, businesses, and lifelines ne ar a wildland area causes increased risk to life and property. Thus, a fire that might have been allowed to burn itself out with a minimum of fire fighting or containment in th e past is now fought to prevent fire damage to surrounding homes and commercial areas, as we ll as smoke threats to health and safety in these areas. 9.3 Historic Record According to the Connecticut Natural H azards Mitigation Plan (2007), Connecticut enacted its first state-wide fo rest fire control system in 1905, when the state was largely rural with very little secondary growth forest. By 1927, the state had most of the statutory foundations for today’ s forest fire control programs and policies in place, such as the State Forest Fire Warden system, a netw ork of fire lookout towers and patrols, and regulations regarding open bur ning. The severe fire weather in the 1940’s prompted the state legislature to join the Northeastern Inte rstate Forest Fire Protection Compact with its neighbors in 1949. Today, most of Connecticut’s forested areas are secondary growth forests. According to the Connecticut DEP, forest has reclaimed over 500,000 acres of land that was used for agriculture in 1914. However, that new forest has been NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 9-4 fragmented in the past few decades by residential development. The urban/wildland interface is increasing each year as sprawl ex tends further out from Connecticut’s cities. The technology used to combat wildfires ha s significantly improved since the early 20 th century. An improved transportation networ k, coupled with advances in firefighting equipment, communication technology, and training, has improved the ability of firefighters to minimize damage due to wildfi res in the state. For example, radio and cellular technologies have greatly improved fire fighting command capabilities. According to the Climate of 2008 Wildfire Se ason Summary presented by the NCDC, an average of 4.6 million acres per year in the United States was burned by wildfires since 1985. This translates to a nationwide mean of 60 acres per fire (at a mean of approximately 77,000 fires per year). The number one cause of wildfires is arson, with about half of all wildfires being intentionally set. Wildfire statistics for Connecticut are much lower than the national average. According to the USDA Forest Service Annual Wildfi re Summary Report for 1994 through 2003, an average of 600 acres per year in Connecticut was burned by wildfires during this period. In general, the fires are small and detected quickly, with most wildfires being contained to less than 10 acres in size. Traditionally, the highest forest fire danger in Connecticut occurs in the spring from mid- March to mid-May. The worst wildfire year for Connecticut in the past decade occurred during the extremely hot and dry summer of 1999. Over 1733 acres of Connecticut burned in 345 separate wildfires, an averag e of about five acres per fire. Only one wildfire occurred between 1994 and 2003 that bu rned over 300 acres, and a wildfire in 1986 in the Mattatuck State Forest in the nearby Town of Watertown, CT burned 300 acres. More recently, a 30-acre wildfire occurred in Oxford on April 19, 2008. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 9-5 Up to 14% of the land area of Naugatuck is publicly protected open space with an additional 15% being privately held open spa ce, and fires have occurred in wildlands throughout the Borough. Specifically, personne l from the Borough of Naugatuck noted that fires have occurred in the Huntington H ill section of the Naugatuck State Forest in Naugatuck. Such fires are usually caused by ar son or from campfires that spread out of control. Fires that start in Naugatuck in th is area are sometimes allowed to burn due to the topography, and the fires can spread to other parts of the forest near the urban/wildland interface or south into Beacon Falls. 9.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Existing mitigation for wildland fire contro l is typically focused on the Borough of Naugatuck Fire Department (NFD) training and maintaining an adequate supply of equipment. The Borough of Naugatuck Zoning Regulations and S ubdivision Regulations require that the Fire Marshal review a ll plans for subdivisions and commercial developments to ensure that the requirements fo r fire safety are met. The Fire Marshal’s Office is also responsible for the enforcemen t of the State of Connecticut Life Safety Code, investigation of fire safety complain ts, fire investigation and fire prevention programs. Unlike wildfires on the west coast of the Unite d States where the fires are allowed to burn toward development and then stopped, the NFD goes to the fires whenever possible. This proactive approach is believed to be eff ective for controlling wildfires. The Fire Department has some water storage capabil ity, but primarily relies on Connecticut Water Company’s water service to fight fires in the central part of Borough. In the remainder of the Borough, the NFD relies on the use of lo cal water bodies and its tanker trucks to supply fire fighting water, and water cist erns installed in more recent outlying subdivisions. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 9-6 The NFD is often a first responder for fires that happen in the Naugatuck State Forest, and coordinates with the Beacon Falls, Oxfor d, and Bethany Fire Departments to control these forest fires. The Fire Department has two fire station s in the Borough; one station is located on Maple Avenue in the downtown area, and the other is located on May Street on the east side of the Naugatuck River. The Fire Department has two Class A pump trucks, a 105-foot rear mount ladder truck with a fire pump, and a rescue truck. The NFD is equipped for structure fires, confined space entry, trench rescue, motor vehicle rescue, basic hazardous materials response, and surf ace water/ice rescue. The NFD also has two spare Class A pump trucks, a nd the Borough also has mutual aid agreements with all of its neighbors. Finally, the DEP Forestry Division uses th e rainfall data recorded by the Automated Flood Warning system (see Section 3.4) to compile forest fire probability forecasts. This allows the Division and the Borough of Naugatuck to monitor the drier areas of the state in an effort to reduce forest fire risk. 9.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment The most common causes of wildfires are ars on, lightning strikes, and fires started from downed trees hitting electrical lines. Thus, wildfires have the potential to occur anywhere and at any time in both undeveloped and lightly developed areas. The extensive forests and fields c overing the state are prime locati ons for a wildfire. In many areas, structures and subdivisions are built abutting forest borders, creating areas of particular vulnerability. Wildfires are more common in rural areas than in developed areas, as most fires in populated areas are quickly noticed and contained. The likelihood of a severe wildfire developi ng is lessened by the vast networ k of water features in the state, which create natural breaks likely to stop the spread of a fire. During long periods of drought, these natural features may dry up, in creasing the vulnerability of the state to wildfires. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 9-7 According to the Connecticut DEP, the actual forest fire risk in Connecticut is low due to several factors. First, the overall incidence of forest fires is very low. Secondly, as the wildfire/forest fire prone areas become frag mented due to development, the local fire departments have increased access to those neighborhoods for fire fighting equipment. Third, the problematic interface areas are site specific, such as driveways too narrow to permit emergency vehicles. Finally, trained fi re fighters at the local and state level are readily available to fight fires in the state, and inte r-municipal cooperation on such instances is common. The 2001 Plan of Conservation and Development indicated that there are several streets in the Borough which are inaccessible to fire trucks due to either steep grades or the narrowness of the road. These include Ae tna Place, Bosco Drive, Highland Circle, Hughes Street, Joseph Road, Mitchell Street and Theresa Street. Although this document is primarily concerned with the Borough’s ability to address wildfires versus structural fires, the existing problem is indicative of issues with current development standards. Thus it is essential that any fu ture development on steep slopes be reviewed with an extra level of attention to ensure that new devel opments are not burdened by the same type of problems. Based on the historic record presented in Section 9.3, most wildfires in Connecticut are relatively small. In the drought year of 1999, the average wildfire burned five acres. In comparison, the most extreme wildfires recorded since 1986 each burned 300 acres. Given the availability of fire fighting wate r in the Borough (including the use of nearby water bodies), the proactive stance regarding fires, and long-standing mutual aid assurances the NFD has with neighboring comm unities, it is believed that the low end of this acreage is possible in Naugatuck as well, with the larger acreage reserved for very infrequent severe events. The wildfire risk areas presented in Figure 9-1 were defined as being contiguous wooded areas greater than 50 acres in size that have limited access in areas near public water NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 9-8 service, and contiguous wooded areas greater than 20 acres in size with limited access in the remainder of the Borough. These areas ar e generally associated with wooded water company lands, state owned forests, and Bor ough-owned and privately held open space. As each area borders residential sections of the Borough, residents on the outskirts of these risk areas are the most vulnerable to fire, heat, and smoke effects of wildfires. The 2001 Plan of Conservation and Developm ent also indicated that the NFD has expressed concerns regarding response times to developments in the northwest and southeast portions of the Borough. Additionally, the water pressure in some areas, particularly around the perimeter of the Bo rough, has been identified as a problem. These areas exhibit low-pressure situations wh ich may inhibit the department’s ability to deal with fires. The Borough requires that new developments provide adequate water for fire protection, either by water mains from the Connecticut Water Company or underground cisterns at a minimum size of 25,000 gallons. Subsequent to the Plan of Conservation and Development publication in 2001, additional water lines have been extended up May Street towards the Eastsi de Fire Station and on Wooster Street. Despite having a large amount of forest/urban interface, the overall risk of wildfires occurring in the Borough of Naugatuck is also considered to be low. Such fires fail to spread far due speed of detection and strong fire response. As most of the Borough has fire-fighting water available nearby, a larg e amount of water can be made readily available for fire fighting equipment, and ta nkers from other towns can provide additional fire support for outlying fires. Recall from Figure 2-6, Figure 2-7, and Figure 2-8 that elderly, linguistically isolated, and disabled populations reside in the Borough of Naugatuck. In comparing these figures with the wildfire risk areas presented in Fi gure 9-1, it is possible that up to a thousand of the population impacted by a wildfire could c onsist of the elderly, several tens could consist of linguistically isol ated households, and many residents with disabilities could NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 9-9 reside near wildfire impact areas. Thus, it is important for the Borough of Naugatuck to be prepared to assist these special populati ons during emergencies, including wildfires. In summary, limited access forest areas in the outskirts of the Borough near new development are considered most at risk from wildfires, primarily as a result of limited supplies of fire-fighting water and emergency vehicle access. In addition, there is special concern about fires in the Naugatuck State Fo rest in the southern part of the Borough. Fires in these areas are particularly difficult to access due to topography can spread to or from nearby municipalities. The Borough has th e support of the owners of the tracts of open space to provide access to thei r lands in case of a wildfire. Should a wildfire occur, it seems reasonable to estimate that the average area to burn would be five acres, consistent with the state average during long period of drought. In the case of an extreme wildfire during a l ong drought on forested lands, it is estimated that up to 300 acres could burn before c ontainment due to the limited access of those lands. Residential areas borde ring such lands would also be vulnerable to wildfire, but would likely be more impacted by heat and smoke than by structure fires due to the strong fire response in the Borough and its mutual aid agreements. 9.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Potential mitigation measures for wildfires include a mixture of prevention, education, and emergency planning. Although educational materials are available through the Fire Department, they should be made available at other municipal offices as well. Education of homeowners on methods of protecting their ho mes is far more effective than trying to steer growth away from potential wildfire area s, especially given that the available land that is environmentally appropriate for development may be forested. Water system improvements are an important class of potential mitigation for wildfires. The following recommendations could be implemented to mitigate forest fire risk: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009, REVISED MARCH 2009 9-10 ‰ The Connecticut Water Company should cont inue to extend the public water supply systems into areas that requi re water for fire protection. ‰ The Connecticut Water Company should c ontinue to identify and upgrade those portions of the public water supply systems that are substandard from the standpoint of adequate pressure and vol ume for fire-fighting purposes. ‰ The Borough of Naugatuck should consid er the construction of dry hydrants throughout the Borough to provide a more re liable supply of firefighting water in areas without public water supply. ‰ The Borough should also continue to require fire protection tanks for subdivisions away from public water service. Other potential mitigation strategies for preventing wildfires include: ‰ Continue to promote inter-municipal c ooperation in fire fighting efforts; ‰ Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of forest fire danger and how to use comm on fire fighting equipment; ‰ Continue having the Fire Marshal review subdivision applications to ensure new neighborhoods and driveways are properly sized to allow access of emergency vehicles and have proper m eans for fire protection; ‰ Provide outreach programs on how to pr operly manage burning and campfires on private property; ‰ Distribute copies of a booklet such as “Is Your Home Protected from Wildfire Disaster? – A Homeowner’s Guide to Wildfire Retrofit” when developers and homeowners pick up or drop off applications; ‰ Patrol Borough-owned open space and parks to prevent unauthorized campfires; ‰ Enforce regulations and permits for open burning; and ‰ Continue to place utilities underground. In addition, specific recommendati ons that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-1 10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 Additional Recommendations Recommendations that are appli cable to two, three, or four hazards were discussed in the applicable subsections of S ections 3.0 through 9.0. For example, placing utilities underground is a recommendation for hurrican e, summer storm, winter storm, and wildfire mitigation. A remaining class of r ecommendations is applicable to all hazards, because it includes recommendations for im proving public safety and planning for emergency response. Instead of repeating th ese recommendations in section after section of this Plan, these are described herein. Informing and educating the public about how to protect themselves and their property from natural hazards is essential to any successful hazard mitigation strategy. The Naugatuck Office of Emergency Manageme nt & Homeland Security (NEMHS) should be charged with creating and disseminating in formational pamphlets and guides to public locations such as the librar y, post office, senior center, and Borough offices. In particular, additional guides are recommended re garding fire protection, fire safety, and the importance of prevention. Such pamphlets include “Are you ready? A Guide to Citizen Preparedness” co-published by the American Red Cross, FEMA, and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administ ration and includes recommendations for dealing with heat waves, hurricanes, torna does, thunderstorms, flooding, fire, and winter storms. Other pamphlets include: ‰ “Food & Water in an Emergency” ‰ “Disaster Supply Kit” ‰ “Family Disaster Plan” ‰ “Preparing for Disaster for People with Disabilities and Other Special Needs”, and ‰ Helping Children Cope with Disaster” NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-2 In addition, the Borough should consider adding additional pages to its website dedicated to citizen education and prepar ation for natural hazard events. A community warning system that relies on ra dios and television is less effective at warning residents during the night when the ma jority of the community is asleep. Thus, the ongoing implementation of CodeRED is a boon for emergency response in Naugatuck. Databases should be set up as best possible for hazards with a specific geographic extent, particularly dam failure. Residents should also be encouraged to purchase a NOAA weather radio containing an alarm feature. In addition, the Borough Emergency Operations Plan should continue to be reviewed and updated at least once annually. 10.2 Summary of Specific Recommendations Recommendations have been pr esented throughout this document in individual sections as related to each natural hazard. This s ection lists all recommendations of the Plan without any priority ranking. Recommenda tions that span multiple hazards are only reprinted once in this section under the most appropriate hazard event. Refer to the matrix in Appendix A for recommendations with scores based on the STAPLEE methodology described in Section 1.0. All Hazards ‰ Disseminate informational pamphlets regard ing natural hazards to public locations. ‰ Add pages to the Borough website (h ttp://www.naugatuck-ct.gov/index.htm) dedicated to citizen education and pr eparation for natural hazard events. ‰ Continue implementation of the Code RED emergency notification system. ‰ Encourage residents to purchase and use NOAA weather radios with alarm features. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-3 ‰ As required by law, continue to annually review and update the Borough Emergency Operations Plan. ‰ Continue reviewing subdivision applic ations to ensure new neighborhoods and driveways are properly sized to a llow access of emergency vehicles. ‰ Upgrade at least one secondary shelter that is unlikely to be impacted by natural hazards into a primary shelter facility. Attempt to acquire the resources necessary to be able to shelter 10% of the population of Naugatuck. ‰ Continue to encourage two modes of eg ress into every neighborhood by the creation of through streets. Flooding Prevention ‰ Streamline the permitting process and work toward the highest possible education of a developer or applicant. Develop a checklist that cross-references the bylaws, regulations, and codes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to the proposed project. This list could be provided to an applicant at any Borough department. A sample checklist for the Borough of Naugatuck is included as Appended Table 3. ‰ Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System. ‰ Continue to require applications for appr oval of a development in a floodplain for activities within SFHAs. ‰ Consider requiring buildings constructed in floodprone areas to be protected to the highest recorded flood level, regardle ss of being within a defined SFHA. ‰ Ensure new buildings be designed and grad ed to shunt drainage away from the building. ‰ After Map Mod has been completed, consid er restudying local flood prone areas and produce new local-level regulatory fl oodplain maps using more exacting study NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-4 techniques, including using more accurate contour information to map flood elevations provided with the FIRM. Property & Natural Resource Protection ‰ Pursue the acquisition of additional muni cipal open space properties inside SFHAs and set it aside as greenways, parks, or other non-residential, non-commercial, or non-industrial use. ‰ Selectively pursue conservati on recommendations listed in the Plan of Conservation and Development and other studies and documents. ‰ Continue to regulate development in prot ected and sensitive areas, including steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains. ‰ Work with property owners along Long Meadow Pond Brook, Hop Brook, Beacon Hill Brook, Cold Spring Brook, Fulling Mill Bro ok, and their tributaries to pursue wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, or elevation of structures. If FEMA funds are to be pursued, a cost-benefit analysis for each home will help determine whether wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, or elevation of any given structure is most appropriate. Structural Projects ‰ Consider performing a Borough-wide analysis to help identify undersized and failing portions of the stormwater and drainage sy stems. Prioritize repairs as needed. Incorporate anecdotal information where ap propriate, such as observations described in this plan regarding the nui sance flooding at May Street. ‰ Upgrade the drainage systems in downtown Naugatuck where necessary to enhance drainage. ‰ Increase maintenance of the storm drainage system near the building on Arch Street near Long Meadow Pond Brook to pr event flooding of this area. ‰ If necessary, increase the conveyance cap acity of Crown Spring Bridge over Hop Brook at Bridge Street. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-5 ‰ Assess dredging options for the sediment laden Union Ice Company Pond to potentially increase its potential for flood mitigation. ‰ Increase the conveyance capacity of the culv ert for the tributary to Fulling Mill Brook under East Waterbury Road downstream of the Union Ice Company Pond. ‰ Upgrade the drainage system on Highland Avenue near Galpin Street to mitigate future nuisance flooding. ‰ Evaluate flood mitigation options, such as dredging of the silted pond adjacent to Nichols Garage/Irving Gas Station, wher e Pigeon Brook flows underground before entering Hop Brook. ‰ Pursue flood mitigation along the unnamed str eam associated with the Spencer Street corridor, including increased conveyance capac ity of the culverted portions of the stream, channel restoration or maintenance of the un-culverted section of the stream, and/or siting of detention systems. Wind Damage Related to Hurricanes, Summer Storms, and Winter Storms ‰ Continue Borough-wide tree limb inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that the potential for downed power lines is diminished. ‰ Focus tree limb maintenance and inspectio ns along Route 63, Route 68, Spring Street, Union City Road, and other evacuation r outes. Increase inspections of trees on private property near power lines and Borough right-of-ways. ‰ Continue to require that utilities be placed underground in new developments and pursue funding to place them undergr ound in existing developed areas. ‰ Review potential evacuation plans to ensu re timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Naugatuck, and pos t evacuation and shelter information on the Borough website and in municipal buildings. ‰ Provide for the Building Department to have literature available regarding appropriate design standards for wind. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-6 Winter Storms ‰ Post a list of Borough sheltering facilities and snow plowing prioritization in the municipal offices and on the Borough’s webs ite so residents can best plan how to access to critical faci lities during a winter storm event. Earthquakes ‰ Continue to require adherence to the state building codes. ‰ Preserve or convert areas of inactive faults to municipal open space. ‰ Consider preventing certain types of developm ent, such as residential development, in areas prone to collapse. ‰ Ensure that future implementation of Goal #3 item #4 of the Plan of Conservation and Development (“Establish development standards for single-family housing on slopes”) considers earthquake risks. ‰ Continue regulating development of slopes gr eater than 20%, and consider setting a prohibition on development of steep slopes. ‰ Ensure that municipal departments have ad equate backup facilities in case earthquake damage occurs. Dam Failure ‰ Work with Connecticut DEP to stay up to date on revisions and updates to the Emergency Operations Plans and Dam Failure Analyses for the Class C ACOE dams and the Connecticut Water Company dams in Thomaston, Naugatuck, Prospect and Bethany, as well as the three Class C dams within the Borough. ‰ Consider including dam failure areas in th e CodeRED emergency notification system. This technology should be used to warn downstream residents of a potential or impending dam failure and facilitate evacuation. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-7 ‰ The Borough should assess the condition and performance of the Donovan Road Dam and upgrade as necessary, and upgrade and repair the Ridge Lower Pond Dam located along Warren Avenue. The latter project s hould be coordinated with the DEP. ‰ The Borough should also consider implementing occasional Borough inspections of lower hazard dams in the Borough. Wildfires ‰ The Connecticut Water Company should cont inue to extend the public water supply systems into areas that requi re water for fire protection. ‰ The Connecticut Water Company should c ontinue to identify and upgrade those portions of the public water supply systems that are substandard from the standpoint of adequate pressure and vol ume for fire-fighting purposes. ‰ The Borough of Naugatuck should consid er the construction of dry hydrants throughout the Borough to provide a more re liable supply of firefighting water in areas without public water supply. ‰ The Borough should also continue to require fire protection tanks for subdivisions away from public water service. ‰ Continue to promote inter-municipal c ooperation in fire fighting efforts. ‰ Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of forest fire danger and how to use common fire fighting equipment. ‰ Provide outreach programs on how to pr operly manage burning and campfires on private property. ‰ Patrol Borough-owned open space and parks to prevent unauthorized campfires; and ‰ Enforce regulations and permits for open burning. 10.3 Sources of Funding The following sources of funding and technical assistance may be available for the priority projects listed above. This in formation comes from the FEMA website NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-8 (http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/index.shtm). Funding requirements and contact information is given in Section 11.4. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Ag ency) Grants and Assistance Programs Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/bzpp/index.shtm This grant provides security and risk management capabilit ies at State and local level for Tier I and II critical infrastructure sites that are considered high-risk/high- consequence facilities. Each State with a BZPP site is eligible to submit applications for its local communities to participate in and receive funding under the program. The funding for this grand is based on the number, type, and character of the site. Citizen Corps Program National Emergency Technology Guard (NET Guard) Pilot Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/netguard/index.shtm The purpose of this grant, under the Homela nd Security Act of 2002, is to re-establish a communication network in the event that the current information systems is attacked and rendered inoperable. A total of $80,000 may be available to each applicant provided they ar e a locality that meets the required criteria. Community Disaster Loan Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/fs_cdl.shtm This program provides funds to any eligible jurisdiction in a designated disaster area that has suffered a substantial loss of tax and other revenue. The assistance is in the form of loans not to exceed twenty-five percent of the local government’s annual operating budget for the fiscal year in wh ich the major disaster occurs, up to a maximum of five million dollars. Competitive Training Grants Program (CTGP) http://www.fema.gov/emergency/ctgp/index.shtm Funds allocated from this program will be used to bolster training and education for Homeland Security. Applicants, if funded, must deliver innovativ e training/education programs to its trainees. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-9 Emergency Food and Shelter Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/efs.shtm This program was created in 1983 to supplement the work of local social service organizations, both private a nd governmental, to help peopl e in need of emergency assistance. Emergency Management Performance Grants http://www.fema.gov/emergency/empg/empg.shtm The Emergency Management Performance Gran t (EMPG) is designed to assist local and state governments in maintaining a nd strengthening the existing all-hazards, natural and man-made, emergency management capabilities. Allocations if this fund is authorized by the 9/11 Commission Ac t of 2007, and grant amount is determined demographically at the state and local level. Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Grant Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/eoc/index.shtm The Emergency Operations Center Gran t is designated to support the needed construction, renovation or improvement of emergency operation centers at the State, Local, or Tribal governments. The State Administrative Agency (SAA) is the only eligible entity able to apply for the av ailable funding on behalf of qualified State, local, and tribal EOCs. Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/fma/index.shtm The FMA was created as part of the Na tional Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the NFIP. FEMA provides funds in the form of planning grants for Flood Mitigation Plans and project grants to implement measures to reduce flood lo sses, including elevation, acquisition, or relocation of NFIP-insured structures. Re petitive loss properties are prioritized under this program. This grant program is administered through the DEP. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/hmgp/index.shtm The HMGP provides grants to States and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major di saster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. This grant program is administered through the DEP. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-10 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/hsgp/index.shtm The objective of the FY 2008 HS GP is to enhance the response, preparedness, and recovery of local, State, and tribal governments in the event of a disaster or terrorist attack. Eligible applicants include all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Ma riana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. Risk and effectiveness, along with a peer review, determine the amount allocated to each applicant. Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/iecgp/index.shtm Funding through the Interoperable Emerge ncy Communications Grant Program will enable States, Territories, local units of government, and tribal communities to implement their Statewide Communicati on Interoperability Plans (SCIP) in conjunction with the National Emergency Co mmunications Plan (NECP) to further enhance interoperability. The only applicants eligible for fundi ng through this grant are State Administration Agencies. Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/ibsgp/index.shtm The mission of the IBSGP is to maintain the protection of intercity bus systems and public transportation from terrorism. The only eligible grantees for this program are private operators servicing at least 50 tr ips annually along fixed established routes. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3005 This program enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losse s in exchange for State and community floodplain management regulations that redu ce future flood damages. Municipalities that join the associated Community Ra ting System can gain discounts of flood insurance for their residents. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pdm/index.shtm The purpose of the PDM program is to fund communities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. PDM grants are provided to states, territories, Indian tribal governments, communities, and universities, which, in turn, provide sub-grants to local governments. PDM grants are awarded on a co mpetitive basis. This grant program is administered through the DEP. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-11 Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/psgp/index.shtm The goal of the PSGP is to provide protecti on of critical port infrastructure from terrorism, involving explosive and non-c onventional weapons. Protection includes enhancing training, recover y, prevention, management, response and awareness. Those who may apply include owners of federa lly regulated terminals, facilities, U.S. inspected passenger vessels, state and local agencies, and local stakeholders. Public Assistance Grant Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pa/index.shtm The Public Assistance Grant Program (PA) is designed to assist State, Tribal and local governments, and certain types of private non-profit organizations in recovering from major disasters or emergencies. Along with helping to recover, this grant also encourages prevention against potential future disasters by strengthening hazard mitigation during the recovery process. The first grantee to apply and receive the PA would usually be the State, and the State could then allocate the granted funds to the sub-grantees in need of assistance. Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/rcp/index.shtm The main focus of RCPGP is to strengthen the national preparedness against any catastrophic event within the designated Tier I and Tier II Urban Areas. RCPGP will fund the designated Tier I and II Urban areas only. Repetitive Flood Claims Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/rfc/index.shtm The Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) grant progra m was set into place to assist States or communities with insured properties that have had prior claims to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) but do not m eet the requirements for FMA. This grant is provided to eligible States/Tribes/Territories that, in turn, will allocate sub- grants to local governments. Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/srl/index.shtm The SRL provides funding to reduce or elimin ate the long-term risk of flood damage to SRL structures insured under the NFIP. This program is for residential properties only, and eligible project activities include acquisition and demolition or relocation of the structure with conversion of the propert y to open space, elevation, minor localized flood reduction projects, and dry flood pr oofing (historic properties only). NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-12 Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/tsgp/index.shtm The purpose of TSGP is to bolster security and safety for public transit infrastructure within Urban Areas throughout the United Stat es. Applicable grantees include only the state Governor and the designated State Administrative Agency (SAA) appointed to obligate program funds to the appropriate transit agencies. Trucking Security Program (TSP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/tsp/index.shtm The TSP provides funding for an anti-terro rism and security awareness program for highway professionals in support of the National Preparedness Guidelines. All applicants are accepted so long as they support all four funding priority areas: participant identification and recruitment; training; communications; and information analysis and distribution for an anti-te rrorism and security awareness program. Urban Areas Security Initiative Nonprof it Security Grant Program (UASI-NSGP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/uasi/index.shtm The UASI-NSGP specifically targets major areas of concern, those being areas designated as having the highest level of terrorist threat or vulnerability, and aims to improve the protection and preparedness of potentially targeted organizations. Applicants only include non- profit organizations deemed as having a high risk to terrorism and who reside with in the areas of concern. U.S. Fire Administration Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFGP) http://www.firegrantsupport.com/afg/ http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fi reservice/grants/ The primary goal of the Assistance to Fi refighters Grants (AFG) is to meet the firefighting and emergency response need s of fire departments and nonaffiliated emergency medical services organizations . Since 2001, AFG has helped firefighters and other first responders to obtain critic ally needed equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training, and other reso urces needed to protect the public and emergency personnel from fire and related hazards. The Grant Programs Directorate of the Federal Emergency Management Agen cy administers the grants in cooperation with the U.S. Fire Administration. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-13 Fire Prevention & Safety Grants (FP&S) http://www.firegrantsupport.com/fps/ The Fire Prevention and Safety Grants ( FP&S) are part of the Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) and are under the purview of the Grant Programs Directorate in the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FP&S grants support projects that enhance the safety of the pub lic and firefighters from fire and related hazards. The primary goal is to target high-risk populations and mitigate high incidences of death and injury. Examples of the types of projects supported by FP&S include fire prevention and public safety education campaigns, juvenile firesetter interventions, media campaigns, and ar son prevention and awareness programs. Reimbursement for Firefighting on Federal Property http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fireservice/grants/rfff/ Reimbursement may be made to fire depart ments for fighting fires on property owned by the federal government for firefighti ng costs over and above normal operating costs. Claims are submitted directed to the U.S. Fire Administration. For more information, please contact Tim Ganley at (301) 447-1358. Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency Response (SAFER) http://www.firegrantsupport.com/safer/ The goal of SAFER is to enhance the local fi re departments’ abilities to comply with staffing, response and operational standa rds established by NFPA and OSHA (NFPA 1710 and/or NFPA 1720 and OSHA 1910.134 – see http://www.nfpa.org/SAFERActGrant for more details). Specifically, SAFER funds should assist local fire departments to increase their staffing and deployment capabilities in order to res pond to emergencies whenever they may occur. As a result of the enhanced staffing, response times should be suffi ciently reduced with an appropriate number of personnel assembled at the incident scene. Also, the enhanced staffing should provide that al l front-line/first-due apparatus of SAFER grantees have a minimum of four trained personnel to meet the OSHA standards referenced above. Ultimately, a faster, safer and more efficien t incident scene will be established and communities will have more adequate protec tion from fire and fire-related hazards. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-14 Other Grant Programs Flood Mitigation ‰ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – 50/50 match funding for flood proofing and flood preparedness projects. ‰ U.S. Department of Agriculture – financial assistance to reduce flood damage in small watersheds and to improve water quality. ‰ CT Department of Environmental Protection – assistance to municipalities to solve flooding and dam repair problems through the Flood and Erosion Control Board Program. Hurricane Mitigation ‰ FEMA State Hurricane Program – financial and technical assistance to local governments to support mitigation of hurricanes and coastal storms. ‰ FEMA Hurricane Program Property Protection – grants to hurricane prone states to implement hurricane mitigation projects. General Hazard Mitigation ‰ Americorps – teams may be available to assist with landscaping projects such as surveying, tree planting, restoration, constr uction, and environmental education, and provide volunteers to help co mmunities respond to natural hazard-related disasters. Erosion Control and Wetland Protection ‰ U.S. Department of Agriculture – technical assistance for erosion control. ‰ CT Department of Environmental Protection – assistance to municipalities to solve beach erosion problems through the Flood and Erosion Control Board Program. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 10-15 ‰ North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Program – funding for projects that support long term wetlands acquis ition, restoration, and/or enhancement. Requires a 1-to-1 funds match. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-1 11.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 11.1 Implementation Strategy and Schedule The Council of Governments of the Central Naug atuck Valley is authorized to update this HMP as needed, coordinate its adoption with the Borough of Naugatuck, and guide it through the FEMA approval process. The individual recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan must be implemented by the municipal departments that oversee these ac tivities. The Office of the Mayor and the Department of Public Works in the Borough of Naugatuck will primarily be responsible for developing and implementing selected pr ojects, those some projects will also be implemented by other departments. Appendix A incorporates an implementation strategy and schedule, detailing the res ponsible department and anticipated time frame for the specific recommendations listed throughout this document. Upon adoption, the Plan will be made availabl e to all Borough departments and agencies as a planning tool to be used in conjunction with existing documents. It is expected that revisions to other Borough plans and regulati ons, such as the Plan of Conservation and Development, department annual budgets, and the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations will reference this plan and its updates. The Office of the Mayor will be responsible for ensuring that the actions identified in th is plan are incorporated into ongoing Borough planning activities, and that the information and require ments of this plan are incorporated into existing planning documents within five years from the date of adoption or when other plans are updated, whichever is sooner. The Office of the Mayor will be responsible for assigning appropriate Borough officials to update the Plan of Conservation and De velopment, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, Wetlands Regulations, and Emergency Operations Pl an to include the NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-2 provisions in this plan. Should a general revision be too cumbersome or cost prohibitive, simple addendums to these documents will be added that include the provisions of this plan. The Plan of Conservation and Devel opment and the Emergency Operations Plan are the two documents most likely to benefit from the inclusion of this Plan into the Borough’s library of planning documents. Finally, information and projects in this plan ning document will be included in the annual budget and capital improvement plans as part of implementing the projects recommended in this plan. This will primarily include the annual budget and capital improvement projects lists maintained and updated by the Department of Public Works. 11.2 Progress Monitoring and Public Participation The Office of the Mayor will be the party responsible for monitoring the successful implementation of the Plan as part of its oversight of all municipal departments. Such monitoring may include periodic reports to the COGCNV regarding certain projects, meetings, site visits, and telephone calls as befits the project being implemented. The COGCNV will coordinate an annual discussion for review and evaluation of the plan. Participants in this review ma y include, but need not be lim ited to, representatives of the departments listed in Section 11.1. Matters to be reviewed will include the goals and objectives of the original plan, hazards or disasters that occurred during the preceding period, mitigation activities that have been accomplished to date, a discussion of reasons that implementation may be behind schedule, and recommendations for new projects and revised activities. The annual discussion will be conducted in the late summer or autumn, at least three months before the annual application cycle for pre-disaster gr ants closes. This will enable a list of possible projects to be circulat ed for Borough Departments to review, with sufficient time for developing an application. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-3 Continued public involvement will be sought regarding the monitoring, evaluating, and updating of the Plan. Public input may be solicited through community meetings and input to web-based information gathering tools. Public comment on changes to the Plan may be sought through posting of public notices, and notifications posted to the website of the Council of Governments of the Centra l Naugatuck Valley, as well as of the Borough of Naugatuck. 11.3 Updating the Plan The Borough of Naugatuck plans to formally update the plan at least once every five years. The COGCNV will remind the Borough to formally update the plan within this timeframe. More frequent updates can be accomplished if a consensus to do so is reached by the Board of Mayor and Burgesses. The COGCNV will update the plan for the Borough if the Borough of Naugatuck s ubmits a request to the COGCNV and secures funding enabling the COGCNV to do so. To develop the plan update, committee will be formed consisting of representatives of many of the same departments solicited for input to this plan. In addition, local business leaders, community and neighborhood group l eaders, relevant private and non-profit interest groups, and the six neighboring municipalities will be solicited for representation, including the following: ‰ The Central Naugatuck Valley Emergenc y Planning Committee, managed by the COGCNV; ‰ Naugatuck River Watershed Association; ‰ Key organizations from the list presented on Page 1-10; ‰ Town of Beacon Falls Public Works De partment and Planning Department; ‰ Town of Bethany Public Works De partment and Planning Department; ‰ Town of Middlebury Public Works Department and Planning Department; ‰ Town of Oxford Public Works Depa rtment and Planning Department; NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-4 ‰ Town of Prospect Public Works Depa rtment and Planning Department; and ‰ City of Waterbury Public Works De partment and Planning Department. Updates may include deleting recommendati ons as projects are completed, adding recommendations as new hazard effects arise, or modifying hazard vulnerabilities as land use changes. In addition, the list of shelte rs and critical facilities should be updated as necessary, or at least every five years. 11.4 Technical and Financial Resources This Section is comprised of a list of resources to be considered for technical assistance and potentially financial assistance for comple tion of the actions outlined in this plan. This list is not all-inclusive and is intended to be updated as necessary. Federal Resources Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I 99 High Street, 6 th floor Boston, MA 02110 (617) 956-7506 http://www.fema.gov/ Mitigation Division The Mitigation Division is comp rised of three branches that administer all of FEMA’s hazard mitigation programs. The Risk Analysis Branch applies planning and engineering principles to identify hazards, assess vulnerabilities, and develop strategies to manage the risks associated with natural hazards. The Risk Reduction Branch promotes the use of land use controls and building practices to manage and assess risk in both the existing built developments and fu ture development areas in both pre- and post-disaster environments. The Risk Insurance Branch mitigates flood losses by providing affordable flood insurance fo r property owners and by encouraging communities to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-5 FEMA Programs administered by the Risk Analysis Branch include: ‰ Flood Hazard Mapping Program , which maintains and updates National Flood Insurance Program maps; ‰ National Dam Safety Program , which provides state assistance funds, research, and training in dam safety procedures; ‰ National Hurricane Program , which conducts and supports projects and activities that help protect communities from hurricane hazards; and ‰ Mitigation Planning , a process for states and communities to identify policies, activities, and tools that can reduce or eliminate long- term risk to life and property from a hazard event. FEMA Programs administered by the Risk Reduction Branch include: ‰ Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) , which provides grants to states and local governments to implement long-te rm hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration; ‰ Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) , which provides funds to assist states and communities to implement measures that reduce or eliminate long-term risk of flood damage to structures in surable under the National Flood Insurance Program; ‰ Pre-Disaster Mitigati on Grant Program (PDM) , which provides program funds for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event; ‰ Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL) , which provides funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to “severe repetitive loss” structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program; ‰ Community Rating System (CRS) , a voluntary incentive program under the National Flood Insurance Program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities; and ‰ National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), which in conjunction with state and regional or ganizations supports state and local programs designed to protect ci tizens from earthquake hazard. The Risk Insurance Branch oversees the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) , which enables property owners in part icipating communities to purchase flood insurance. The NFIP assist s communities in complying with the requirements of the program and publishes flood hazard maps and flood insurance studies to determine areas of risk. FEMA also can provide information on pa st and current acquisition, relocation, and retrofitting programs, and has expertise in many natural and technological hazards. FEMA also provides funding for training state and local officials at Emergency Management Institute in Emmitsburg, Maryland. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-6 The Mitigation Directorate also has in place several Technical Assistance Contracts (TAC) that support FEMA, States, territories, an d local governments with activities to enhance the effectiveness of natural hazar d reduction program efforts. The TACs support FEMA’s responsibilities and legisl ative authorities for implementing the earthquake, hurricane, dam safety, and fl oodplain management programs. The range of technical assistance services provided th rough the TACs varies based on the needs of the eligible contract users and the natural hazard programs. Contracts and services include: ‰ The Hazard Mitigation Technical As sistance Program (HMTAP) Contract – supporting post-disaster program needs in cases of large, unusual, or complex projects; situations where resources are not available; or where outside technical assistance is determined to be needed. Services include environmental and biological assessments, benefit/cost analyses, historic preservation assessments, hazard identification, community planning, training, and more. ‰ The Wind and Water Technical As sistance Contract (WAWTAC)-supporting wind and flood hazards reduction program need s. Projects include recommending mitigation measures to reduce potential losses to post-FIRM structures, providing mitigation policy and practices expertise to States, incorporating mitigation into local hurricane program outreach materi als, developing a Hurricane Mitigation and Recovery exercise, and assessing th e hazard vulnerability of a hospital. ‰ The National Earthquake Technical Assistance Contract (NETAC) – supporting earthquake program needs. Projects incl ude economic impact analyses of various earthquakes, vulnerability analyses of hos pitals and schools, identification of and training on non-structural mitigation measures, and evaluating the performance of seismically rehabilitated structures, post-earthquake. Response & Recovery Division As part of the National Response Plan, th is division provides information on dollar amounts of past disaster assistance including Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, and Temporary Housing, as well as information on retrofitting and acquisition/relocation initiatives. The Re sponse & Recovery Division also provides mobile emergency response support to disast er areas, supports the National Disaster Medical System, and provides ur ban search and rescue teams for disaster victims in confined spaces. The division also coordinates federal di saster assistance programs. The Public Assistance Grant Program (PA) that provide s 75% grants for mitigation projects to protect eligible damaged public and private non-profit facilities from future damage. “Minimization” grants at 100% are availabl e through the Individuals and Family Grant Program. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Fire Management Assistance Grant Program are also administered by this division. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-7 Computer Sciences Corporation New England Regional Insurance Manager Bureau and Statistical Office (781) 848-1908 Corporate Headquarters 3170 Fairview Park Drive Falls Church, VA 22042 (703) 876-1000 http://www.csc.com/ A private company contracted by the Federa l Insurance Admi nistration as the National Flood Insurance Program Bureau and Statistical Agent, CSC provides information and assistance on flood insurance, including ha ndling policy and claims questions, and providing workshops to leaders, in surance agents, and communities. Small Business Administration Region I 10 Causeway Street, Suite 812 Boston, MA 02222-1093 (617) 565-8416 http://www.sba.gov/ SBA has the authority to “declare” disaster areas following disasters that affect a significant number of homes and businesses, but that would not need additional assistance through FEMA. (SBA is triggered by a FEMA declaration, however.) SBA can provide additional low-interest funds (up to 20% above what an eligible applicant would “normally” qualify for) to install mitig ation measures. They can also loan the cost of bringing a damaged property up to st ate or local code requirements. These loans can be used in combination with the new “mitigation insurance” under the NFIP, or in lieu of that coverage. Environmental Protection Agency Region I 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2023 (888) 372-7341 Provides grants for restoration and repair , and educational activities, including: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-8 ‰ Capitalization Grants fo r State Revolving Funds: Low interest loans to governments to repair, replace, or relocate wastewater treatment plans damaged in floods. Does not apply to dri nking water or other utilities. ‰ Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants : Cost-share grants to state agencies that can be used for funding watershed resource re storation activities, including wetlands and other aquatic habitat (ri parian zones). Only those activities that control non- point pollution are eligible. Grants are administered through the CT DEP, Bureau of Water Management, Planning and Standards Division. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 20 Church Street, 19 th Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3220 (860) 240-4800 http://www.hud.gov/ The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development offers Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) to communities with populations greater than 50,000, who may contact HUD directly regarding CDGB. One program objective is to improve housing conditions for low and moderate income families. Projects can include acquiring flood prone homes or prot ecting them from flood damage. Funding is a 100% grant; can be used as a source of local matching funds for other funding programs, such as FEMA’s “404” Hazard Mi tigation Grant Program. Funds can also be applied toward “blighted” conditions, which is often the post-flood condition. A separate set of funds exists for conditions that create an “imminent threat.” The funds have been used in the past to repla ce (and redesign) bridges where flood damage eliminates police and fire access to the othe r side of the waterway. Funds are also available for smaller municipalities thr ough the State Administered CDBG program participated in by the State of Connecticut. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources 7701 Telegraph Road Alexandria, VA 22315 (703) 428-8015 http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ The Corps provides 100% funding for floodplain management planning and technical assistance to states and lo cal governments under the Floodplain Management Services Program (FPMS). Various flood protection me asures such as beach re-nourishment, stream clearance and snagging projects, flood proofing, and flood preparedness are funded on a 50/50 matching basis by Secti on 22 planning Assistance to States NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-9 program. They are authorized to relocate homes out of the floodplain if it proves to be more cost effective than a st ructural flood control measure. U.S. Department of Commerce National Weather Service Northeast River Forecast Center 445 Myles Standish Blvd. Taunton, MA 02780 (508) 824-5116 http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ The National Weather Service prepares and issues flood, severe weather, and coastal storm warnings. Staff h ydrologists can work with communities on flood warning issues and can give technical assist ance in preparing flood warning plans. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Steve Golden, Program Leader Rivers, Trails, & Conservation Assistance 15 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) 223-5123 http://www.nps.gov/rtca/ The National Park Service provides techni cal assistance to community groups and local, state, and federal government agencies to conserve rivers, preserve open space, and develop trails and greenways, as well as identify non-structural options for floodplain development. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New England Field Office 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300 Concord, NH 03301-5087 (603) 223-2541 http://www.fws.gov/ The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provide technical and financial assistance to restore wetlands and riparian habitats through the North Am erican Wetland Conservation Fund and Partners for Wildlife progr ams. It also administers the North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Program , which provides matching grants to organizations and individuals who have deve loped partnerships to carry out wetlands NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-10 projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Funds are available for projects focusing on protecting, restoring, and/or enhancing critical habitat. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly SCS) Connecticut Office 344 Merrow Road, Suite A Tolland, CT 06084-3917 (860) 871-4011 The Natural Resources Conservation Servi ce provides technical assistance to individual land owners, groups of landow ners, communities, and soil and water conservation districts on land-use and conservation pla nning, resource development, stormwater management, flood prevention, erosion control and sediment reduction, detailed soil surveys, watershed/river ba sin planning and recreation, and fish and wildlife management. Financial assistance is available to reduce flood damage in small watersheds and to improve water qual ity. Financial assistance is available under the Emergency Watershed Protection Progr am; the Cooperative River Basin Program; and the Small Watershed Protection Program. Regional Resources Northeast States Emergency Consortium 1 West Water Street, Suite 205 Wakefield, MA 01880 (781) 224-9876 http://www.serve.com/NESEC/ The Northeast States Emergency Consor tium (NESEC) develops, promotes, and coordinates “all-hazards” em ergency management activities throughout the Northeast. NESEC works in partnership with public and private organizations to reduce losses of life and property. They provide support in areas including interstate coordination and public awareness and education, along with reinforcing interactions between all levels of government, academia, non-profit organizations, and the private sector. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-11 State Resources Connecticut Department of Econ omic and Community Development 505 Hudson Street Hartford, CT 06106-7106 (860) 270-8000 http://www.ct.gov/ecd/ The Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development administers HUD’s State CDBG Program, awarding smalle r communities and rural areas grants for use in revitalizing neighborhoods, expandi ng affordable housing and economic opportunities, and improving commun ity facilities and services. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 (860) 424-3000 http://www.dep.state.ct.us/ The Connecticut DEP includes several divisi ons with various functions related to hazard mitigation: Bureau of Water Management, Inland Water Resources Division – This division is generally responsible for flood hazard mitigation in Connecticut, including administration of the National Flood Insurance Program. Other programs within the division include: ‰ National Flood Insurance Program State Coordinator : Provides flood insurance and floodplain management technical assistance, floodplain management ordinance review, substa ntial damage/improvement requirements, community assistance visits, and other general fl ood hazard mitigation planning including the delineation of floodways. ‰ State Hazard Mitigation Officer (shared role with the Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security) : Hazard mitigation planning and policy; oversight of administration of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, and Pre- Disaster Mitigation Program. Has the responsibility of making certain that the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is updated every 3 years. ‰ Flood Warning and Forecasting Service : Prepares and issues flood, severe weather, and coastal storm warnings. Staff engineers and forecaster can work with communities on flood warning issues and can give technical assistance in NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-12 preparing flood warning plans. This service has helped the public respond much faster in flooding condition. ‰ Flood & Erosion Control Board Program : Provides assistance to municipalities to solve flooding, beach erosion and dam repair problems. Have the power to construct and repair flood and erosio n management systems. Certain non- structural measures that mitigate flood da mages are also eligible. Funding is provided to communities that apply fo r assistance through a Flood & Erosion Control Board on a non-competitive basis. ‰ Stream Channel Encroachment Line Program : Similar to the NFIP, this state regulatory program places restrictions on the development of floodplains along certain major rivers. This program draw s in environmental concerns in addition to public safety issues when permitting projects. ‰ Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Management Program : Provides training, technical and planning assistance to lo cal Inland Wetlands Commissions, reviews and approves municipal regulations fo r localities. Also controls flood management and natural disaster mitigations. ‰ Dam Safety Program : Charged with the responsi bility for administration and enforcement of Connecticut’s dam safety laws. Regulates the operation and maintenance of dams in the state. Permits the construction, repair or alteration of dams, dikes or similar structures and ma intains a registration database of all known dams statewide. This program also operates a statewide inspection program. ‰ Rivers Restoration Grant Program : Administers funding and grants under the Clean Water Act involving river restorati on, and reviews and provides assistance with such projects. Bureau of Water Management – Planning and Standards Division – Administers the Clean Water Fund and many other programs dir ectly and indirectly related to hazard mitigation including the Section 319 non-point source pollution reduction grants and municipal facilities progra m which deals with mitigating pollution from wastewater treatment plants. Office of Long Island Sound Programs (OLISP) – Administers the Coastal Area Management Act (CAM) program and L ong Island Sound License Plate Program. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-13 Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security 25 Sigourney Street, 6 th Floor Hartford, CT 06106-5042 (860) 256-0800 http://www.ct.gov/demhs/ DEMHS is the lead agency responsible for emergency management. Specifically, responsibilities include emergency prepare dness, response & recovery, mitigation, and an extensive training program. DEMHS is the state point of contact for most FEMA grant and assistance programs. DEMHS administers the Earthquake and Hurricane programs described above under the FEMA resource section. Additionally, DEMHS operates a mitigation program to coordinate mitigation throughout the state with other government agencies. Connecticut Department of Public Safety 1111 Country Club Road Middletown, CT 06457 (860) 685-8190 http://www.ct.gov/dps/ Office of the State Building Inspector – The Office of the State Building Inspector is responsible for administering and enforci ng the Connecticut State Building Code, and is also responsible for the municipa l Building Inspector Training Program. Connecticut Department of Transportation 2800 Berlin Turnpike Newington, CT 06131-7546 (860) 594-2000 http://www.ct.gov/dot/ The Department of Transportation admi nisters the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) that in cludes grants for projects which promote alternative or improved methods of trans portation. Funding through grants can often be used for projects with mitigation benef its such as preservation of open space in the form of bicycling and walking trails. CT DOT is also involved in traffic improvements and bridge repairs which could be mitigation related. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-14 Private and Other Resources The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) 2809 Fish Hatchery Road, Suite 204 Madison, WI 53713 (608) 274-0123 http://www.floods.org/ ASFPM is a professional association of stat e employees that assist communities with the NFIP with a membership of over 1,000. ASFMP has developed a series of technical and topical research papers, and a series of Proceedings from their annual conferences. Many “mitigation success stories” have been documented through these resources, and provide a good starting point for planning. Institute for Business & Home Safety 4775 East Fowler Avenue Tampa, FL 33617 (813) 286-3400 http://www.ibhs.org/ A non-profit organization put together by the insurance indus try to research ways of reducing the social and economic impacts of natural hazards. The Institute advocates the development and implementation of bu ilding codes and standards nationwide and may be a good source of model code language. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering and Research (MCEER) University at Buffalo State University of New York Red Jacket Quadrangle Buffalo, New York 14261 (716) 645-3391 http://mceer.buffalo.edu/ A source for earthquake statistics, researc h, and f or engineering and planning advice. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-15 The National Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA) 1301 K Street, NW, Suite 800 East Washington, DC 20005 (202) 218-4122 http://www.nafsma.org NAFSMA is an organization of public agencies who strive to prot ect lives, property, and economic activity from the adverse impacts of stormwater by advocating public policy, encouraging technology, and conducting educational programs. NAFSMA is a voice in national politics on water res ources management issues concerning stormwater management, disaster assistance, flood insurance, and federal flood management policy. National Emergency Management Association (NEMA ) P.O. Box 11910 Lexington, KY 40578 (859)-244-8000 http://www.nemaweb.org/ A national association of state emergency management directors and other emergency management officials, the NEMA Mitigati on Committee is a strong voice to FEMA in shaping all-hazard mitigation policy in the nation. NEMA is also an excellent source of technical assistance. Natural Hazards Center University of Colorado at Boulder 482 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0482 (303) 492-6818 http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/ The Natural Hazards Center includes the Floodplain Manageme nt Resource Center, a free library and referral service of the ASFPM for floodplain management publications. The Natural Hazards Center is located at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Staff can use keywords to identif y useful publications from the more than 900 documents in the library. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 11-16 New England Flood and Stormwater Managers Association, Inc. (NEFSMA) c/o MA DEM 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 NEFSMA is a non-profit organization made up of state agency staff, local officials, private consultants and citizens from across New England. NEFSMA sponsors seminars and workshops and publishes the NEFSMA News three times per year to bring the latest flood and stormwater mana gement information from around the region to its members. Volunteer Organizations – Volunteer organizations includ ing the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanit y, and the Mennonite Disaster Service are often available to help after disasters. Service Organizations such as the Lions Club, Elks Club, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars are also available. Habitat for Humanity and the Mennonite Disaster Service provide skilled labor to help rebuild damaged buildings while incorporating mitigation or flood proofing concepts. The office of individual organizations can be contacted directly, or the FEMA Regional Office may be able to assist. Flood Relief Funds – After a disaster, local businesses, residents and out-of-town groups often donate money to local relief funds. They may be managed by the local government, one or more local churches, or an ad hoc committee. No government disaster declaration is needed. Local o fficials should recommend that the funds be held until an applicant exhausts all sources of public disa ster assistance, allowing the funds to be used for mitigation and other projects than cannot be funded elsewhere. Americorps – Americorps is the recently installed National Community Service Organization. It is a network of local, st ate, and national service programs that connects volunteers with nonpr ofits, public agencies, and faith-based and community organizations to help meet our country’s critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the environment. Through their service and the volunteers they mobilize, AmeriCorps members address critical needs in communities throughout America, including helping communities respond to disasters. Some states have trained Americorps members to help during flood-fi ght situations, such as by filling and placing sandbags. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-1 12.0 REFERENCES Blake, E. S., Jarrell, J. D., Rappaport, E. N., Landsea, C. W. 2006. The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical Cyclones from 1851 to 2005 (and Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts) . Miami, FL: NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TPC-4. http://www.nhc .noaa.gov/Deadliest_Costliest.shtml Brumbach, Joseph J. 1965. The Climate of Connecticut. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Bulletin No. 99. Cape Cod Commission. 2004. Natural Hazards Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan . Barnstable County, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Collins, Andrew. 2000. Connecticut Handbook . Avalon Travel Publishing: Emeryville, California. Connecticut Department of E nvironmental Protection. 2007. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan For 2007-2010. ___. 2007. High Hazard & Significant Hazard Da ms in Connecticut, rev. 9/11/07. http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/water_inlan d/dams/high_significant_hazard_dams.pdf ___. 2004. Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for 2004-2007. ___. GIS Data for Connecticut – DEP Bulletin Number 40, rev. 2008. Connecticut Department of Public Healt h. Connecticut Emergency Medical Service Regions. http://www.ct.gov/dph/cwp/view.as p?a=3127&Q=387372&dphNav_GID=1827&dphNa v=| Connecticut Flood Recovery Committee. 1955. Report of the Connecticut Flood Recovery Committee, November 3, 1955. Connecticut State Library. http://www.cslib.org/floodrecov.pdf Environmental Defense. 2004. Bracing for Climate Change in the Constitution State: What Connecticut Could Face. Federal Emergency Management Agency. April 2008. HAZUS ®-MH Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States. FEMA document 366. ___. 2007. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. March 2004, Revised November 2006 and June 2007. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-2 ___. 2005. Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding: A Guide for Communities. FEMA document 511. ___. 1987. Reducing Losses in High Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local Officials . The Association of State Floodplain Managers. ___. 1982. Flood Insurance Study, Town of Thomas ton, Connecticut, Litchfield County. ___. 1979. Flood Insurance Study, Borough of Naugatuck, Connecticut, New Haven County. ___. 1978. Flood Insurance Study, Town of Be acon Falls, Connecticut, New Haven County. ___. Hazards. Backgrounder: Tornadoes. http://www.fema.gov/hazards/tornadoes/tornado.shtm ___. Library. Federally Declared Disasters by Calendar Year. http://www.fema.gov/library/drcys.shtm ___. Library. Preparation and Prevention . http://www.fema.gov/library/prepandprev.shtm ___. Mitigation Division . http://www.fema.gov/about/divisions/mitigation/mitigation.shtm ___. National Hurricane Program . http://www.fema.gov/hazards/hurricanes/nhp.shtm ___, United States Army Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmos pheric Administration, and Connecticut Department of Public Safety Connecticut Office of Emergency Management. 1993. Connecticut Hurricane Evacuation Study Technical Data Report. Flint, R. F. 1978. The Surficial Geology of the Naugatuck Quadrangle . State Geological and Natural History Survey of C onnecticut, Quadrangle Report No. 35. Fox News.com. 2008. Rare Earthquake Strikes Connecticut . http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336973,00.html . Accessed 7/17/2008. Gates, R. M., Martin, C. W. 1967. The Bedrock Geology of the Waterbury Quadrangle. State Geological and Natura l History Survey of Connecticut, Quadrangle Report No. 22. Glowacki, D. 2005. Heavy Rains & Flooding of Sub- Regional Drainage Basins. Reviewed Draft. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Inland Water Resources Division. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-3 Godschalk, D.R., T. Beatley, P. Berke, D.J. Brower, and E.J. Kaiser. 1999. Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning . Island Press: Washington, D.C. Northeast States Emergency Consortium. Earthquakes. http://www.nesec.org/hazards/Ear thquakes.cfm. Accessed 7/17/2008. Kafka, Alan L. 2004. Why Does the Earth Quake in New England? The Science of Unexpected Earthquakes . Boston College, Weston Observatory, Department of Geology and Geophysics. http://www2.bc.edu/~kafka/Why_Qua kes/why_quakes.html. Accessed 7/17/2008. Kocin, P. J., Uccellini, L .W. 2004. A Snow fall Impact Scale Derived From Northeast Storm Snowfall Distributions. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85, 177-194. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/res earch/snow-nesis/kocin-uccellini.pdf Massachusetts Emergency Management Agen cy and Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2004. Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Milone & MacBroom, Inc. 2008. Town of Cheshire Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan . Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___. 2008. Town of Prospect Natural Haza rd Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. Council of Governments of the Central Na ugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___. 2008. Town of Wolcott Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. Council of Governments of the Central Na ugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___. 2007. City of Waterbury Natural Haza rd Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. Council of Governments of the Central Na ugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___. 2007. Town of Nantucket Natural Haza rd Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. ___. 2006. Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Greater Bridgeport Regional Pla nning Agency, Bridgeport, CT. ___. 2005. City of New Haven Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Miller, D.R., G.S. Warner, F.L. Ogden, A.T. DeGaetano. 2002. Precipitation in Connecticut . University of Connecticut College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Connecticut Institute of Wa ter Resources, Storrs, CT. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-4 Muckel, G.B. (editor). 2004. Understanding Soil Risks and Hazards: Using Soil Survey to Identify Areas with Risks and Hazards to Human Life and Property . United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administ ration (NOAA), Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Hurri cane Research Division. Hurricane Histograms. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/counties/CT.html National Oceanic and Atmosphe ric Administration (NOAA). Enhanced F-scale for Tornado Damage . http://www.spc.noaa.gov/efscale/ ___. Climate of 2008 Wildfire Season Summary . Updated January 8 2009. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/clim ate/research/2008/fire08.html ___. 2008. Lightning D eaths By State, 1998 to 2007. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/stats/98-07_deaths_by_state.pdf ___. 2001. Winter Storms: The Deceptive Killers – A Preparedness Guide. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/winte r/resources/winterstorm.pdf ___. 1995. A Preparedness Guide . ___. Weekend Snowstorm in Northeast Corridor Classified as a Category 3 “Major” Storm . http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2580.htm ___. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Extreme Weather and Climate Events. http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi- win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms ___. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2007. Monthly and Seasonal Total Snowfall Amount, Mount Carmel, Connecticut. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ussc/USS CAppController?action=snowfall_ms&state=06&sta tion=MOUNTCARMEL&coopid=065077 ___. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2006. The Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS). http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cli mate/research/snow-nesis/ ___. National W eather Service. National Hu rricane Center Tropical Prediction Center. NHC/TPC Archive of Past Hurricane Seasons . http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml New Hamps hire Office of Emergency Management. 2000. State of New Hampshire Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan . Concord, New Hampshire. Robinson, G. R. Jr., Kapo, K. E. 2003. Generalized Lithology and Lithogeochemical Character of Near-Surface Bedrock in the New England Region . U.S. Geological Survey NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-5 Open-File Report 03-225, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-225/ Salerno, Carolee. 2008. “1 dies, 4 injured when lightning strikes beach park.” News Channel 8. http://www.wtnh.com/global/story.asp?s =8448996 Sellers, Helen Earle. 1973. Connecticut Town Origins. The Pequot Press: Chester, Connecticut Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conserva tion Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Series Classification Database [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classificatio n/osd/index.html [Accessed 10 February 2004]. USDA-NRCS, Lincoln, NE. South Western Regional Planning Agency. 2005. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Strategy Document, Connecticut’s South Western Region. Squires, M. F. and J. H. Lawrimore. 2006: Development of an Operational Snowfall Impact Scale. 22 nd IIPS, Atlanta, GA. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ research/snow-nesis/squires.pdf Staubach, Suzanne. 1998. Connecticut: Driving Through History . Covered Bridge Press: North Attleborough, Massachusetts. Tornado Project Online. h ttp://www.tornadoproject.com/ Borough of Naugatuck, Connecticut. 2005 . Zoning Regulations. ___. 2002. Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations. ___. 2001. Plan of Conservation & Development. ___. 1999. Subdivision Regulations. United States Census Bureau. 2005 Popul ation Estimates. http://www.census.gov/ ___. American Factfinder. http://factfinder.census.gov/ United States Department of Transportation. 2002. The Pote ntial Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation . The DOT Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting. Workshop, October 1-2, 2002. Summary and Discussion Papers. United States Geological Survey. USGS Water Data for Connecticut . http://nwis.waterdata .usgs.gov/ct/nwis/nwis NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN NAUGATUCK, CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2009 12-6 United States Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program. Connecticut Earthquake History. Abridged from Earthquake Information Bulletin, January – February 1971. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/ connecticut/history.php. Assessed 7/17/2008. ___. 2008. Seismic Hazard Map of Connecticut. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/ connecticut/hazards.php. Assessed 7/17/2008. ___. 2004. The Severity of an Earthquake . http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq4/s everitygip.html Assessed 7/17/2008. APPENDED TABLES Appended Table 1 Hazard Event Ranking Each hazard may have multiple effects; for example, a hurricane causes h igh winds and inland flooding. Some hazards may have similar effects; for example, hurricanes and earth quakes may cause dam failure. Location Frequenc y of Ma gnitude / Rank Natural Hazards Occurrence Severit y 1 = small 0 = unlikely1 = limited 2 = medium 1 = possible2 = significant 3 = large 2 = likely 3 = critical 3 = highly likely 4 = catastrophic Winter Storms 3328 Hurricanes 3137 Summer Storms and Tornadoes 2327 Earthquakes 3126 Wildfires 1214 Location 1 = small isolated to specific area during one event 2 = medium mulitple areas during one event 3 = large significant portion of the town during one event Frequency of Occurrence 0 = unlikely less than 1% probability in the next 100 years 1 = possible between 1 and 10% probability in the next year; or at least one chance i n next 100 years 2 = likely between 10 and 100% probability in the next year; or at least one chance in next 10 years 3 = highly likely near 100% probability in the next year Magnitude / Severity 1 = limited injuries and/or illnesses are treatable with first aid; minor “quality o f life” loss; shutdown of critical facilities and services for 24 hours or less; property severely damaged < 10% 2 = significant injuries and / or illnesses do not result in permanent disability; shutd own of several critical facilities for more than one week; property severely damaged 10% 3 = critical injuries and / or ilnesses result in permanent disability; complete shut down of critical facilities for at least two weeks; property severely damaged 25% 4 = catastrophic multiple deaths; complete shutdown of facilities for 30 days or more; pr operty severely damaged >50% Frequency of Occurrence, Magnitude / Severity, and Potential Damages bas ed on historical data from NOAA National Climatic Data Center Appended Table 2 Hazard Effect Ranking Some effects may have a common cause; for example, a hurricane causes hi gh winds and inland flooding. Some effects may have similar causes; for example, hurricanes and nor’ea sters both cause heavy winds. Location Frequenc y of Ma gnitude /Rank Natural Hazard Effects Occurrence Severit y 1 = small0 = unlikely1 = limited 2 = medium 1 = possible2 = significant 3 = large 2 = likely 3 = critical 3 = highly likely 4 = catastrophic Nor’Easter Winds 3328 Snow 3328 Blizzard 3328 Hurricane Winds 3137 Ice 3227 Flooding from Dam Failure 2147 Thunderstorm Winds 2226 Tornado Winds 2136 Shaking 3126 Inland Flooding 1315 Flooding from Poor Drainage 1315 Lightning 1315 Falling Trees/Branches 1315 Hail 1214 Fire/Heat 1214 Smoke 1214 Location 1 = smallisolated to specific area during one event 2 = medium mulitple areas during one event 3 = large significant portion of the town during one event Frequency of Occurrence 0 = unlikely less than 1% probability in the next 100 years 1 = possible between 1 and 10% probability in the next year; or at least one chance i n next 100 years 2 = likely between 10 and 100% probability in the next year; or at least one chance in next 10 years 3 = highly likely near 100% probability in the next year Magnitude / Severity 1 = limited injuries and/or illnesses are treatable with first aid; minor “quality o f life” loss; shutdown of critical facilities and services for 24 hours or less; property severely damaged < 10% 2 = significant injuries and / or illnesses do not result in permanent disability; shutd own of several critical facilities for more than one week; property severely damaged 10% 3 = critical injuries and / or ilnesses result in permanent disability; complete shut down of critical facilities for at least two weeks; property severely damaged 25% 4 = catastrophic multiple deaths; complete shutdown of facilities for 30 days or more; pr operty severely damaged >50% Frequency of Occurrence, Magnitude / Severity, and Potential Damages bas ed on historical data from NOAA National Climatic Data Center Development Permit Checklist for Hazard Mitigationand Effective Emergency Management Aquifer Protection Zone 28 Defines protection zones over the primary and secondary recharge areas o the Indian Well Field and the Marks Brook Well Field. Restricts uses in the zone and requires that an Aquifer Protection Zone permit be obtained before any building permit can be issued for developmen t Flood Plains 29 Recognizes areas of special flood hazards within the Borough and establishes minimum standards and review procedures over the use of the land. Establishes the FIRMs and the FIS as the official maps for delineating areas of special flood hazard. Restricts uses in the floodpl ain, requires flood protection for structures, controls the alterations of fl ood plains, and authorizes the Zoning Commission to administer and enforce the provisions of the regulations. Prohibits encroachments, fill, and substantial improvements unless certification is provided showing that such improvements will result in no increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 364.6 Requires the submittal of a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan wit h any application in which the disturbed area of such development is cumulatively more than one-half acr e General Design Standards 3.2.4 Requires that an Engineering Report be submitted with all applications that addresses impacts on floodplains, aquifers, watersheds, greenways and natural features. The report shall also include summaries on stormwater drainage designs and means to provide sanitary sewer disposa l and wate r supp ly. Suitable Developable Land 5.2 Restricts development on unsuitable land based on water or flooding conditoins, unsuitable soil, topography, ledge, rock or other conditions Appended Table 3. Zoning Regulations Subdivision Regulations Inland Wetland Regulations Plan of Conservation & Developmen t (2001) Development Permit Checklist for Hazard Mitigationand Effective Emergency Management Appended Table 3. Zoning Regulations Subdivision Regulations Inland Wetland Regulations Plan of Conservation & Developmen t (2001) Flood Contro l 5.12 Proposed subdivisions shall be consistent with the need to minimize floo d damage and public utilities, including adequate storm drainage, shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize flood damage. Base flood elevation data shall be provided for all land proposed to be subdivide d Environmental Impact 10.2 The Commission must consider the environmental impact of the proposed action, including the effects on the watercourse’s natural capacity to support fish and wildlife, to prevent flooding, to supply and protect surface and ground waters, to control sediment, to facilitate drainage, to control pollution, to support recreational activities, and to promote pu blic health safety and welfare; any alternatives, and any measures that would mitigate the impact of the proposed activity, such as technical improvements or safeguards to reduce the environmental impacts. Priority Conservation Areas 3.C.2 Identifies priority conservation areas (watercourses, water bodies, wetlands, slopes in excess of 15%, and ridgelines) and important conservation areas (public water supply watersheds, and aquifers and rechar ge areas , and uni que or s pecial habitat areas ). APPENDIX A STAPLEE MATRIX CategorySTAPLEE Criteria 1. Prevention Good = 3, Average =2, and Poor = 1 A. Ongoing 2. Property Protection B. 2009-2013 3. Natural Resource Prot. C. 2014-2018 4. Structural Projects D. 2019-2023 5. Public Information ALL HAZARDS Dissemination of informational pamphlets regarding natural hazards to pu blic locations Emergency Mgmt. A xxxxxxx1,2,53333333 21 Add pages to the Borough website dedicated to citizen education and prep aration for natural hazard events Emergency Mgmt. B xxxxxxx1,2,53333322 19 Continue implementation of CodeRED emergency notification system Mayor Axxxxxxx 1,5 332333219 Encourage residents to purchase and use NOAA weather radios with alarm f eatures Emergency Mgmt. Bxxxxxxx 1,5 333332219 Continue to review and update Emergency Operations Plan at least once an nually Emergency Mgmt. Axxxxxxx 1 333333321 Continue reviewing subdivision applications to ensure new neighborhoods are sized to accommodate emergency vehicles Emergency Mg mt. A xxxxxxx 2332333219 Upgrade at least one secondary shelter to a primary shelter, and attempt to have the resources to shelter 10% of population Emergency Mgmt. Bxxxxxxx 1, 4 332232217 Continue to encourage two modes of access into every neighborhood by the creation of through streets PZCAxxxxxxx 1 223332116 INLAND FLOODING Prevention Streamline the permitting process and develop a checklist to ensure maxi mum education of developer or applicant PZC/ZEOBxxxxx x 1 322333319 Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System MayorBxxxx 12323321 16 Continue to require application approval for activities within SFHAs PZCA xxxx x 1, 32332333 19 Consider requiring new buildings constructed in flood prone areas to be protected to the highest recorded flood level PZCBxxxx 1,22222331 15 Ensure that new buildings be designed and graded to shunt drainage away from the building PZCB xxxx 1,22233331 17 After the MapMod Program, use Borough two-foot contour maps to develop m ore exact regulatory flood maps using FEMA flood elevations EngineeringCxxxx 12322231 15 Property and Natural Resource Protection Acquire open space properties within SFHAs and set aside as greenways, p arks, or other non-residential, non-commercial, or non-industrial use MayorB,C,Dxxxx x 2,33223333 19 Selectively pursue conservation objectives listed in the Plan of Conserv ation & Development MayorB,C,Dxxxx 33223323 18 Continue to regulate development in protected and sensitive areas, inclu ding steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains PZCAxxxxxxx 3 233232318 Consider local floodproofing or elevation options for floodprone homes a long various watercourses in Naugatuck EngineeringB,Cx x x x x 2,4 3223222 16 Structural Projects Consider a Borough-wide analysis to identify undersized and failing port ions of drainage systems, and prioritize repairs as needed Engineering, DPWBxxxx x 2,43323331 18 Upgrade the drainage systems in downtown areas to enhance drainage Engineering, DPWBxxxx 2,43223331 17 Increase maintenance of drainage systems on Arch Street near Long Meadow Pond Brook DPWB, C, D xxxx x 2,43333331 19 If necessary, increase conveyance of Crown Spring Bridge over Hop Brook at Bridge Street Engineering, DPWBxxxx x 42223321 15 Assess dredging options for Union Ice Company Pond to potentially increa se its potential for flood mitigation EngineeringBxxxx 42223322 16 Increase conveyance capacity of culvert under East Waterbury Road downst ream of Union Ice Company Pond Engineering, DPWBxxxx x 42223321 15 Evaluate flood mitigation options near underground culvert along Pigeon Brook EngineeringBxxxx 2,43323321 17 Pursue flood mitigation options along unnamed stream in Spencer Street c orridor Engineering, DPWBxxxx 2,43323321 17 WIND DAMAGE RELATED TO HURRICANES, SUMMER STORMS, AND WINTER STORMS Continue Borough-wide tree limb inspection and maintenance to diminish p otential for downed power lines DPWAxxxx x 1,2,33333322 19 Focus tree limb maintenance and inspections along Route 63 & 68, Spring Street, Union City Road, and other evacuation routes DPWB, C, D xxxx x 1,2 322333218 Increase inspections of trees on private property near power lines and B orough right-of-ways DPWB, C, D xxxx 13223332 18 Continue to require that utilities be placed underground in new developm ents and pursue funding to move them underground in existing areas PZC, MayorAxxxx xx 2 322333218 Review and disseminate evacuation plans to ensure timely evacuation of s helterees from all areas of Town Emergency Mgmt.B, C, D xxxxxxx 1,5 333333119 Provide for the Building Department to make literature available during the permitting process regarding appropriate design standards PZC/ZEOBx x x 13333331 19 Strategies Listed by Primary Report Section for Naugatuck Associated Report Sections Inland Flooding Hurricanes Summer Storms and Tornadoes Winter Storms Earthquakes Dam Failure Wildfires Environmentally beneficial? STAPLEE Sum of Scores Responsible Department 1 Schedule Socially acceptable? Technically feasible? Administratively workable? Politically acceptable? Can it be legally implemented? Economically beneficial? Page 1 CategorySTAPLEE Criteria 1. Prevention Good = 3, Average =2, and Poor = 1 A. Ongoing 2. Property Protection B. 2009-2013 3. Natural Resource Prot. C. 2014-2018 4. Structural Projects D. 2019-2023 5. Public Information Strategies Listed by Primary Report Section for Naugatuck Associated Report Sections Inland Flooding Hurricanes Summer Storms and Tornadoes Winter Storms Earthquakes Dam Failure Wildfires Environmentally beneficial? STAPLEE Sum of Scores Responsible Department 1 Schedule Socially acceptable? Technically feasible? Administratively workable? Politically acceptable? Can it be legally implemented? Economically beneficial? WINTER STORMS Compile and post a final list of plowing routes, prioritizing egress to shelters and critical facilities DPW B x 5 332332117 EARTHQUAKES Continue to require adherence to the state building codes PZC A xxxx 1233333118 Preserve or convert areas of inactive faults to municipal open space Mayor B x 2,3222222315 Consider preventing residential development in areas prone to collapse, such as on or below steep slopes PZC B x 1 233232217 Ensure that future implementation of Goal #3 Item #4 of the Plan of Cons ervation and Development considers earthquake risks PZC B x 1,2 332332218 Consider regulating development in areas on or below steep slopes (slop es exceeding 20%) PZC B x 2,3 2333333 20 Ensure that municipal departments have adequate backup facilities (powe r generation, heat, water, etc.) in case earthquake damage occurs Emergency Mgmt.Bxxxx 13223221 15 DAM FAILURE Stay current on the development of EOPs and Dam Failure Analyses for Cla ss C and B dams whose failure could impact Naugatuck EngineeringA x23333332 20 Include dam failure inundation areas in the CodeRED contact database Emergency Mgmt.Bx x1,23333332 20 Assess the condition and performance of the Donovan Road dam and upgrade as necessary Engineering, DPWBx x1,2,3,43323332 19 Upgrade and repair the Ridge Lower Pond Dam along Warren Avenue Engineering, DPWBx x1,2,3,43323332 19 Consider implementing Borough inspections of lower hazard dams EngineeringBx x22322132 15 WILDFIRES Continue to have CTWC extend/upgrade the public water supply systems int o areas requiring water for fire protection EngineeringAxx2,3,4 3233332 19 Encourage CTWC to identify and upgrade those portions of the water syste m that are substandard for fire protection Emergency Mgmt. A xx 2,3 3223331 17 Consider constructing dry hydrants to provide an additional supply of fi refighting water in areas without water service Emergency Mgmt.Bxx2,3,4 3223232 17 Continue to require storage tanks in subdivisions away from water servic e Emergency Mgmt.Axx2,3,4 3333331 19 Continue to promote inter-municipal cooperation in fire-fighting efforts Emergency Mgmt.Axx1 3333333 21 Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of fo rest fire danger and how to use common fire fighting equipment Emergency Mgmt.A x5 3333333 21 Provide outreach programs on how to properly manage burning and campfire s on private property Emergency Mgmt.B x2,3,5 3323323 19 Patrol Borough-owned open space and parks to prevent campfires Police Dept.B x3 2223323 17 Enforce regulations and permits for open burning Police Dept.A x1,3 2223333 18 1Notes PZC = Planning Commission and Zoning Commission ZEO = Zoning Enforcement Officer DPW = Department of Public Works Page 2 APPENDIX B DOCUMENTATION OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPENDIX B PREFACE An extensive data collection, evaluation, and outreach program was undertaken to compile information about existing hazards and mitigatio n in the Borough of Naugatuck as well as to identify areas that should be prioritized for h azard mitigation. Documentation of this process is provided within the following sets of meeting minutes and field reports. Meeting Minutes N ATURAL H AZARD PRE -D ISASTER M ITIGATION PLAN FOR N AUGATUCK Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Initial Data Collection Meeting January 23, 2008 I. Welcome & Introductions The following individuals attended the data collection meeting: ‰ David Murphy, P.E., Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) ‰ Samuel Eisenbeiser, Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. (FHI) ‰ Shawn Goulet, Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) ‰ Virginia Mason, Council of Governme nts Central Naugatuck Valley (CGCNV) ‰ Mike Bronko, Naugatuck Mayor ‰ Al Pistarelli, Naugatuck Mayoral Aide ‰ Fran Dambowsky, Naugatuck Emergency Management & Homeland Security ‰ Ken Hanks, Naugatuck Deputy Fire Chief ‰ James R. Stewart, Naugatuck Engineer ‰ Keith Rosenfeld, Naugatuck Town Planner/Wetlands Enforcement Officer ‰ Hank Witkoski, Jr., Superintende nt of Public Works/Streets II. Description and Need for Hazard Mitigation Plans / Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Virginia and David described the basis for th e natural hazard planning process and possible outcomes. Naugatuck is responsible for a 1/8 cost share through in -kind services. Mayor Bronko assigned Fran as the point of contact person for the project. Copies of the Waterbury and New Haven plans were passed around. III. Project Scope and Schedule The project scope was described, including pr oject initiation and data collection, the vulnerability assessment, public meetings, development of recommendations, and the FEMA Review and Plan adoption. A 14-month schedule was presented. IV. Hazards to Address The Naugatuck plan will likely address floodi ng, hurricanes and tropical storms, winter storms and nor’easters, summer storms and tornadoes, earthquakes, dam failure, and wildfires. V. Discussion of Hazard Mitigation Pr ocedures in Effect & Problem Areas January 23, 2008 Page 2 It was mentioned that utilities must be located underground and that connectivity needs to be encouraged throughout the Borough. Keith said that an updated Plan of Conservation and Development Plan will likely be put into the budget for next year. New development in the Borough deals with flooding largely by avoiding crossings and using setbacks. The FEMA study is from 1979 and is in need of updating. Lastly, there was mention that someone from the Borough will investigate any filings with FEMA from residents of the Borough regarding flooding and any associated damage(s) to their properties. The informational public meeting was scheduled for the first Monday in March (March 3 rd) at 6:00 PM before the Burgesses. An example of a prior press release will be sent to all attendees. A. Emergency Response Capabili ties & Evacuation Routes The Borough has implemented the CodeRED Emergency Notification System for emergency notifications. Evacuation routes are regionally defined by the Regional Evacuation Plan. No local evacuation plan ex ists. Ken stated that he would forward a copy of the Emergency Operations Plan to those attendees who wished to review it. Zoning and Subdivision Regulations Keith mentioned that all pertinent re gulations are on the Borough website ( Borough of Naugatuck, CT-Zoning Regulations ) and if there are any questions or problems regarding their downloa d to contact him. B. Noted Flooding and/or Dr ainage Problem Areas Complaints associated with flooding and/or drainage problems eventually reach the Borough’s Engineering Department. ‰ Due to its high density of residential hous ing, the location of Spencer Street/Cherry Street/Pleasant Avenue was determined, af ter discussion, to be the highest rated flooding problem area in the Borough. A re view of historical topographic maps reveals that a stream was located in this area in 1947 but not in 1954. Currently, there is a detention pond near this area with an adjacent swale from the hillside; and a stream to the west of Lewis Street. The result of these modifications is the flooding of streets within the development, and with the right scenario, homes. Water levels can rise so rapidly that a “g eyser” has formed when water gets backed up in the storm drainage system following periods of high rainfall. The Grant House on Cherry Street Extension was damaged due to pressures within the stormwater system. January 23, 2008 Page 3 ‰ Determined as the second area of floodi ng is the location adjacent to the upper Meadow Pond Brook and its tributary near Rubber Avenue and Harlow Court. This is north of the Baummer Dam. There have been approximately four residential or commercial sites that have been floode d in this location. The road becomes inundated with water following heavy rain fall. The flooding at this site is associated with water entering from Webb Road. ‰ The site of Nichols Garage (Irving Ga s Station) is where Pigeon Brook flows underground before entering Hop Brook. There is a silted pond adjacent to the garage at this site. There may be flooding problems at this location. ‰ The portion of East Waterbury Road be low the Union Ice Company Pond Dam becomes flooded after heavy rains as a resu lt of the pond being filled with sediment. During substantial rain even ts, the dam and pond overtop a nd water spills onto East Waterbury Road. The water runs down the road and eventually re-enters the tributary to Fulling Mill Brook. With the right elements, water does enter homes. ‰ The Ridge Lower Pond dam located along Warren Avenue is in need of repair. The dam’s insufficiency poses a threat to the re sidents of the Ridge Development. There was some discussion of possible DEP involvement in the repair. ‰ Repeated flooding has taken place along B eacon Valley Road (near Beacon Falls) which becomes inundated with water from Beacon Hill Brook after heavy rains. ‰ The Crown Spring Bridge located on Bri dge Street has recurring issues with flooding after periods of heavy rainfall. ‰ Highland Avenue near Galpin Street beco mes flooded after substantial rain events. ‰ The bottom of Arch Street receives three f eet of standing water during large rainfall events. A storm drain near a vacant bu ilding is not normally cleaned, causing storm water to back-up and build in the street during these storms. On one account, the standing water caused a dumpster to float. ‰ Last July a sinkhole of approximately 100 f eet formed along Maple Street near the Fire Department. The sinkhole was the resu lt of the failure of an old storm drain. ‰ The Donovan Road Dam was listed as a pl ace of potential flooding, but may not need to be addressed for this project. C. Approved Developments The following housing developments have been approved or are underway: Meeting Minutes January 23, 2008 Page 4 ‰ A 264 home subdivision locat ed near Hunters Mountain. This subdivision has connections to Andrews Mountain Ro ad and Hunters Mountain Road. ‰ A development of 30 condominiums (“Springbrook”). ‰ A development of 30 homes at Maple Hill Road and Salem Road near Fulling Mill Brook. ‰ A 95 home development located off of Maple Hill Road, between Mulberry Street and Victoria Lane. ‰ The development of 150 homes situated between Candee Road and Osborn Road. This development has connections to Candee Road and Osborn Road. ‰ 20 single-family units are located along Rt. 63 (Church Street) near Hop Brook and Mill Street. ‰ 15 single-family units are situated around Barbers Pond off of King Street. D. Potential Developments ‰ A development of 85 single-family units is planned between Andrews Mountain Road and Guntown Road close to Long Meadow Pond Brook. ‰ There is a proposed Senior Housing de velopment located near School Street. ‰ Renaissance Place is proposed to lie al ong Water Street and adjacent to the Naugatuck River. ‰ Uniroyal is planned to be redevel oped at some time in the future. ‰ Additional commercial development along Rt . 63 (New Haven Road) is planned in the Straitsville section of Naugatuck. ‰ The Peter Paul factory will eventually be redeveloped. VI. Acquisitions ‰ A Profile of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2007 (CGCNV) COGCNV field notes Field inspection on February 13, 2008 Notes typed February 18, 2008 David Murphy Background Connecticut experienced a period of heavy rains on frozen ground on February 13, 2008. Precipitation measured 1.35 inch es over approximately 9 hours in nearby Litchfield and 1.62 inches in Waterbury. Areas of potential floodi ng compiled during the initial data collection meeting (in Naugatuck) and areas near mapped floodplains and watercourses (in Beacon Falls) were targeted for inspections. The data colle ction meeting in Beacon Falls (scheduled for February 19, 2008) will help identify potential flood areas for subsequent inspections. Photographs Naugatuck 1. East Waterbury Road, downstream of road 2. East Waterbury Road, upstream of road 3. East Waterbury Road 4. Brook Street at Cold Spring Circle 5. May Street at Bird Road (view of drainage where it jumped the curb and washed out a yard) 6. Arch Street 7. Harlow Court at Field Street (facing southeast from Field) 8. Northwest fork of brook at Webb Road 9. Northeast fork of brook at Webb Road 10. Brook at Webb Road (downstream) 11. Dam at propane facility 12. Dam at propane facility 13. Downstream (east) from Lewis Street near Spencer Street 14. Same brook at Sharon Avenue Beacon Falls 15. Stream at Skokorat Road 16. Stream at Skokorat Road 17. Stream junction at Skokorat Road & Bethany Road 18. Hockanum Brook at Blackberry Hill Road 19. Hockanum Brook at intersection 20. Along south side of Bl ackberry Hill Road 21. Along east side of Skokorat Road 22. Hockanum Brook along Bethany Road 23. Trailer park along Naugatuck River 24. Trailer park drainage swale 25. Swamp Brook at Lancaster Drive 26. Low spot along Lopus Road 27. Along Beacon Valley Road on south side of Beacon Hill Brook Naugatuck again 28. Along Little River Drive Naugatuck Discussion Downstream of Union Ice Company Pond – Photos 1-3 depict this area along East Waterbury Road. The stream was high but it was flowing through the culvert under the road and had not jumped the road. However, a large amount of stormwater was running down th e road. 1 2 3 Cold Spring Brook – Although not mentioned at the data collection kick-off meeting, this corridor was investigated. The brook is very cl ose to Brook Street and could affect homes and access to Cold Spring Circle. 4 Unnamed Stream along May Street – This stream may have jumped the culvert at the intersection with Bird Road. Photo 5 shows a washout in a resident’s yard. 5 Unnamed stream along Hickory & Woodland Streets – This area was inspected but the brook was not visible and drainage problems were not apparent. Highland Street near Galpin Street – This area was inspected but the alleged drainage problems were not apparent. Long Meadow Pond Brook – This stream corridor and its tributary were noted as floodprone during the data collectio n meeting. Photos 6-12 correspond to this area. Photo 6 shows the commercial property that floods when stormwater can’t enter the brook, which is adjacent to the property. Photos 7-10 show the unnamed brook th at flows under Webb Road from the north, beneath Harlow Court, and then joins Long Me adow Pond Brook at Rubber Avenue & Neumann Stream. Photo 7 shows the proximity to the homes and yards, whereas Photos 8-10 show the low level of the road in relation to th e two forks of the tributary stream. 6 7 8 9 10 Photos 11 and 12 show the dam immediately adj acent to the fuel facility at New Dam Pond. 11 12 Spencer Street Corridor – This area was cited as a ma jor floodprone area during the data collection meeting. A review of historical topographic maps revealed that a stream was formerly located in this area, but it has b een mainly buried in a culvert. Photos 13 and 14 show the stream where it is not underground, although it is apparent that the channel has been modified. 13 14 Beacon Hill Brook Corridor – This area was mentioned in the data collection meeting. Photo 28 shows the elevation of Little River Road (a d ead-end street along the floodplain) in relation to Beacon Hill Brook. 28 Beacon Falls Discussion Stream along Burton Road – Problems were not observed along this stream. Hockanum Brook Corridor – This brook flows from east to west, generally along Route 42 (Bethany Road). A number of streams converge at the Blackberry Hill Road and Munson Road intersection, creating a po tential flood situation. All photos show areas that are in 100 and 500- year floodplains. Photos 15, 16, 17, and 21 show the unnamed stream that flows down along Skokorat Road. Photo 18 is Hockanum Brook befo re the tributary joins it, and Photo 19 shows the combined stream. Photo 20 is the other tributary along Blackberry Hill Road, and Photo 22 is Hockanum Brook further downstream along Route 42. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Naugatuck River – Old Turnpike Road abuts the rive r and homes along the north end (Shasta Terrace) are in the 500-year floodplain. Likewi se, homes along Nancy & Hubbell Avenues and Railroad Avenue are in the floodplain. However, pr oblems were not noted in these areas for this storm event. The industries south of Railroad Avenue are visible acro ss the river from South Main Street, and the potential for flooding was appa rent, with the river already in the trees for this storm event. The elevations of the warehous es are not much higher than the river, and the warehouses are in the 500-year floodplain. River Trailer Parks – The trailer parks near the Seymour town line are partly located in the 100- year floodplain and entirely located in the 500-ye ar floodplain. Photo 23 shows the edge of the park at the river, and photo 24 shows an internal drainage swal e. Although the river was high, it was not in danger of flooding the trailer park. 23 24 Swamp Brook Corridor – Problems were not evident at the large industrial building on Route 42 located in the floodplain, but a beaver dam and high pond level (near the road) were observed downstream at Lancaster Road. It is possi ble that the impoundment can flood the road. 25 Lopus Road – A low point in the road was observed with evidence of strong drain age to both sides. This area crosses a small stream. 26 Beacon Hill Brook Corridor – This area was mentioned in the Naugatuck data collection meeting. Photo 27 shows the elevation of Beacon Valley Road in relation to Beacon Hill Brook. Parts of the road lie along the margin of the floodplain. 27 Natural Hazard Pre-DisasterMitigation Plan Naugatuck, Connecticut Presented by : David Murphy, P.E. – Associate Milone & MacBroom, Inc.Sam Eisenbeiser, AICP Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. March 3, 2008 History of Hazard Mitigation Plans •Authority – Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (amendments to Stafford Act of 1988) • Goal of Disaster Mitigation Act – Encourage disaster preparedness – Encourage hazard mitigation measures to reduce losses of life and property M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Municipalities Currently Involved in the Regional Mitigation Planning Process ƒ Beacon Falls ƒ Bethlehem ƒ Middlebury ƒNaugatuck ƒ Southbury ƒ Thomaston Local municipalities must have a FEMA approved Hazard Mitigation Plan in place to receive federal grant funds for hazard mitigation projects M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Selection of FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants: 2003-2006 List does not include seismic, wind retrof it, home acquisit ion, and planning projects StateDescription Grant Co lo ra d o Det e n t io n p o n d $3,000,000 Oregon Water conduit replacement $3,000,000 Wa s h in g t o n Ro a d e le v at io n $3,000,000 Oregon Floodplain restoration $2,984,236 Colorado Watershed mitigation $2,497,216 Georgia Drainage improvements $1,764,356 Massachusetts Pond flood hazard project $1,745,700 Ore g o n Ic e s t o rm ret ro fit $1,570,836 No rt h Dako t a Po we r t ra n s mis s io n rep lac eme n t $1,511,250 Texas Ho me ele v at io n s $1,507,005 Flo rid a St o rm s e we r p u mp s t at io n $1,500,000 Massachusetts Flood hazard mitigation project $1,079,925 Kansas Effluent pump station $765,000 South Dakota Flood channel restoration $580,657 Massachusetts Culvert project $525,000 Texas Storm shelter $475,712 Massachusetts Housing elevation and retrofit $473,640 Utah Fire station retrofit $374,254 Washington Downtown flood prevention project $255,000 New York WWTP Floodwall construction $223,200 Massachusetts Road mitigation project $186,348 Massachusetts Flood mitigation project $145,503 Vermont Road mitigation project $140,441 New Hampshire Water planning for firefighting $134,810 Oregon Bridge scour relocation project $116,709 Ne w Ha mp s h ire Bo x c u lv e rt p ro je c t $102, 000 Mis s o u ri Ban k s t ab ilizat io n $48,750 Tennessee Utility protection $40,564 Wis co n s in Wat erway s t ab ilizat io n $12,909 M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. What is a Natural Hazard ? •An extreme natural event that poses a risk to people, infrastructure, and resources M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. What is Hazard Mitigation? •Pre-disaster actions that reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people, property, and resources from natural hazards and their effects A Road Closure During / After a Large Scale Rainfall Event is a Type of Hazard Mitigation M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Long-Term Goals of Hazard Mitigation •Reduce loss / damage to life, property, and infrastructure • Reduce the cost to residents and businesses • Educate residents and policy-makers about natural hazard risk and vulnerability • Connect hazard mitigation planning to other community planning efforts • Enhance and preserve natural resource systems in the community M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Terrorism and Sabotage • Disaster Response and Recovery • Human Induced Emergencies (some fires, hazardous spills and contamination, disease, etc.) What a Hazard Mitigation Plan Does Not Address M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Components of Hazard Mitigation Planning Process •Identify natural hazards that could occur in Naugatuck • Evaluate the vulnerability of structures and populations and identify critical facilities and areas of concern • Assess adequacy of mitigation measures currently in place • Evaluate potential mitigation measures that could be undertaken to reduce the risk and vulnerability • Develop recommendations for future mitigation actions M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Naugatuck’s Critical Facilities •Emergency Services – Police, Fire, Ambulance • Municipal Facilities – Borough Hall, Municipal Buildings, Department of Public Works • High Schools – Used as Shelters Western School Naugatuck Fire Department M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Naugatuck’s Critical Facilities •Health Care and Assisted Living • Water Utilities – Tanks, Pumping Stations • Wastewater Utilities – Pumping Stations and Treatment Plants M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Potential Mitigation Measures •Utilization of CodeRED Emergency Notification System • Adopt local legislation that limits or regulates development in vulnerable areas • Public education programs – disseminat ion of public safety information • Construction of structural measures • Allocate technical and financial resources for mitigation programs • Preserve critical land areas and natural systems • Research and / or technical assistance for local officials M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Primary Natural Hazards Facing Naugatuck •Inland flooding • Winter storms, nor’easters, heavy snow, blizzards, ice storms • Hurricanes • Summer storms, tornadoes, thunderstorms, lightning, hail • Dam failure • Wildfires • Earthquakes Modified Channels Pose Threats During Heavy Rain Storms M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Winds •Heavy rain / flooding 1955 Flooding Church Street & Park Place Church Street Road Damage Hurricanes M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Summer Storms and Tornadoes •Heavy wind / tornadoes / downbursts •Lightning • Heavy rain • Hail Lightning over Boston Flooding in MN Tornado in KS M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Winter Storms •Blizzards and nor’easters • Heavy snow and drifts • Freezing rain / ice Blizzard of 1978 – CT CT River April 2007 M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Dam Failure •Severe rains or earthquakes can cause failure • Possibility of loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage Dam Adjacent to the Fuel Facil ity off Rubber Avenue M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Wildfires •Naugatuck has low to moderate risk of wildfires • Fire • Heat • Smoke Photo courtesy of FEMA M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Earthquakes •Naugatuck is in an area of minor seismic activity • Can cause dam failure ŠShaking Š Liquefaction Š Secondary (Slides/Slumps) Photos courtesy of FEMA M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Area-Specific Problems •Roadway and property flooding at rivers and streams ŠLong Meadow Pond Brook Š Spencer Street Area Š Downstream of Union Ice Company Pond Š Along Beacon Hill Brook Š Other Streams and Localized Problems • Flooding caused by poor drainage M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. •Long Meadow Pond Brooks and its tributaries Flooding at Rivers and Streams M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Webb Road Arch Street Harlow Court at Field Street Flooding at Rivers and Streams •Spencer Street Corridor: ŠIn close proximity to homes and streets within the Spencer Street neighborhood Š Portions of stream are in culverts Lewis Street Sharon Avenue M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding at Rivers and Streams The Spencer Street area that experiences flooding, in 1947 By 1954, the stream was gone and development had increased M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding at Rivers and Streams •Downstream of Union Ice Company Pond: East Waterbury Road M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding at Rivers and Streams •Along Beacon Hill Brook: Little River Drive at Beacon Hill Brook M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding at Rivers and Streams •Other Streams and Localized Problems: Brook Street near Cold Spring Circle M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding Caused by Poor Drainage •Locations Damaged During February 13, 2008 Storm: ŠUnnamed Stream along May Street may have jumped the culvert at the intersection with Bird Road A wash out along May Street M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Next Steps •Incorporate input from residents • Rank hazard vulnerability • Develop a response strategy • Prepare the draft plan with recommendations for review by the Borough and the public • Adopt and implement the plan M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Questions and Additions M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Meeting Minutes N ATURAL H AZARD PRE -D ISASTER M ITIGATION PLAN FOR N AUGATUCK Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Public Information Meeting March 3, 2008 I. Welcome & Introductions The following individuals attended the public meeting: ‰ David Murphy, P.E., Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) ‰ Shawn Goulet, MMI ‰ Samuel Eisenbeiser, Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. (FHI) ‰ Virginia Mason, Council of Governme nts Central Naugatuck Valley (CGCNV) ‰ Ken Hanks, Naugatuck FD ‰ James Ricci, Jr., Naugatuck FD Ms. Mason introduced the project team and th e project, explaining the COG’s role in the project, the goals of the Disa ster Mitigation Act, and the relationship to the FEMA pre- disaster and post-disast er funding processes. II. Power Point: “Natural Hazard Pre-Disast er Mitigation Plan, Bethlehem, Connecticut” Because nobody from the public was in attendance, Mr. Murphy presented the power point slideshow using the handouts. III. Questions, Comments, and Discussion ‰ Fulling Mill Brook along Route 68 should be described in the plan, as flooding can occur. ‰ Hop Brook Dam is Class C but cons idered to be in good condition. From: KNadeau@ctwater.com Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:25 AM To: Scott Bighinatti Subject: Re: Hazard Mitigation Planning in CTWC service areas Scott, I will scan the inundation maps that I have and email them to you, and then see what we have or think for expanded service area. Keith From: “Scott Bighinatti” To: Cc: Sent: 08/13/2008 03:18 PM Subject: Hazard Mitigation Planni ng in CTWC service areas Hi Keith, As you may be aware, David Murphy and I are writing Natural Haza rd Mitigation Plans for the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley. These plans will cover several natural hazards that could cause damages and/or loss of life due to flooding, wildfires, dam failure, hurricanes, etc. Muni cipalities that have these plans in place will be able to apply for funding for hazard mitig ation projects through various FEMA grant programs before and after a disaster event. Would you be willing to assist us in this project by providing us the following information? 1. A brief description of any plans Connecticut Water Company has to expand or upgrade water service for fire prot ection in Thomaston, Middlebury, and Naugatuck (plans to expand water servi ce will be included in the “Wildfires” section of the associated plans to show where the existing wildfire risk area will be reduced in the near future); 2. A copy of the Dam Failure Inundation Ma ps from the EOPs for the following Connecticut Water Company dams (suc h mapping has been requested by FEMA for these plans for Class C and B dams which may impact infrastructure and critical facilities): a. New Naugatuck Reservoir Dam in Bethany (Beacon Hill Brook which flows into Beacon Falls) b. Mulberry Reservoir Dam in Naugatuck c. Straitsville Reservoir Dam in Naugatuck d. Plymouth Reservoir in Plymouth (outflows into Thomaston) In the case of the dam failure inundation maps, the figures in each plan will not replace those within the EOP for the respective dam. These figures will instead show a general inundation area in relation to critical facilities. A pdf copy of these maps would be perfect. Please let myself or David Murphy know if you can assist us in this important project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Thanks for your help, Scott ———————————————— Scott J. Bighinatti Environmental Scientist Milone & MacBroom, Inc. 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, CT 06410 (203) 271-1773 Phone (203) 272-9733 Fax scottb@miloneandmacbroom.com APPENDIX C SUBDIVISION/SITE PLAN CHECKLIST FOR DRAINAGE DESIGNS (NOV. 2008) The Borough of Naugatuck Engineering Department Subdivision/Site Plan Checkli st for Drainage Designs November 2008 The following items shall be submitted with al l Subdivision and Site Plan applications: General Information Item Yes No Comments 1. Site Map 2. Location Map 3. Boring or Test Pit Data 4. Infiltration test results if infiltration is proposed. Hydrology / Detention Evaluation Item Yes No Comments 1. Watershed Map including off-site areas that drain onto site, common analysis point(s) and drainage paths for both pre- and post-development conditions 2. Subwatershed maps with NRCS soil types (pre- and post-development) 3. Curve Number (CN) computations 4. Time of Concentration (Tc) computations 5. Model input for 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100-year storms 6. Table presenting model output for each analysis point for the 2, 10, 25, 50, and 100 year storms, including: ƒ Peak flows for pre-development ƒ Post-development without detention ƒ Post-development with detention 7. Detention basin design information including, but not limited to: ƒ Storage volume based on contour areas ƒ Detail(s) of outlet structure(s) ƒ Stormwater routings through outlet structures(s) ƒ Infiltration test results ƒ Planting plan by certified Landscape Architect or Created Wetlands Planting Plan by certified Wetland Biologist 2 8. If increasing flows to an existing system, a capacity analysis of the existing system. 9. Water Quality Volume (WQV), Water Quality Flow (WQF), and Stream Channel Protection Criteria, as appropriate. Drainage Design (10-year storm) Item Yes No Comments 1. Watershed map to each inlet structure. 2. Pipe sizing computations 3. Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) computations. 4. Gutter flow analysis. 5. Stormwater Quality 6. Swale sizing computations 7. Outlet protection sizing Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Item Yes No Comments 1. Proposed measures per 2002 Plan. 2. Notes on implementation. 3. Description of maintenance schedule Reports Item Yes No Comments 1. Report on groundwater impacts for proposed infiltration structures. 2. Reports on wetlands and other surface waters. 3. Report on water quality impacts to receiving waters. 4. Report on impacts on biological populations/ecological communities including fish, wildlife (vertebrate and invertebrates), and vegetation. 5. Flood study/calculations APPENDIX D RECORD OF MUNICIPAL ADOPTION ERRATA TO BE PRESENTED APRIL 7, 2009 Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Borough of Naugatuck, Connecticut The following errata sheet denotes changes to the Borough of Naugatuck Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan from the one conditionally approved by FEMA in March 2009. The pagination in the Table of Contents was updated to reflect these changes as necessary. Section 2 – Community Profile Page 2-27, 2-28, and 2-31 Added the Algonquin Gas Pipeline to Table 2-5, Figure 2-9, and to the Utilities discussion in Section 2.9 (Critical Facilities).

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

TOWN OF BETHLEHEM NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING AREA NOVEMBER 2008 REVISED DECEMEBER 2008 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ……. 2-11 2.5 Drainage Basins and Hydrology ……………………………………………………………… ………… 2-12 2.6 Population and Demographic Setting ……………………………………………………………… …. 2-16 2.7 Governmental Structure ……………………………………………………………… ……………………. 2-18 2.8 Development Trends ……………………………………………………………… ………………………… 2-2 2 2.9 Critical Facilities and Sheltering Capacity ………………………………………………………….. 2-23 3.0 INLAND FLOODING 3.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 3-1 3.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 3-1 3.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 3-5 3.4 Existing Programs, Policies and Mitigation Measures ……………………………………………. 3-8 3.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 3-12 3.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 3-14 3.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Meas ures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 3-23 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 …………………………………………… 5-9 5.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ….. 5-11 5.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 5-11 5.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Meas ures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 5-13 6.0 WINTER STORMS 6.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 6-1 6.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 6-1 6.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 6-3 6.4 Existing Programs, Policies and Mitigation Measures ……………………………………………. 6-6 6.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 6-7 6.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ……………………………………. 6-8 6.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Meas ures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………. 6-11 7.0 EARTHQUAKES 7.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 7-1 7.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 7-1 7.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 7-3 7.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 7-4 7.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 7-5 7.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ……………………………………. 7-7 8.0 DAM FAILURE 8.1 Setting ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………….. ………. 8-1 8.2 Hazard Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………. 8-1 8.3 Historic Record ……………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 8-3 8.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures …………………………………………… 8-7 8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ……………………………………………………………… ……. 8-8 8.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ………………………………….. 8-10 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 ……………………………………………………………… ………………………….. 10-7 11.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 11.1 Implementation Strategy and Schedule ……………………………………………………………… . 11-1 11.2 Progress Monitoring and Public Participation ……………………………………………………… 11-2 11.3 Updating the Plan……………………………………………………………… …………………………… .. 11-3 11.4 Technical and Financial Resources……………………………………………………………… …….. 11-4 12.0 REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………….. 12 -1 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 …………………….. 2-17 Table 2-5 Critical Facilit ies in Bethlehem ……………………………………………………………… . 2-24 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 in the Town of Bethlehem…………………………… 8-2 Table 8-2 Dams Damaged Due to Fl ooding from October 2005 Storms……………………….. 8-5 FIGURES Figure 2-1 Bethlehem Location Map……………………………………………………………… …………. 2-2 Figure 2-2 Bethlehem in the CNVR ……………………………………………………………… ………….. 2-3 Figure 2-3 Bethlehem Ge neralized Land Use …………………………………………………………….. 2-5 Figure 2-4 Bethlehem Bedrock Geology ……………………………………………………………… ……. 2-7 Figure 2-5 Bethlehem Surficial Geology……………………………………………………………… ……. 2-9 Figure 2-6 Bethlehem Elderly Population ……………………………………………………………… … 2-19 Figure 2-7 Bethlehem Linguistical ly Isolated Households …………………………………………. 2-20 Figure 2-8 Bethlehem Di sabilities Map……………………………………………………………… ……. 2-21 Figure 2-9 Bethlehem Critical Facilities……………………………………………. …………………….. 2-25 Figure 3-1 FEMA Flood Zones in Bethlehem …………………………………………………………….. 3-4 Figure 8-1 High Hazard Dams in Bethlehem ……………………………………………………………… 8-4 Figure 8-2 Long Meadow Pond Subset Area ……………………………………………………………… 8-5 Figure 9-1 Bethlehem Wildfire Risk Area……………………………………………………………… ….. 9-2 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDED TABLES Appended Table 1 Hazard Event Ranking Appended Table 2 Hazard Effect Ranking APPENDICES Appendix A STAPLEE Matrix Appendix B Documentation of Plan Development Appendix C Record of Municipal Adoption NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Town of Bethlehem Natural Haza rd Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan 1. The primary purpose of a Natural Hazard Pr e-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Plan is to identify natural hazards and risks, existing capabilities, and activities that can be undertaken by a community to prevent lo ss of life and reduce property damages associated with identified hazards. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires local communities to have a FEMA-approved mitigation plan in order to be eligible to receive Pre-Disaster Mitigation program grants a nd post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds. 2. The hilly, elevated terrain of Bethlehem make s it particularly vulnerable to an array of natural hazards, including small areas of inland flooding; hurricanes and high winds; tornadoes; earthquakes; summer storms in cluding hail and lighting; wildfires; dam failures; and winter storms with ice, extreme cold, and blizzard conditions. 3. One inactive Jurassic-era fault is mapped tr aversing south to north through the eastern part of Town. While Bethlehem is unlikel y to experience a damaging earthquake in any given year, areas underlain with sand and gravel are at increased risk due to amplification of energy and collapse if one should occur. 4. The Town of Bethlehem drains to seven major watersheds: Bantam River, Branch Brook, East Spring Brook, Nonne waug River, Shepaug River, Sprain Brook, and the Weekeepeemee River. Over 80% of the to wn drains to the Weekeepeemee River and East Spring Brook, and then to the Pomperaug and Housatonic Rivers. There are also a number of water bodies in Town incl uding Long Meadow Pond, the Bronson E. Lockwood Reservoir, and the Watertown Reservoir. 5. The Town considers its police, fire, gove rnmental, communication utilities, and major transportation arteries to be its most important facilities as well as its elderly housing, NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 ES-2 group homes, and educational institutions. None of these critical facilities are regularly impacted by flooding. Route 132 is a major eas t-west thoroughfare which has occasional flooding issues near Long Horizon Road and Sky Meadow Road. 6. The Town has a number of measures in place to prevent flood damage including regulations, codes, and ordinances preventing encroachments and development near floodways. 483 acres of land are locate d within the 100-year flood boundary and additional indirect and nuisance flooding occu rs near streams and rivers throughout town due to inadequate drainage a nd other factors. Some of these areas include: Arrowhead Lane, Crane Hollow Road, Double Hill Road, Fa lls Road, Hickory Lane, Hard Hill Road North, and Route 132. 7. The Town may wish to identify floodprone area s for potential acquisition as stated in the Plan of Conservation and Development. Si te plan and subdivision regulations might consider the requirement that a lot have a buildable area above the flood level. 8. The Fire Department is currently the primar y shelter for small, short term events with police and fire departments serv ing as staff. Memorial Hall can use used as a shelter during larger hazard events but has limited ba throoms. Both facilities meet specific American Red Cross (ARC) guidelines for shelters. Amenities and operating costs are the responsibility of the comm unity, not the ARC. Wisdom H ouse in Litchfield has also been used as a shelter by families in Bethlehem. Bethlehem Elementary School serves as an emergency supply distribution center. 9. The Town’s emergency communications syst ems are outdated and mostly incompatible with those in surrounding towns. A communi cations study is underway that will likely recommended an upgrade to these systems. The Town plans to apply to various grants to help fund the new equipment. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 ES-3 10. For a variety of purposes, literature on appropriate design standards would be useful at the Building Department during the permitting process. Literature on how the public can prepare and protect themselves and their proper ty for natural disasters would be useful on the web or at various locations su ch as the Town Hall and library. 11. The likelihood of a nor’easter is considered high and considered very high for other winter storms. Icing due to poor drainage occurs in the hillier sections including several areas along Route 132. 12. The Town of Bethlehem is the first res ponder to the Horace Mann Nature Center in Washington. The access road is unpaved, narro w, and steep which could result in the facility becoming isolated in a winter emergency. 13. Evacuation routes, plow rout es, and shelter information should be made available on the Town’s web page and at municipal buildings. 14. Based on potential hazard, Bethlehem has six Class BB dams (Addie Road Pond Dam, Benjamin Pond Dam, Watertown Reservoir Dam, Long Meadow Pond Dam, Zieglers Pond Dam, and Kasser Road Pond Dam), one Class B (Bird Pond Dam), one Class C (Bronson Lockwood Dam) and one undefined (Newman Pond Dam). Some dam names registered with the Department of Environm ental Protection do not reflect current road names. Failure of Classes BB, B, or C dams can cause moderate to great economic loss. 15. The Town of Bethlehem may wish to c onsider adopting a Flood and Erosion Control Board to oversee local flooding and erosion problems and re pairs of municipal dams. Such a Board can be established by updating th e Town charter and would consist of the Board of Selectmen. 16. The Town has been requested by DEP to reta in an engineer to perform a hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of Long Meadow Pond Dam, and implement improvements needed NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 ES-4 to pass the 100-year storm event. The Town should review and update the Emergency Operation Plan for the dam when these modifications are complete. 17. Bethlehem is at a low risk for wildfires. Those areas at the highest risk are limited access conservation properties and adjacent resident ial properties. Narrow and one-way roads hinder emergency access for firefighting. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 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 Bethlehem, Connecticut (“Bethlehem” or “Town”). The HMP is relevant not only in emergency management situations, but also should be used within the Town of Bethlehem’s land use, environmen tal, 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 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 Bethlehem’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 Bethlehem has never participated in the Community Rating System. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 1-5 1.3 Identification of Hazards and Document Overview As stated in Section 1.1, the term hazard refers to an extreme natural event that poses a risk to people, infrastructure, or resources. Based on a review of the Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and correspondence with local officials, the following have been identified as natural hazards that can pot entially affect the Town of Bethlehem: ‰ 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 Bethlehem, and include criteria for characte rizing 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 Bethlehem’s community profile, including the physical setting, demographics, development trends, governmental structure, and sheltering capacit y. Next, each chapter of this Plan is broken down into six NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 1-6 or seven different parts. These are Setting; Hazard Assessment ; Historic Record ; Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ; Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ; and Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives, and for chapters with several recommendations , a Summary of Recommendations. These are described below. ‰ Setting addresses the general areas that are at risk from the hazard. General land uses are identified. ‰ Hazard Assessment describes the specifics of a given hazard, including general characteristics, and associated effects. Also defined are associated return intervals, probability and risk, and relative magnitude. ‰ Historic Record is a discussion of past occurrences of the hazard, and associated damages when available. ‰ Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures gives an overview of the measures that the Town of Bethlehem 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 Bethlehem. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 1-7 ‰ Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives provides a summary of the recommended c ourses of action for Bethlehem 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 soci ally acceptable to Bethlehem? Is there any equity issues involved that would mean that one segment of Bethlehem could be treated unfairly? ‰ Technical : Will the proposed strategy work? Will it create more problems than it will solve? ‰ Administrative : Can Bethlehem 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 Bethlehem authorized to implement the proposed strategy? Is there a clear legal basis or precedent for this activity? NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 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 Bethlehem is a member of the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV), the regional planning body responsible for Bethlehem and twelve other member municipalitie s: Beacon Falls, Cheshire, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Oxford, Prospect, Southbury, T homaston, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott, and Woodbury. The municipalities of Ch eshire, Prospect, Oxford, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott, and Woodbury have existing mitigation plans, and hazard mitigation plans are being concurrently developed for remaining municipalities. Ms. Virginia Mason of the COGCNV coordinated the development of this Hazard Mitigation Plan. The COGCNV applied for the grant from FEMA through the Connecticut Department of Environmental Prot ection (DEP). The adoption of this Plan in the Town of Bethlehem 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 1-9 The following individuals from the Town of Bethlehem provided information, data, studies, reports, and observations; and were involved in the development of the Plan: ‰ Mr. Michael Devine, Emergency Service Director ‰ Mr. Jim Kacerguis, Director, Public Works Department ‰ Mr. John Rudzavice, Fire Marshal ‰ Mr. Roger Natusch, Building Official ‰ Ms. Jean Donegan, Land Use Coordinator 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 officials was held March 4, 2008. Necessary documentation was collected, and problem areas within the Town were discussed. ‰ A public information meeting was held April 21, 2008 at 7:30 P.M. Preliminary findings were presented and public comments solicited. Residents were invited to the public inform ation meeting via newspaper, with three residents attending that were not Town personnel or a commission member. Similarly, eight municipal agencies and civic organiza tions were invited via a mailed copy of the press release that announced the public in formation meeting. These included the following: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 1-10 ‰ Long Meadow Lake Management Committee; ‰ Torrington Area Health District; ‰ United Way of Greater Waterbury; ‰ American Red Cross – Waterbury Area; ‰ Bethlehem Inland Wetlands Commission; ‰ Bethlehem Land Trust; ‰ Bethlehem Conservation Commission; and ‰ Bethlehem Planning Commission. Of these organizations, the Long Meadow Lake Management Committee and the Bethlehem Conservation Commission were repr esented at the meeting. Residents were also encouraged to contact the COG with co mments via newspaper articles. As another direct gauge of public interest , a review of Public Works De partment complaint files was undertaken to document 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 tabletop exercise on bi ological terrorism. Area health directors, hospitals, and other health care professionals also meet monthly with the Health and Medical Subcommittee to share informati on, protocols, and training. Thus, local knowledge and experience gained through th e Emergency Planning Committee activities has been transferred by the COGCNV to the pre-disaster mitigation planning process. Additional opportunities fo r the public to review the Plan will be implemented in advance of the public hearing to 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 website ( http://www.ci.bethlehem.ct.us/) and the COGCNV website (http://www.cogcnv.org) to provide opportunities for public NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 1-11 review and comment. Such comments will be incorporated into the final draft where applicable. Upon receiving conditional approv al from FEMA, 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 and the announcement of the public information meeting will be posted on the websites and placed in local newspapers. If any final plan modifications result from the comment period leading up to and including the public hearing to adopt the pla n, these will be submitted to FEMA as page revisions with a cover letter explaining the chan ges. It is not anticipated that any major modifications will occur at this phase of the project. Appendix B contains copies of meeting minut es, field notes and observations, the public information meeting presentation, and other r ecords that document the development of this Natural Hazard Pre-Di saster Mitigation Plan. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-1 2.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE 2.1 Physical Setting The Town of Bethlehem is located in Litc hfield County. It is bordered by Woodbury to the south, Washington to the west, Morris to th e north, and Watertown to the east. Refer to Figure 2-1 for a location schematic and Figure 2-2 for a location map. Bethlehem is located within the western part of the crystalline uplands, or Western Highlands, of western Connecticut. This geol ogic feature consists of three belts of metamorphic rocks bounded to the west by th e sediments and metamorphic rocks of the Hudson River valley and on the east by the Tria ssic sediments of the Connecticut River valley. The topography of the To wn ranges from gently rolling terrain in the valleys to steep, hilly terrain in the upland areas. Elevations range from 450 feet above sea level along the Weekeepeemee River in the southwes tern part of Town to over 1,130 feet above sea level on Todd Hill in the northwestern part of Town, based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. The hilly, elevated terrain of Bethlehem makes it particularly vulnerable to an array of natural hazards. 2.2 Existing Land Use Bethlehem is characterized by its hills and so ils that are typically unsuitable for large septic systems, both of which limit large de velopment in much of the Town. A small commercial district is located in the center of the town at the intersection of East Street and Main Street (Route 61). Outside of the commercial area, agricultural areas are interspersed with low density residential neighborhoods. Much of the undeveloped areas of Bethlehem are private forested areas or land trust properties. Bethlehem is also the site of the Abbey of Regina Laudis, a Catholic monastic community, located on the southern end of Town. § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦91 § ¨ ¦91 § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦395 ” )2 ” )9 ” )15 ” )15 ” )8 ” )44 Bethlehem CONNEC TICU T Figure 2-1: Bethlehem 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: Bethlehem 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 Bethlehem 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-4 The Town of Bethlehem encompasses 19.6 square miles. Table 2-1 provides a summary of land use in Bethlehem 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 5,707 45.4% Residential – Low Density 2,977 23.7% Agricultural 2,956 23.5% Institutional 460 3.7% Water 210 1.7% Recreational 198 1.6% Mining 25 0.2% Commercial 25 0.2% Residential – High Density 8 0.1% 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 Bethle hem. The following discussion highlights Bethlehem’s geology at several regional scales. Geologic information discussed in the following section was acquired in GIS from the Connecticut DEP. In terms of North American bedrock geology, the Town of Bethlehem is located in the northeastern part of the Appalachian Orogenic Belt, al so known as the Appalachian Highlands. The Appalachian Highlands exte nd 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. Figure 2-3: Bethlehem Generalized Land Use 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )132 ” )61 ” )61 ” )132 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 Legend Major Roads Local Roads AG Agriculture CF Institutional CM Commercial IN Industrial RC Recreational Town Boundary For general planning p urposes only. Delineatio ns may n ot be exac t. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, R el. 04 /08. “Town Boundary”, DE P “Land Us e”, COGCNV 2000 August 2008 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 Bethlehem 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 coin cident with the Eugeosyncline Sequence geologic province described above. Regionally, in terms of New England bedr ock geology the Town of Bethlehem 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 Bethlehem’s bedrock consists primarily of metasedimentary and metaigneous schists and granofels and secondarily of igneous granite and pegmatite. 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 Bethlehem. The three primary bedrock formations in th e Town (from north to south) are Ratlum Mountain Schist, Rowe Schi st, and Nonewaug Granite: ‰ The Ratlum Mountain Schist consists of gray, medium-grained schist and granofels. ‰ The Rowe Schist is a light-gray to silv ery, fine to medium-grained schist. ‰ The Nonewaug Granite is a white to pink, fine to very coarse-grained granite with some parts pegmatitic. One fault is mapped in the Town of Bethlehem. It is a high-angle, mostly Jurassic fault traversing south to north through the eastern part of Town. The fault extends from Newtown and runs into Massachusetts and is believed inactive. Bedrock outcrops can be difficult to find in Bethlehem due to the fore sted nature of the Town, although outcrops can be found at higher elev ations and on hilltops. Or Or OCr Dng Or Dng Figure 2-4: Bethlehem Bedrock Geology 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )132 ” )61 ” )61 ” )132 Bedrock Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads Dng OCr Or Ratlum Mtn Schist Rowe Schist Nonnewaug Granite 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-8 At least twice in the late Pleistocene, continental ice sheets moved across Connecticut. As a result, surficial geology of the To wn is characteristic of the depositional environments that occurred during glacial a nd postglacial periods. Refer to Figure 2-5 for a depiction of surficial geology. Bethlehem is covered primarily by glacial till. Tills contain an unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders deposited by glaciers as a ground moraine. This area includes nearly all of Bethlehem with the exception of the river valleys associated with the Weekeepeemee River, Wood Creek, the No nnewaug River and East Spring Brook. Stratified sand and gravel (“stra tified drift”) areas are associated with these watercourses. These deposits accumulated by glacial meltw ater streams during the outwash period following the latest glacial recession. The re mainder of Town is covered by small areas of swamp near the western and northwester n boundary, and by the ponds and reservoirs scattered throughout Bethlehem. The amount of stratified drift pr esent in the Town is important for several reasons. First, the stratified drift is currently used by water utilities in downstream Watertown to provide drinking water via pumping wells. S econdly, 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, eastern, and southeastern Bethlehem. The amount of stratified drift also has bearing on the relative intensity of earthquakes and the li kelihood of soil subsidence in areas of fill. These topics will be discussed in later sections. T TT T TT TT TT TT TT TT W A/SG TT W G A/SG SW SG G T TT SG SG TT SG G A/SG W A/SG SG SG SG G W SG SW SG SG SG A/SG SG SW SW Figure 2-5: Bethlehem Surficial Materials 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )132 ” )61 ” )61 ” )132 Till Thick Till Sand and Gravel Alluvium Overlying Sand and Gravel Gravel Water Swamp Surficial Materials A/SG G SG SW T TT W For genera l planning purposes only. Delineations m ay not be exac t. Source: “Roa ds”, c1984 – 2008 Tel e Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, “Su rficial Mate rials”, DEP August 2008 Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-10 In terms of soil types, approximately 80% of the Town contains Paxton and Montauk fine sandy loams, Canton and Charlton soils, Ch arlton-Chatfield complex, extremely stony Ridgebury, Leicester, and Whitman soils, and Woodbridge fine sandy loam (Table 2-2). The remainder of the Town has soil types of consisting primarily of various fine to medium sandy loams, wetland soils, and urba n land. The following soil descriptions are taken in part from the official series descri ptions from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) website. Table 2-2 Soils by Taxonomic Class Soil Type Area (acres) Pct. Paxton and Montauk fine sandy loams 3726 29.6% Canton and Charlton soils 3169 25.2% Charlton-Chatfield complex 1230 9.8% Ridgebury, Leicester, and Whitman soils 1167 9.3% Woodbridge fine sandy loam 1162 9.2% Hollis-Chatfield-Rock outcrop complex 435 3.5% Gloucester gravelly sandy loam 321 2.6% Sutton fine sandy loam 275 2.2% Water 228 1.85 Merrimac sandy loam 178 1.4% Other (20 types) 684 5.4% Total 12575 100.0 Source: 2005 Soil Survey Geog raphic (SSURGO) database for the State of Connecticut ‰ The Paxton and Montauk series consists of very deep, well-drained loamy soils formed in lodgment till derived primarily fr om granitic materials. The soils are very deep to bedrock and moderately deep to a de nsic contact. They are nearly level to steep soils on upland till plains, hills, moraines, and drumlins. Slope ranges from zero to forty-five percent. Saturated hydraulic conductivity is moderately high or high in the solum and low to moderately high in the substratum. ‰ 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-11 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 complex consists of moderately deep to deep, well-drained, and somewhat excessively drained soils formed in glacial till. They are very nearly level to very steep soils on gl aciated plains, hills, and ridges. The soil is often stony or very stony. Slope ranges from three to fo rty-five percent. Crystalline bedrock is at depths of 20 to 40 inches. Saturated hydr aulic conductivity is moderately high to high in the mineral soil. ‰ Extremely stony Ridgebury, Leicester, and Whitman Soils consist of very deep, somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drai ned formed in glacial till derived mainly from granite, gneiss, and schist. These soils are shallow to a densic contact. They are nearly level to gently sloping soils in low areas, such as depressions or drainageways, in uplands. Slope ranges from zero to fifteen percent. Saturated hydraulic conductivity ranges from moderately low to high in the solum and very low to moderately low in the substratum. ‰ The Woodbridge series consists of modera tely well drained loamy soils formed in subglacial till. They are ve ry deep to bedrock and moderately deep to a densic contact. They are nearly level to modera tely steep soils on till plains, hills, and drumlins. Slope ranges from zero to tw enty-five percent. Saturated hydraulic conductivity ranges from moderately low or moderately high in the surface layer and subsoil and low or moderately low in the dense substratum. 2.4 Climate Bethlehem has an agreeable climate, characteri zed by moderate but distinct seasons. The average mean temperature is approximately 48 degrees, with summer temperatures in the NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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. 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 Bethlehem drains to seven major watersheds corresponding with the Bantam River, Branch Brook, East Spring Brook, Nonnewaug River, Shepaug River, Sprain Brook, and the Weekeepeemee River. Th ese drainage basins are described below and summarized in Table 2-3. Over eight y percent of the town drains to the Weekeepeemee River and East Spring Brook, bot h of which ultimately drain through the Pomperaug River to the Housatoni c River. The remainder of the Town also drains to the Housatonic River, but does so via the Shepa ug or Naugatuck Rivers. Bethlehem is also home to a number of lakes and ponds, including Long Meadow Pond, the Bronson E. Lockwood Reservoir, and the Watertown Reservoir. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-13 Table 2-3 Drainage Basins Drainage Basin Area (sq. mi) Percent of Town Bantam River 0.20 1.0% Branch Brook 0.72 3.6% East Spring Brook 5.06 25.8% Nonnewaug River 2.47 12.6% Shepaug River 0.01 0.1% Sprain Brook 0.27 1.4% Weekeepeemee River 10.91 55.5% Total 19.64 100.0% Source: Drainage Basins, 2008 CT DEP GIS Data for Connecticut Bantam River A small section of Bethlehem’s northwestern corner (approximately 1.0% of the Town) drains to the Bantam River in eastern Washington near Mt. Tom. The headwaters of the Bantam River are located in th e area of the Litchfield Reservoir in Goshen. The Bantam River eventually drains into the Shepaug Ri ver in Washington. The subregional basin corresponding to the Bantam River drains 40.21 square miles of land across Washington, Morris, Bethlehem, Litchfiel d, Torrington, and Goshen, but only 0.20 square miles of this basin lie in the Town of Bethlehem. Branch Brook The Branch Brook drainage ba sin covers 0.72 square miles or 3.66% of the Town’s land area in the northeastern corner of Bethlehem. It is the only basin in Bethlehem that drains to the Housatonic via the Naugatuck River, generally flowing to the east and southeast before entering the Naugatuck Rive r in Mattatuck State Forest in Watertown. The upper reaches of this drainage basin are located in northeastern Morris and Litchfield, where Pitch Brook, Wigwam Brook, and their tributaries flow southward into Pitch Reservoir. In addition to the abovemen tioned tributaries, the Pitch Reservoir also NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-14 receives water from a seven mile long aqueduct built in the 1920s from the Shepaug Reservoir on the border between the Towns of Litchfield and Warren. 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 town line 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. The part of Bethlehem within this basin drains through two unnamed watercourses to Morris Brook, and eventually into the Wi gwam Reservoir just below the Morris Reservoir Dam. Branch Brook begins dow nstream of the Wigwam Reservoir Dam, where it makes up the boundary between Watert own and Thomaston before flowing into the Naugatuck River. In all, the Branch Br ook basin drains 22.65 square miles of land in Thomaston, Watertown, Bethlehem, Morris, and Litchfield. East Spring Brook The East Spring Brook drainage basin covers 5.06 square miles or 25.77% of the land area of Bethlehem. The basin extends from the eastern part of Bethlehem into southern Morris, from where several small watercour ses converge into the Bronson E. Lockwood Reservoir in northeastern Bethlehem. This reservoir covers 73.5 acres and is operated by the Watertown Fire District Water Departme nt, though it is not currently used for water supply. East Spring Brook begins as the outlet from this reservoir and flows generally south across eastern Bethlehem. The brook first flow s south into the Watertown Reservoir, and is later joined by two unnamed tributaries ju st downstream of its crossing of Magnolia Hill Road. Several more unnamed tributaries meet East Spring Brook before its NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-15 confluence with the Nonnewaug River in Woodbury, just to the south of the Bethlehem border. In total, East Spring Brook drains 5.85 square miles of land in the Towns of Woodbury, Bethlehem, and Morris. Nonnewaug River The southeastern corner of Bethlehem that does not drain to East Spring Brook drains directly to the Nonnewaug River. This area covers 2.47 square miles or 12.57% of Bethlehem’s total land area. The Nonnewaug River has its headwaters along the bord er between Bethlehem and Watertown. Several unnamed streams flow into Big Meadow Pond in western Watertown. The Nonnewaug Ri ver begins as the outlet from this pond and flows to the southwest into Bethlehem where it is joined by three unnamed tributaries before crossing the border into Woodbury where it is joined by East Spring Brook. Downstream of the East Spring Brook, th e Nonnewaug River flows southward into Woodbury where it passes by Hart’s Wellfiel d, a major source of water supply for the Watertown Fire District. The river is joined by several tributaries in Woodbury before it joins with the Weekeepeemee River to form the Pomperaug River. In all, the Nonnewaug River drains 21.26 square miles of land in the Towns of Bethlehem, Watertown, Woodbury, and Middlebury. Shepaug River The smallest drainage basin in Bethlehem co rresponds to the Shepaug River. It covers only 0.01 square miles in western Bethlehem, corresponding to 0.07% of the Town’s total land area. This area drains west into Washington and into Ma llory Brook, which meets up with the Shepaug River near the juncti on of Blackville Road and Route 47. The Shepaug River watershed is very large, dr aining 70.94 square miles of land from its confluence with the Housatonic River north to the Towns of Cornwall and Goshen. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-16 Sprain Brook Approximately 0.27 square miles or 1.38% of Bethlehem’s land area on Bethlehem’s western and southwestern bounda ries drains to Sprain Brook. Sprain Brook has its headwaters in eastern Washington, in a pond adjacent to the intersection of Nettleton Hollow Road and Carmel Hill Road. As it fl ows south out of this pond, Sprain Brook is fed by a number of unnamed tributaries on its way into Woodbury where it converges with the Weekeepeemee River near the junc tion of Routes 47 and 132. In all, the subregional basin corresponding to Sprain Br ook drains 10.96 square miles of the Towns of Woodbury, Roxbury, Washington, and Bethlehem. Weekeepeemee River The drainage basin corresponding to the Weekeepeemee River covers 10.91 square miles, or 55.52% of Bethlehem’s total land area. The ba sin covers almost the entire western half of the Town. The headwaters of the river form in a small swamp near the Bethlehem- Morris boundary. As the river flows southward, it is joined by the outlet stream from Long Meadow Pond, the largest body of wate r in Bethlehem at 110 acres in size. Continuing downstream, the River passes unde r Route 132 and is joined by Wood Creek, a tributary that drains Zeiglers Pond in th e northwest corner of Bethlehem. Several unnamed tributaries join the Weekeepeemee River before it crosses into Woodbury, where the river eventually join s with the Nonnewaug River to form the Pomperaug River. In total, the Weekeepeemee River basin drains 16.11 square miles of land across Woodbury, Washington, Bethlehem, and Morris. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-17 Waterbury has the highest population density in the region with 3,757 individuals per square mile, while 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 Bethlehem is 145 th out of 169 municipalities in Connecticut in terms of population, with an estimated population of 3,577 in 2006. The Town is the 129 th most densely populated municipality in the state. According th e Connecticut Economic Resource Center, the median sales price of owner-occupied housing in the Town of Bethlehem in 2 006 was $342,500, higher than the statewide median sales price of $275,000. The population of Bethlehem increased by 29% between 1960 and 1970, and increased again by 34% between 1970 and 1980, representing the last true surge in development in recent history. Population growth then slowed to 19% between 1980 and 1990 and slowed again to 11% between 1990 and 2000. Population growth in Town fr om 2000- 2006 was only 5%. Based on analysis by the COGCNV, population growth in the region outside of Waterbury is estimated to be a bout 10% from 2005 to 2025, while the State of NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-18 Connecticut is expected to grow about 5% during this same timeframe. According to Bethlehem’s Plan of Conservation and Development, population growth in Town is forecast to be only about 1% per year from 2005 to 2020. Bethlehem has populations of people who are elderly, linguistically isolated, and/or disabled. These are depicted by the three cen sus blocks in Bethlehem 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 Bethlehem is governed by a Selectman-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, while 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 Commission, the Conservation Commission, the Inland Wetland Commission, the Long Meadow Lake Management Commission, the Highway Department / Department of Public Works, the Building Official, the Fire Department, and the Resident State Trooper. 186 153 101 Figure 2-6: Bethlehem Elderly Population 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )132 ” )61 ” )61 ” )132 For gen eral planning purposes only. Delineations may not be exact. August 2008 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 * Numbers on map represent total population aged 65 or older in each block group Legend Major Roads Perce ntag e of P erso ns Aged 65 or o lde r Block Grou p Bo undary Tow n Bou ndary 30.1 – 100% 20.1 – 30.0 % 10.1 – 20.0 % 0.0 – 1 0.0 % 0 5 0 Figure 2-7: Bethlehem Linguistically Isolated Households 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )132 ” )61 ” )61 ” )132 For gen eral planning purposes only. Delineations may not be exact. August 2008 Legend Town Bou ndary Major Roads Block G roup Bo undary Percen tag e o f Hou seho lds Lingu istically I solat ed 0.0 – 4.9 % 5.0 – 9.9 % 10.0 – 14.9 % greater than 15% 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 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 242 258 265 Figure 2-8: Bethlehem Disabilities Map 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )132 ” )61 ” )61 ” )132 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 For gen eral planning purposes only. Delineations may not be exact. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 Tele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “Town Boundary”, DEP “Disability”, “Block Groups”, 2000 Cen sus August 2008 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-22 The Highway Department / Department of Public Works is the principal municipal department that responds to problems caused by natural hazards. Complaints related to Town maintenance issues are routed to th e Department of Public Works. These complaints are usually received via phone, fax, mail, or email and are recorded in a book. The complaints are investigated as necessary until remediation surrounding the individual complaint is concluded. As the Town has an almost entirely residential tax base, funding of capital projects is difficult. Bethlehem relies heavily on outside grants for many projects and upgrades, which can be difficult to obtain due to the small size of the Town. 2.8 Development Trends Bethlehem was settled in the early 1700’s as a section of Woodbury known as North Purchase. The name Bethlehem was adopted in 1739, although it was originally spelled phonetically as Bethlem. The Town was gr anted an additional portion of Woodbury in 1741 and was officially incorporated in 1787. The Town remained largely agrarian until the early 20 th century, with farms sited on hilltops and apples being one of the primary crops. Some light industry did operate in Town in the 1800’s, using water to provide power to mills, hat factories, and leather manufacturing companies. These industries relocated to industrial centers by the 20 th century. The Town of Bethlehem has no zoning regula tions which would specifically prohibit more intense forms of development within the Town limits. However, Bethlehem has almost no development currently ongoing due to the lack of public water & sewer. In addition, most of the soils in Bethlehem provi de inadequate processing capacity for large on-site septic systems, making such system s prohibitively expensive. Residential development has been limited since the late 1980’s, and most development applications are typically for very small ( one to two lot) subdivisions. As of 1998, the total number of housing units in Bethlehem was incr easing by approximately 12 per year. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-23 The Town has several development regulations pertinent to hazard mitigation. Subdivisions featuring cul-de-sacs offer a single access point for emergency services, lengthening emergency response ti mes and rendering those residential areas vulnerable if access is cut off by flooding or downed tree limbs. Thus, cul-de-sacs in new developments are discouraged and connectivity of roads is encouraged. The Town of Bethlehem requires a 50-foot righ t of way for local residential streets with a hammerhead located at the end of dead end streets, and dead end streets can have only 20 homes or fewer. In addition, utilities serving new developments must be installed underground wherever possible. Exceptions due to sh allow bedrock are granted on a case-by-case basis. Based on the Town’s 1999 Plan of Conserva tion and Development, efforts are being made to preserve Bethlehem’s small farming town charm and limit the impact of future development. Specifically, a farmland pres ervation program has been pursued as a measure to retain open space and agriculture. This, in turn, will limit development in areas vulnerable to natural hazards. 2.9 Critical Facilities and Sheltering Capacity The Town considers its police, fire, government al, and major transportation arteries to be its most important critical facilities, for thes e are needed to ensure that emergencies are addressed while day-to-day management of Bethlehem continues. Elderly housing facilities and group homes are included with cri tical facilities, as these house populations of individuals that would require special assistance during an emergency. Educational institutions are included in critical facilities as well, as these can be used as shelters. In addition, Town personnel consider its communica tion utilities to be a critical facility. A list of critical facilities is provided in Table 2-5, and a map of these facilities is shown as Figure 2-9. Shelters, tran sportation, and communications ar e described in more detail NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-24 below, along with a summary of the potential for these facilities to be impacted by natural hazards. Table 2-5 Critical Facilities in Bethlehem Type Name Address Located in Floodplain? Retirement Community North Purchase Elderly Home 11 Jackson Lane No Group Home Wellspring Foundation 84 Judge Lane No Group Home Wellspring Foundation / Arch Bridge School 21 Arch Bridge Road No Group Home Angelus House 158 Flanders Road No Town Hall Municipal Complex 36 Main Street South No Public Works Municipal Complex 36 Main Street South No Fire Department Municipal Complex 26 Main Street South No Police Municipal Complex 36 Main Street South No School Bethlehem Elementary 92 East Street No School (Private) The Woodhall School 58 Harrison Lane No Source: Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley; Town of Bethlehem 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 Bethlehem has designated two emergency shelters, and additional facilities may be used if necessary. The Fire Department is currently the primary shelter for small, short term events. Memorial Hall can be used as a shelter duri ng larger hazard events, but has limited bathrooms. Both buildings have generators. The police and fire departments staff the shelters. A potential problem with these shelters is that Memorial Hall and the Fire Department share the same long driveway, which can create a conflict during emergencies. 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. 9 ; !a © Figure 2-9: Bethlehem Critical Facilities 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )132 ” )61 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 ” )61 ” )132 ? ® t Municipal Complex North Purchase Elderly Home ®t Angelus House Wellspring Foundation/ Arch Bridge School Group Home n n The Woodhall School Bethlehem Elementary School 9: ¨ Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads Water Bodies Streams ? Facilities 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations Schools n 9: ¨ Public Works ; Wellspring Foundation Elderly Housing Facilities Æ T Retirement Community NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-26 The Town’s other school buildings – Bethlehem Elementary and The Woodhall School – are not considered to be shelters but could be converted to additional shelter space in case of an emergency. Bethlehem Elementary School serves as an emergency supply distribution center. The Woodhall School is private and may only be available during a summer emergency. The Abby of Regina Laudis Priory is another potential shelter, but the Town only plans to ask to use it as a last resort out of respect for the cloistered nature of the facility. Other munici pal buildings in the municipal complex, such as the Highway Department garage, have generators but ar e not considered to be shelter space. 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 sh elter facilities. Bethlehem utilizes its facilities on a tempor ary basis for providing shelter until hazards such as hurricanes diminish. Regionally-loc ated mass care facilities operated and paid for by the American Red Cross may also be available during recovery operations when additional sheltering services are necessary. During extended power outages, families in Bethlehem have also made use of the Wisdom House in Litchfield as a shelter as opposed to Town facilities. Transportation The Town of Bethlehem does not have any hospitals or medical centers. Instead, residents use the nearby fac ilities in Waterbury, New Milf ord, Southbury, or Torrington. As a means of accessing these facilities, Be thlehem residents travel along Route 61 or Route 132, the two major transportation arteries out of Town. Flanders Road is also a good evacuation route south into Woodbury. Evacuation routes (Route 61 and Route 132) are regionally defined by the Regional Evacuation Plan. No local evacuation plan ex ists. Bethlehem residents must use state roads in surrounding Towns to access Route 8, a major north-south thoroughfare to Waterbury and Torrington, and Interstate 84. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-27 Communications The Town uses 9-1-1 for emergency notification and response. The overall communications system is outdated. All ad jacent towns have upgraded to a high band radio system that is incompatible with Bethlehem’s low band radio, so communications with neighboring emergency personnel is on ly accomplished via phone or by talking to them directly at a scene. The Town does have the capability to communicate to DEMS- 5, and the State Trooper operates at 800 megahertz, so The Town does have minor out- of-town communication capability by radio. The Town Communications Plan mentions the use of the Morris Fire House as a Co mmand Center during emergencies, but radio communications are not currently possible with that facility. The Town of Bethlehem is in Region 5 of the Connecticut Emergency Medical Service regions. Thus, it is important to ensure that any upgrades to the existing emergency notification system are compatible with thos e of Region 5, which contains most of the COGCNV municipalities. A communications study is underway which will likely recommend an upgrade to the emergency notification system compatible w ith those in surrounding towns, but the cost will likely be prohibitive for Bethlehem. Th e Town plans to apply for a communications grant to facilitate this project. In addi tion, the COGCNV is facil itating the possibility of instituting an enhanced emergency notifica tion system in the area to further enhance emergency response. This program may be supported by the Region 5 – Northwest Connecticut Emergency Medical Services Council. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 2-28 Potential Impacts from Natural Hazards Critical facilities are rarely impacted by flooding in the Town of Bethlehem, as none of the facilities are located within floodplains. Route 132 a major east–west thoroughfare, has occasional flooding issues near Long Horizon Road and Sky Meadow Road. Such flooding slows emergency response times to nearby neighborhoods due to detours around this area. None of the critical facili ties in Bethlehem are any more susceptible to wind, summer storms, winter storms, or earthquakes than th e rest of the Town. In addition, no critical facilities are located within a mapped dam fa ilure inundation area. The only critical facility at potential risk is the Angelus House group home, which is located near the boundary of a wildfire risk area. The followi ng sections will discuss each natural hazard in detail and include a descri ption of populations at risk. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 can include pondi ng, poor drainage, inadequate storm sewers, clogged culverts or catch basins, sheet flow , obstructed drainageways, sewer backup, or overbank flooding from small streams. In general, inland flooding affects a small area of Bethlehem with moderate to frequent regularity. The areas impacted by overflow of river systems are generally limited to river corridors and floodplains. Indirect flooding th at occurs outside floodplains 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 Beth lehem is considered highly likely for any given year, but flooding damage only has a limited effect (refer to Appended Table 2). 3.2 Hazard Assessment Flooding represents the most common and cos tly natural hazard in Connecticut. The state typically experiences floods in the ear ly spring due to snowmelt and in the late summer/early autumn due to frontal systems and tropical storms, although localized NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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. 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. 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, NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-3 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 Bethlehem are delineated on a Fl ood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS). An initial Flood Hazard Boundary Map was identified on February 21, 1975. The FIRM delineates areas within Bethlehem that are vulnerable to flooding and was originally published on June 4, 1990. The Town’s FI RM has not been updated and is the current e ffective map. The FIS was originally published on June 4, 1990 and also has not been updated. Refer to Figure 3-1 for the areas of Bethlehem susceptible to flooding based on FEMA flood z ones. Table 3-1 describes the various zones depicted on the FIRM panel for Bethlehem. Table 3-1 FIRM Zone Descriptions Zone Description A An area inundated by 100-year flooding, for which no base flood elevations (BFEs) have been determined. AE An area inundated by 100-year flooding , for which BFEs have been determined. Area Not Included An area that is located within a community or county that is not mapped on any published FIRM. X An area that is determined to be outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains. In some areas of Bethlehem, 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 the 100-year flood event, and often in different areas than those depicted on the FIRM panels . These frequent flooding events occur in areas with insufficient drainage; where c onditions may cause flashy, localized flooding; and where poor maintenance may exacerbate drainage problems. These areas are discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.5. Figure 3-1: FEMA Flood Zones in Bethlehem 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )132 ” )61 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 Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads Water Waterbodies ” )61 ” )132 Flood Zone A AE NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-5 During large storms, the recurrence interval level of a flood discharge on a tributary tends to be greater than the recurrence interval level of the flood discharge on the main channel downstream. In other words, a 100-year flood event on a tributary may only contribute to a 50-year flood event downstream. This is due to the distribution of rainfall and the greater hydraulic capacity of th e downstream channel to convey floodwaters. Dams and other flood control structures can also reduce the magnitude of peak flood flows. The recurrence interval level of a precipita tion event also generally differs from the recurrence interval level of the associated flood. 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 Bethlehem has experienced various degrees of flooding. Melt ing snow combined with early spring rains have caused frequent spring flooding. Numerous flood events have occurred in late summer to early autumn resulting from storms of tropical origin moving northeast along the Atlantic coast. Winter floods result fr om the occasional thaw, particularly during years of heavy snow, or periods of rainfa ll on frozen ground. Other flood events have been caused by excessive rainfalls upon satu rated soils, yielding greater than normal runoff. According to the FEMA FIS, major historic floods have occurred in Bethlehem in March 1913, November 1927, March 1936, September 1938, and August 1955. In terms of damage to the Town of Bethlehem, the most severe of these was damage associated with the August 1955 hurricane and flood which ha d a recurrence interval of 200 years as NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-6 measured at the USGS gauging station on Shepaug River in Roxbury. This flood was the result of high intensity rainfall falling on saturated ground. 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 Bethlehem 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 th ree to five inches of rain along the Interstate 84 corridor. The storm caused localized street flooding in Thomaston and Washington. ‰ August 21, 1994: A flash flood caused approxima tely $5 million in property damage in Litchfield County. Two bridges washed out and appr oximately 40 miles of Town roads were damaged in Bethlehem, with six miles being severely damaged. Many residents reported baseme nt flooding, but there was no significant damage to buildings or utilities. ‰ 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 melting combined with one to three inches of rainfall to produce flooding across Litchfield County, pa rticularly 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-7 ‰ 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 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. Tr ees were reported down in Bethlehem. ‰ 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 Bethlehem. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-8 ‰ 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 widespread flooding. 3.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures The Town of Bethlehem 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: ‰ Earth Materials Ordinance . This ordinance regulates excavation and/or deposition of any materials in wetlands or floodplains and notes that activities in these areas must be regulated by the Inland Wetlands Commission of Bethlehem. ‰ Land Use Policy 1 (Section VII of the Bethlehe m Plan of Conservation and Development). One of the objectives of th is policy is to “preserve environmentally sensitive natural resources by regulati ng encroachment by development on these resources to the extent permitted by statutes.” ‰ Additional Evidence (Section 2.4.2 C of the Bethlehem Subdivision Regulations). This section authorizes the Planning Commission to request additional information if needed such that “proper provision will be made for protective flood control measures in areas contiguous to brooks, rivers, or ot her bodies of water subject to flooding”. ‰ Decision (Section 2.4.5 of the Bethlehem Subdivision Regulations). This section notes that approval of a subdi vision application is contingent upon “presentation of a NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-9 copy of a permit or copy of declaratory ruling or permit from the inland wetlands regulating agency of the Town of Bethlehe m, authorizing construction of any roads, drainage, or other improvements or any grading that constitute a regulated activity affecting wetlands a nd/or watercourses”. ‰ Natural Features (Section 3.6 of the Bethlehem Subdivision Regulations). This section authorizes the Commission to ask for alternative designs that demonstrate that all reasonable care has been taken to preserve the natural features of the tract, such as by avoiding cuts and fills which may cause erosion or damage to water resources, avoiding construction near or that alters watercourses, by avoiding excavation or filling of wetlands, floodplains, and other land subject to flooding, and by providing for preservation of wetlands and watercourses through easement. ‰ Terrain (Section 3.7.2 of Bethlehem Subdivision Regulations). Section 3.7.2 notes that “construction of homes, driveways, and sub-surface sewage disposal systems should not be proposed in areas with seve re limitation for development,” such as wetlands, floodplains, and watercourses. ‰ Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations . This document defines in detail the Town of Bethlehem’s regulations regarding development near wetlands, watercourses, and water bodies that are sometimes coincident with floodplains. Section 2 defines “Regulated Activities” c overed by the Regulations. Section 6 states that no person may conduct or maintain a regulated activity without obtaining a permit. Section 7 outlines th e application requirements. ‰ Aquifer Protection Area (APA) Regulations. After formal aquifer protection area mapping has been developed for the wells located in northeast Woodbury, it is likely that the APA will extend into the southeas tern corner of Bethlehem, requiring the Town of Bethlehem to develop APA regul ations. The Bethlehem Inland Wetlands NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-10 Commission has been designated the official Aquifer Protection Agency and will be developing APA Regulations. Refer to Section 3.6 for more information. 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 Bethlehem 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 septic systems; and in areas contiguous to brooks, rivers, or other bodies of water subject to flooding, that pr oper 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 Bethlehem for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. The Town of Bethlehem Emergency Service Di rector serves as the NFIP administrator and oversees the enforcement of 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 Bethlehem Planning Commission uses the 100-year flood lines from the FIRM and FIS delineated by FEMA to determine floodplain areas. Site plan standards require that all proposals be cons istent with the need to minimize flood damage, that public facilities and utilities be located and constructed to minimize flood damage, and that adequate drai nage is provided. The Bethlehem Inland Wetlands Agency also reviews new developm ents and existing land uses on and near wetlands and watercourses. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-11 The Town of Bethlehem 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. The Bethlehem Highwa y Departme nt / Department of Public Works (DPW) is in charge of the maintenance of the Town’s drainage systems, and performs clearing of bridges and culverts and other maintenance as needed. Drainage complaints are routed to the DPW 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 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 Bethlehem 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 Pl anning Commission and the In land Wetlands Agency. All watercourses are to be encroached minimally or not at all to maintain the existing flood carrying capacity. These regulations rely primarily on the FEMA-defined 100-year flood elevations to determine flood areas. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-12 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 FIRMs, 483 acres of land in Bethlehem are located within the 100- year flood boundary. In addition, indirect and nui sance flooding occurs near streams and rivers throughout Bethlehem 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 Bethlehem (Appendix B). The primary waterway in the Town is the Weekeepeemee River, a non-navigable watercourse running north to south through the western part of Town. The secondary waterway in Bethlehem is East Spring Brook which runs north to sout h in the eastern part of Town. The remaining waterways in Bethlehem are mostly small streams and brooks significant for water supply and conservation pur poses, but are not recreational resources. Recall from Figure 3-1 that floodplains w ith elevations are delineated for the Weekeepeemee River, the Nonnewaug River, and portions of East Spring Brook, while several smaller brooks and streams, includi ng 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 steep topography surrounding the majo r watercourses, there is little wide-scale flooding in Bethlehem. Specific areas suscep tible to flooding were identified by Town personnel and observed by Milone & MacBroom , Inc. staff during field inspections as described in Section 1.5. Most flooding occurs due to large amounts of rainfall falling in conjunction with snowmelt and occurs due to un dersized road culverts, as noted below. ‰ Arrowhead Lane – Homes here are near the Weekeepeemee River and have experienced flooding damage in the past. The two homes at the end of the street reportedly have flooding problems due to a nearby small pond. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-13 ‰ Crane Hollow Road – Water from the Weekeepeemee Ri ver overtops the road at least once every two years. As the FIS sh ows the 100-year flood elevation as not overtopping the road, this study may be outdated. ‰ Double Hill Road – A resident has beavers on property that includes the Weekeepeemee River, and the beavers bu ild the dam high enough such that water overtops the road crossing for the river. The owner does not want the beavers to be bothered, so the Town does not try to remove the dams. ‰ Falls Road – This area is the only access from Bethlehem into the Land Trust property on the Woodbury/Watertown border. Bethlehem is often the first responder for emergencies in this forest, but access is limited because of poor road conditions and a poor crossing over the Nonnewaug River. The tract is designed to be used for passive recreation but is prim arily used by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and horses. Emergency personnel noted that this forest often has problems related to alcohol use, namely ATV and snowmobile accidents, part ies, and underage drinking. While the Town of Bethlehem has pursued a multi-t own resolution regarding emergency access to this parcel, including rebuild ing the bridge on Falls Road, at least one of the other municipalities does not s upport such a resolution. ‰ Hickory Lane – The culvert on the south end of th is road is undersized, causing the road to flood at least once every two years. The Town cannot fix the problem without elevating the road, but the fact that th e area is in the 100-year floodplain of the Nonnewaug River produces an additional fina ncial burden in the form of permitting for the Town. ‰ Hard Hill Road North – There are drainage issues along this road that occur primarily on private property. Each farm directs it s drainage south to the next downstream farm, causing flooding problems on the downstream farms. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-14 ‰ Route 132 (Kasson Road) – Water overtops the road near the fire pond. This area is between Lakes Road and Sky Meadow Road. This flooding impedes emergency response to the Sky Meadow Lane, Woodland Road, Cabbage Lane, and Hard Hill Road neighborhoods. ‰ Route 132 (Lakes Road) – Town personnel have reporte d general flooding problems occur near Long Horizon Road. Critical Facilities and Emergency Services Critical facilities are not regularly impacted by flooding in the Town of Bethlehem. Route 132, a major east-west thoroughfare, has occasional flooding issues in two areas as described above. This flooding slows emergency response times due to detours around these areas. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-15 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. It is important to promote coordination among the various departments that are responsible for different aspects of fl ood mitigation. Coordination and cooperation among departments should be reviewed every few years as specific responsibilities and staff changes. Municipal departments should identify areas for acquisition to maintain flood protection. Acquisition of heavily damaged structures after a flood may be an economical and practical means to accomplish this. The Town of Bethlehem should look at working with the land trusts in Bethlehem to identify properties worth acquiring, as much of the open space in Town is owned by land trusts. Polic ies can also include the design and location of utilities to areas outside of flood h azard areas, and the placement of utilities underground. Planning and Zoning : Subdivision ordinances should regulate development in flood hazard areas. Flood hazard areas should refl ect a balance of development and natural areas, although ideally they will be free from development. 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-16 ‰ 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 subdivisions and building 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-17 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, no Letters of Map Amendment (LOMA) have been submitted under the LOMC program for the Town of Be thlehem, so such updates are considered rare for the Town. Aquifer Protection Areas : Aquifer Protection Areas (A PA) are often located near floodplains and can indirectly provide a leve l of protection against the development of certain commercial and industria l properties. The Town of Watertown operates a public water supply wellfield in the northeast corner of the Town of Woodbury. The wellfield has a preliminary APA that extends into the southeastern corner of Bethlehem in the vicinity of the Nonnewaug River and East Spring Brook floodplains. After formal APA mapping has been developed, it is likely that the APA will still extend into the corner of Bethlehem, requiring the Town of Bethle hem to develop APA regulations. The Bethlehem Inland Wetlands Commission has been designated the official Aquifer Protection Agency and will be developing APA Regulations. Stormwater Management Policies : Development and redevel opment 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-18 of the overall watershed, the peak discharge from the site will occur later in the storm event, which will more closely coincide with the peak discharge of the stream, thus adding more flow during the peak discharge du ring any given storm event. Due to its topography, Bethlehem is situated in the upper and middle parts of several watersheds. Developers should be required to demonstrate whether detention or retention will be the best management practice for stormwater at specific sites in regards to the position of each project site in the surrounding watershed. Drainage System Maintenance : An effective drainage sy stem must be continually maintained to ensure efficiency and functi onality. Maintenance should include programs to clean out blockages caused by overgrowth and debris. Culverts should be monitored, and repaired and improved when necessary. The use of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology can greatly aid the identifi cation and location of problem areas. The Town has a regular schedule of drainage system maintenance. Education and Awareness : Other prevention technique s 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 Bethlehem Inland Wetlands Agency administers the wetland regulations and the Bethlehem Planning Commission admini sters the Subdivision regulations. The regulations simultaneously rest rict development in floodplains, wetlands, and other flood prone areas. The Land Use Coordinator and Bu ilding Official are charged with ensuring that development follows the subdivision re gulations and inland wetlands regulations. The Town of Bethlehem has a checklist that cr oss-references the bylaws, regulations, and NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-19 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. codes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to a proposed project, and the Town makes this list av ailable to potential applicants. 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 appl icable to property protection include the construction of barriers, dr y floodproofing, and wet floodproo fing techniques. Barriers include levees, floodwalls, and berms, and are us eful in areas subject to shallow flooding. These structural projects are discussed in Section 3.6.6 below. For dry floodproofing, walls may be coated with compound or plas tic sheathing. Openings such as windows and vents should be either permanently closed or covered 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 pressure of deeper water. Wet floodproofing should only be used as a last resort. If considered, 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 Bethlehem residents to prevent damage from inland a nd nuisance flooding. The Building Official should consider outreach and education in these areas. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-20 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. Many of these mitigation measures are already in practice in the Town of Bethlehem. Based on the above guidelines, a number of specific proposals for improved emergency services are recommended to prevent damage fr om inland and nuisance flooding. These are common to all hazards in this plan, and are listed in Section 10.1. 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-21 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 planning, 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-22 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 munici pal open space properties, as stated on Page 31 in the Plan of Conservation and Development. ‰ 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. 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: ‰ Pursue funding to elevate Crane Hollow road to prevent future instances of overtopping. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-23 ‰ Pursue funding to elevate the road near Hi ckory Lane, or to widen the stream and install a box culvert. ‰ Encourage the State Department of Transpor tation to elevate the level of Route 132 between Lakes Road and Sky Meadow Lane, or to widen the stream and install a box culvert. 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 Bethlehem are listed below. Prevention ‰ Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System to reduce the cost of flood insurance for affected Town residents. ‰ Continue to regulate 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 Watertown Fire District has completed its final mapping of the Aquifer Protection NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 3-24 Area for their wellfield in northeastern Woodbury. Ensure that the aquifer protection area regulations are consistent with principles for regulating floodplains where the area intersects floodplains. Property & Natural Resource Protection ‰ In conjunction with the land trusts in Town, pursue the acquisition of additional municipal open space 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. Structural Projects ‰ Pursue funding to elevate Crane Hollow Road to prevent future instances of overtopping. ‰ Pursue funding to elevate the road near the south end of Hickory Lane, or to widen the stream and install a box culvert. ‰ Encourage the State Department of Transpor tation to elevate the level of Route 132 between Lakes Road and Sky Meadow Lane, or to widen the stream and install a box culvert. In addition, mitigation strategies important to all hazards are included in Section 10.1 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 Bethlehem 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 Bethlehem. A hurricane striking Bethlehem 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 cyclones are called tropi cal cyclone basins. The Atlantic tropical cyclone ba sin is one of six in the world and includes much of the North Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and th e Gulf of Mexico. The official Atlantic hurricane season begins on June 1 and ex tends through November 30 of each year, although occasionally hurricanes 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 4-3 and low-lying escape routes flood two to four hours before arrival of the hurricane center. Small craft in unprotec ted anchorages break moorings. Ö Hurricane Bonnie of 1998 was a Category 2 hurricane when it hit the North Carolina coast. Ö Hurricane Georges of 1998 was a Category 2 hurricane when it hit the 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 Bethlehem, 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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. 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 Bethlehem is 95 miles per hour. Bethlehem 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 vehicl es. Connecticut Light & Power, the local electric utility, provides tree maintenance near their power lines. The Town has a tree warden who encourages residents to cut trees that can be dangerous to power lines. Thus, landowners are primarily responsible fo r conducting tree maintenance on private property. In addition, all utilities in ne w subdivisions must be located underground whenever possible in order to mitigate storm-related damages. During emergencies, the Town of Bethlehem currently has two designated emergency shelters available (S ection 2.9). Bethlehem Fire Department is currently the primary shelter with a generator, while the sec ondary shelter (Memorial Hall) also has a generator. In addition, the Town has addi tional facilities available that could be converted to additional shelter space if the need arose. As hurricanes generally pass an NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 4-10 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. Prior to seve re storm events, the Town ensures that warning/notification systems and communica tion 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 Bethlehem 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 Bethlehem 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. There are currently no mobile home parks in the Town. Debris such as signs, roofing material, and small items left outside become flying missiles in hurricanes. Extensive damage to trees, towers, aboveground a nd underground utility lines (from uprooted trees), and fallen poles cause considerable disruption for 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 hurricanes on commerce will continue to increase. A major hurricane ha s the potential of causing complete disruption NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 4-11 of power and communications for up several 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 Bethlehem 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 Bethlehem 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 Bethlehem 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. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 4-12 ‰ 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 edu cation are recommended to prevent damage and loss of life during hurricanes. These are common to all hazards in this plan, and are listed in Section 10.1. 4.6.4 Emergency Services The Emergency Operation Plan of the Town of Bethlehem 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, Beth lehem 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 4-13 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 Bethlehem are listed below. ‰ Increase tree limb maintenance and insp ections, especially along Route 61, Route 132, and other evacuation routes . Increase 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 Bethlehem, and pos t evacuation and shelter information on the Town website and in municipal buildings. ‰ 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 Town of Bethlehe m. 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 Bethlehem 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 Bethlehem 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 5-2 Tornadoes Tornadoes are spawned by certain thundersto rms. NOAA defines a tornado as “a violently rotating column of air extending from a thunders torm to the ground.” The Fujita scale was accepted as the official clas sification system for tornado damage for many years following its publication in 1971. Th e Fujita scale rated the intensity of a tornado by examining the damage caused by the tornado after it has passed over a man- made structure. The scale ranked tornadoes using the now-familiar notation of F0 through F5, increasing with wind speed and in tensity. The following graphic of the Fujita scale is provided by FEMA. A description of the scale follows in Table 5-1. Fujita Tornado Scale Table 5-1 Fujita Scale F-Scale Number Intensity Wind Speed Type of Damage Done F0 Gale tornado 40-72 mph Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes over shallow-rooted trees; damages sign boards. F1 Moderate tornado 73-112 mph The lower limit is the beginning of hurricane wind speed; peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off the roads; attached garages may be destroyed. F2 Significant tornado 113-157 mph Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 Stat es, 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 tornadoes is discusse d in Section 5.3. The pattern of occurrence in Connecticut is expected to remain uncha nged according to the Connecticut Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (2007). The highest relative risk fo r tornadoes in the state is Litchfield and Hartford Counties, followe d by New Haven, Fairfield, Tolland, Middlesex, Windham, and finally New London County. By virtue of its location in Litchfield County, the Town of Bethlehem 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 was an abnormal year for thunderstorms, with 20 days of thunderstorm activity occurring by the end of July. In general, thunderstorms in Connecticut are more frequent in the western and northern parts of the state, and less frequent in the southern and eastern parts. Although lightning is usually associated with thunderstorms, it can occur on almost any day. The likelihood of lightning strikes in the Bethlehem 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 Bethlehem 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 Bethlehem 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 Bethlehem, 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. One of the tornadoes passed above Bethlehem before la nding again in Watertown and the Town received residual damage from flying debris. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 5-8 ‰ June 27, 1994 – Thunderstorm winds brought down trees and power lines in Litchfield, with a few hundred cust omers losing electric service. ‰ 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 pow er and bringing commerce to a halt. Approximately $100,000 in property damage was reported. ‰ July 6, 1999 – Powerful thunderstorms brought down trees in New Milford, 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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. The NOAA National Weather Service issues watches and warnings when severe weather is likely to develop or has developed, respectively. Tables 5-4 and 5-5 list the 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. Aside from warnings, several other methods of mitigation for wind damage are employed in Bethlehem. Continued location of utili ties 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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. In the Town of Bethlehem, the local utilitie s are responsible for tree branch removal and maintenance above and near their lines. In addition, all new developments in Bethlehem must place utilities underground wherever possi ble. The Tree Warden also approaches residents on a case-by-case basis when tr ees and branches on their property look hazardous, though ultimately tree removal on pr ivate property is up to the property owner. Municipal responsibilities relative to torn ado mitigation and preparedness include: ‰ Developing and disseminating emergency public information and instructions concerning tornado safety, especially gui dance regarding in-home protection and evacuation procedures, and lo cations of public shelters. ‰ Designate appropriate shelter space in the community that could potentially withstand tornado impact. ‰ Periodically test and exercise tornado response plans. ‰ Put emergency personnel on standby at tornado ‘watch’ stage. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 5-11 More information is available at: FEMA – http://www.fema.gov/library/ NOAA – http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/NWSTornado/ 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. Bethlehem 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 Bethlehem are detected quickly and any associated fires are quickly extinguished. Ho wever, it is important to have adequate water supply for fire protection to ensure this level of safety is maintained. According to Town personnel, no single area of Town is more susceptible to wind damage than any other. Damage from falling branches and trees is more common than from actual wind damage. 5.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Both the FEMA and the NOAA websites contain valuable information regarding preparing for and protecting oneself during a tornado, as well as inform ation on a number of other natural hazards. Available information from FEMA includes: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 5-12 ‰ 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 implementation of an emergency notificatio n system would be beneficial in warning residents of an impending tornado. A commun ity warning system that relies on radios and television is less effective at warning residents during th e night when the majority of the community is asleep. This fact was evid enced most recently by the severe storm that struck Lake County, Florida on February 2, 2007. This powerful storm that included several tornadoes stuck at about 3:15 AM. According to National Public Radio, local broadcast stations had difficultly warning re sidents 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 5-13 ‰ Continue to place utilities underground. Property protection ‰ Require compliance with the amended Conn ecticut Building Code for wind speeds. ‰ Provide for the Building Official to make literature available during the permitting process regarding approp riate 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 Bethlehem 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 ‰ Continue to require compliance with the amended Connecticut Building Code for wind speeds. ‰ Have the Building Department make literat ure 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 Bethlehem. However, unlike summer storms, winter events and the hazards that result (wind, snow, and ice) ha ve more widespread geographic extent. The entire Town of Bethlehem is susceptible to wi nter storms. In general, winter storms are considered highly likely to occur each year (major storms are less frequent), and the hazards that result (nor’easter winds, snow, and blizzard conditions) can potentially have a significant effect over a la rge area of the Town (refer to Appended Tables 1 and 2). 6.2 Hazard Assessment This section focuses on those effects 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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. According to the NCDC, there have been 135 snow and ice events in the State of Connecticut between 1993 and March 2008, causing over $18 million in damages. Notably, heavy snow in December 1996 caused $6 million in property damage. Snow removal and power restoration for a winter storm event spanning March 31 and April 1, 1997 cost $1 million. On March 5, 2001, heavy snow caused $5 million in damages, followed by another heavy snow event four days later that caused an additional $2 million in damages. The last documented 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 that 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 and over 30,000 homes lost power across 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 6-6 ‰ March 6, 2003 – A winter storm produced nine inches of snow as measured at the Thomaston Dam. ‰ 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 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 Bethlehem primarily uses Town staff for plowing operations. The Highway Department utilizes plow trucks to clear a nd treat all Town-owned roadways, properties, and sidewalks. The Connecticut Department of Transportation plows Routes 61 and 132. Town roads are not prioritized for plowing b ecause school buses traverse every road in Town. During emergencies, a plow vehicle can be dispatched ahead of an emergency vehicle. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 6-7 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 Bethlehem 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 death from exposure during a blizzard. Afte r a storm, snow piled on the sides of roadways can inhibit line of sight and re flect a blinding amount of sunlight, making driving difficult. When coupled with slippery road conditions, poor sightlines and heavy glare create dangerous driving conditions. A few areas in the Town of Bethlehem have been identified by Town personnel and residents as having problems with ice during the winter months. Icing causes difficult driving conditions throughout th e hillier sections of Bethlehem, especially at the intersection of Cabbage Lane and Route 132, an d at the intersection of Wood Creek Road and Route 132. Both of thes e instances of icing are due to poor drainage. The intersection of Cabbage Lane and Route 132 is especially dangerous because cars traveling towards Route 132 on Cabbage Lane are coming downhill, the ice collects near the intersection, and drivers tend to speed throug h this section of Route 132. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 6-8 Icing is particularly a concern along the access road to the Horace Mann Nature Center in Washington off the end of Arch Bridge Road. There is no public access to this property in Washington due to private roads and limite d egress over Sprain Brook. Approximately 30-40 children attend the facility each week 40 weeks per year. The Tow n of Washington has asked the Town of Bethlehem to be the first responder to this facility in case of emergency, as it is a 22 minute res ponse time from Washington. However, the road leading in from Bethlehem is unpaved, narrow, and steep. Emergency personnel are worried that the facility could become isolated during a winter emergency. Drifting snow is not as large a problem in Be thlehem as other areas, but it still occurs. This problem is mitigated thr ough municipal plowing efforts. Ice jams are not a problem along the rivers in Bethlehem. Recall from Figure 2-7, Figure 2-8, and Figure 2-9 that elderly, linguistically isolated, and disabled populations reside in the Town of Bethlehem. It is possible that several hundred of the population impacted by a severe winter storm could consist of the elderly, a small number could consist of linguistically isolated households, and several hundred could be disabled. Thus, it is important for Bethlehem’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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 Bethlehem 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 into neighborhoods. Howeve r, the creation of through streets is not consistent with the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development. The Town of Bethlehem by default has plowing routes that prioritize access to and from most critical facilities, as th ese facilities are almost all lo cated in the municipal complex. However, the Town should make the effort to design standard plowing routes that prioritize the remaining critical facilities. Residents should be made aware of the plow routes in order to plan how to best access cr itical facilities, perhaps via posting of the general routes on the Town website. Such routes should also be posted in other municipal buildings, such as the library and the post office. It is recognized that plowing critical facilities may not be a priority to all residents, as people typically expect their own roads to be cleared as soon as possible. Available shelters shou ld also be advertised and their locations known to the public prior to a storm event. Finally, existing mutual aid agreements with surrounding municipalities should be reviewed and updated as necessary to ensure help will be available when needed. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 6-11 6.6.5 Structural Projects Structural projects for many aspects of Wint er Storms are not possible. However, projects can be designed to mitigate icing due to poor drainage and other factors. In regards to the inters ection of Cabbage Lane and Route 132, the Town wants to install 200 feet of catch basins down the end of Cabba ge Lane and along Route 132 to facilitate street drainage. The Town plans to try to acquire grant funding at some point for this project. In addition, the Town should investigate complaints of icing at the intersection of Wood Creek Road and Route 132 and perf orm corrective actions if applicable. 6.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Most of the recommendations in Sections 3.6 for mitigating flooding are suitable for mitigation of flooding caused by winter storms. These are not repeated in this subsection. While many potential mitigation activities for the remaining winter storm hazards were addressed in Section 6.6, the recommended mitigation strategies for mitigating wind, snow, and ice in the Town of Bethlehem 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 Bethlehem. ‰ 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. ‰ Prioritize plowing routes and post the snow plowing prioritization in Town buildings each winter to increase public awareness. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 6-12 ‰ Consider modifying the Town Plan of C onservation and Development to encourage two modes of egress into every neigh borhood by the creation of through streets. ‰ Pursue grant funding to install drainage along Cabbage Lane and Route 132 to eliminate icing at this da ngerous intersection. Consid er removing some trees to improve sight lines if possible. ‰ Investigate complaints of icing at the intersection of Wood Creek Road and Route 132, and perform corrective actions if applicable. ‰ Encourage the Horace Mann Nature Center to widen and improve the access road from Bethlehem to facilitate emergency and standard vehicular access. In addition, important recommendations that a pply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 7-1 7.0 EARTHQUAKES 7.1 Setting The entire Town of Bethlehem is susceptib le 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 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 miles northwest of the center of Chester. 7.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures The Connecticut Building Codes include desi gn criteria for buildings specific to municipality, as adopted by the Building Officials and C ode Administrators (BOCA). NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 7-5 These include the seismic coefficients for building design in the Town of Bethlehem. The Town has adopted these codes for new construction and they are enforced by the Town Building Official. Due to the infreque nt nature of damaging earthquakes, land use policies in the Town of Bethlehem do not address earthquake hazards. The Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Bethlehem (Section 3.7.2) prohibits development on slopes greater than 25%. Th e Town reserves the right to impose more stringent regulations on a site to maintain the stability 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 Bethlehem 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 7-6 Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil are reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. It occurs in soils at or near saturation, especially the finer textured soils. The AEL is the expected losses due to earthquakes each year. Note that this number represents a long term average; thus actual earthquake losses may be much greater or non- existent for a particular year. 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 Connecticut has a large building inventory that would be damaged in a severe earthquake, and takes into account the lack of damaging earthquakes in th e historical record. The current Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2007) states that “there is a 66% chance that an earthquake of a 2.7 magnitude or greater” will occur in the area of Bethlehem. According to the previous Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004), the State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Management notes the chance that a damaging earthquake of magnitude 5.0 or greater will occur within the state in any one year is 5%, and that the odds of an ear thquake of magnitude 6.0 are about one in 300 each year. Therefore, the Town of Bethle hem is unlikely to experience a damaging earthquake in any given year. This belief is reinforced by the timeline and damages recorded in the historical reco rd presented in Section 7.3. Surficial earth materials behave differently in response to seismic activity. Unconsolidated materials such as sand and artificial fill can amplify the shaking associated with an earthquake. In addition, artificial fill material has the potential for liquefaction. When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases a nd the ability of soil to support building foundations and bridges is reduce d. Increased shaking and liquefaction can cause greater damage to buildings and st ructures, and a greater loss of life. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 7-7 As explained in Section 2.3, several areas in the Town of Bethlehem are underlain by sand and gravel. Figure 2-5 depicts surficial ma terials in the Town. Structures in these areas are at increased risk from earthquakes due to amplification of seismic energy and/or collapse. The best mitigation for future 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. However, many of these areas occur in floodplains associated with the Weekeepeemee River, East Spring Brook, and th e Nonnewaug River, so they are already regulated. The areas that are not at increas ed risk during an earthquake due to unstable soils are the areas in Figure 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 Bethlehem, 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 to require adherence to the state building codes. ‰ Ensure that municipal departments have ad equate backup facilities in case earthquake damage occurs. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 7-8 In addition, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 10.1. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 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 19 registered dams and potentially several other minor dams in the Town, dam failure can occur almost anywhere in Bethlehem. While flooding from a dam failure generally has a medium geogra phic extent, the effects are potentially catastrophic. Fortunately, a major dam failure is considered only a possible natural hazard event in any given year (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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 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 19 DEP-registered dams within the Town of Bethlehem, of which one is Class AA, nine are Class A, six are Cl ass BB, one is Class B, one is Class C, and one is undefined. The list of Class B and C dams was updated by the DEP in 2007, with five dams being reduced from Class B status. Dams in Bethlehem are listed in Table 8-1. Note that the registered names of some dams do not match the current road names. Table 8-1 Dams Registered with the DEP in the Town of Bethlehem Number Name Location Class 1001 Bronson Lockwood Dam Off Kasson Road C 1002 Addie Road Pond Dam Molzon Lane BB* 1003 Benjamin Pond Dam Munger Lane BB 1004 Watertown Reservoir Dam Off Kasson Road BB* 1005 Bird Pond Dam Wood Creek Road B 1006 Long Meadow Pond Dam Lake Drive BB* 1007 Zieglers Pond Dam Carmel Hill Road North BB* 1008 Kassar Road Pond Dam Kasson Road BB* 1009 Asmus Dam Guilds Hollow Road A 1010 Leever Dam Guilds Hollow Road A 1011 Spring Brook Pond Dam Off Woodland Road A 1012 Messenger Lane Pond Dam Off Munger Lane A 1013 Unnamed Dam Off Hickory Lane A 1014 Park Pond Dam Woods Edge Road A 1015 Barnes Pond Dam Wood Creek Road A 1016 Assard Pond Dam Off Woodcreek Road A 1017 Newman Pond Dam Arch Bridge Road – 1020 Thurber Pond Dam Off Harrison Lane A 1022 Angelus Pond Dam Off Flanders Road AA *Rated a Class B dam in 1996, but was no longer rated Class B in 2007. This section primarily discusses the possible effects of failure of significant and high hazard (Class B & C) dams. In addition, th is section discusses the failure of Long NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 8-3 Meadow Pond Dam as it is owned by the Town of Bethlehem. 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. Bronson Lockwood Dam is the only Class C dam in Bethlehem, and Bird Pond Dam is currently the only Class B dam in Bethlehem. The Class B and C dams, along with the dam failure inundation area for Bronson Lockwood Dam, are shown in Figure 8-1. A close-up of the area downstream of Long Meadow Pond is shown on Figure 8-2. 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. 9 ; % % !a ? ®t ®t nn 9: ¨ © Figure 8-1: High Hazard Dams in Bethlehem 0 0.25 0.5Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )61 ” )132 Bronson Lockwood Reservoir Long Meadow Pond Bird Pond Dam Bird Pond Bronson Lockwood Dam ” )61 ” )132 ? Facilities 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations Schools n 9: ¨ Public Works ; Wellspring Foundation Elderly Housing Facilities Æ T Retirement Community Inundation Area Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads Water Bodies Streams Dam Hazard Class % C % B 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 “Inundation Area”, Em ergen cy Operation s Plan, Bron son E. Lockwood Reserv oir Dam & Watertow n Reserv oir Dam, Beth lehem, Connecticut by Roald Haestad, I nc. April 1997 “Facilities”, COGCNV August 2008 East Spring Brook Long Meadow Po nd Sub set Area Bethl ehem , CT Town of Beth leh em Na tura l Ha zard P re-Di saster Mi tiga tion Plan Figur e 8-2 LOCAT IO N: Map B y: SJB Scale : 1″=500′ SH EET: 99 Real ty Drive Ches hire, C onnec ticut 06410 (203) 271- 1773 F ax: (203) 272- 9733 ww w.m iloneandm acbr oom .com NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 8-6 More recently, the NCDC reports that flash 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. 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 Bethlehem. According to Town personnel, the dams throughout Town are in vary ing stages of condition, with the higher hazard dams being in good to excellent condition. The following paragraphs provide a description and highlight the general condition these dams based on information available at the Connecticut DEP: ‰ Bronson E. Lockwood Dam – This reservoir dam is owned by the Watertown Fire District and located in the headwaters of East Spring Brook in northeastern Bethlehem. It consists of an earth and rockfill dam approximately 600 feet long. The dam is 142 feet high and 2,000 feet long. Ou tlet works are controlled by a gate house in the center of the structure. The dam is maintained by the Watertown Fire District and is believed to be in good to excellent condition. An Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) for this dam from 1997 is on file with the DEP. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 8-7 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. ‰ Bird Pond Dam – This private dam is located at 10 Woodcreek Road in central Bethlehem. The dam impounds an unnamed tributary on the way to its confluence with the Weekeepeemee River. Outlet work s are believed to include an earthen and concrete overflow into the outlet stream channel. The dam is maintained by the owner and is believed to be in good condition. ‰ Long Meadow Pond Dam – This dam is owned by the Town of Bethlehem and is currently rated below a Class B dam. This dam overtopped during the April 2007 storms, and though the dam sustained some da mage, it did not fail. The Connecticut DEP sent the Town of Bethlehem an e ngineering request letter in October 2007 requiring the Town to retain an engin eer to perform a hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of the dam, and to design improve ments to allow the dam to safely pass the 100-year storm event. 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 8-8 deficiency, an owner is allowed reasonable time to make the required repairs or remove the dam. If a dam owner fails to make necessa ry repairs to the subject structure, the DEP may issue an administrative order requiring the owner to restore the structure to a safe condition and may refer noncompliance with su ch an order to the Attorney General’s Office for enforcement. 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 presen t danger to public safety. Owners of Class C dams are required to ma intain Emergency Operation Plans. The Watertown Fire District is responsible for maintaining the EOP for the Bronson E. Lockwood Dam. It is believed that no EOP exists for Bird Pond Dam. 8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment By definition, failure of Class C dams may cause catastrophic loss of life and property. Therefore, the failure of Bronson E. Lo ckwood Dam would likely have the highest impact on the residents and infrastructure of the Town of Bethlehem. However, the failure of any of the 18 other dams in Town could also have impacts within the Town of Bethlehem. The impacts related to the larg er and higher-hazard dams in Town, namely the Bronson E. Lockwood Dam, Bird Pond Dam, and Long Meadow Pond Dam, are described in general detail below. Bronson E. Lockwood Dam The dam failure inundation area shown in Figure 8-1 and described below for the Bronson E. Lockwood dam was scanned in and redrawn from its EOP. Thus, the dam failure inundation area shown in Figures 8- 1 is for planning purposes only and does not replace the official EOP map. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 8-9 Bronson E. Lockwood Dam is owned by the Watertown Fire District and is used for public water supply. Based on dam failure inun dation maps from the EOP, a dam failure at full pool height (worst- case scenario) would cause flooding along the East Spring Brook corridor all the way to the Nonnewaug River at the Watertown town boundary. The Watertown Reservoir Dam immediately downstream would likely fail, and water would likely wash out Route 132. Floodwater s would backwater up an unnamed stream to flood the area around Kassar Road Pond Dam, and Spring Brook Pond Dam would likely fail. Magnolia Hill Road and Maddox Road would likely be overtopped, and several houses along Nonnewaug Road / Paradise Valley Road would likely be inundated. Flood waters would spread in th e area of Nonnewaug Road, Hickory Lane, and Porter Hill Road, ending the inundation area at the confluence of East Spring Brook with the Nonnewaug River. Bird Pond Dam Bird Pond Dam is privately owned and impounds an unnamed tributary to the Weekeepeemee River. A failure of this dam would likely overtop Wood Creek Road, potentially flooding several homes nearby. Flood waters could also over top Route 132 twice downstream, and would likely washout th e Asmus Dam as well. Downstream of the Asmus Dam, floodwaters would enter th e Weekeepeemee River and would likely not cause further flooding damage, although damage c ould be exacerbated if the failure Bird Pond Dam was caused in part by the failure of Long Meadow Pond Dam (see below). Long Meadow Pond Dam Long Meadow Pond Dam is owned by the Town of Bethlehem. The dam was formerly rated Class B but has recently been downgraded to at highest a Class BB. Long Meadow Pond is shallow (ten to 12 feet maximum dept h) but is very long so it contains a lot of volume. The Town has been consistently performing all the necessary and required maintenance for this dam. Roald Haestad, Inc. performed an inspection following the NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 8-10 dam overtopping in April 2007 and made recommendations regarding the design of this dam. The overtopping of the dam occurred because the dam was not properly designed to pass the 100-year storm event. The To wn is discussing its options with the DEP regarding correcting the design flaw, but wants to acquire grant funding to complete the project. Should this dam fail, it is likely that floodwat ers would travel down the outlet stream and cause damage to Lake Drive and Benjam in Pond Dam. Some flood waters could potentially overtop Munger Lane and drai n south through the wetlands to Bird Pond, while the majority would likely conti nue southwest through forest into the Weekeepeemee River. If the dam failure occurs during heavy rain, the Weekeepeemee could already be flooded, and the additional waters would exacerbate flooding conditions downstream, particularly at Wood Creek Road, Crane Hollow Road, and in the Town of Woodbury. Increased flooding conditions coul d also potentially occur along the Pomperaug River in Woodbury and Southbury. 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. Funding is limited by the state bond commission. State statute Section 25-84 allows municipalities to form Flood and Erosion Cont rol Boards, but municipalities must take action to create the board with in the context of the local government, such as by revising the municipal charter. The Town of Bethle hem may wish to establish such a Flood and NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008, REVISED DECEMBER 2008 8-11 Erosion Control Board to oversee local flooding and erosion problems and municipal dams. More information regarding the Flood and Erosion Control Board program can be found at http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/water_inland/ flood_mgmt/fecb_program.pdf. The Town of Bethlehem should work with the Watertown Fire District, private property owners, and the Connecticut DEP to stay up to date on the evolution of Emergency Operations Plans and Dam Failu re Analyses for the significant and high hazard dams in Bethlehem. When possible, copies of these documents should be made available at the Town Hall for reference and public viewing. With regard to Long Meadow Pond Dam, the Town of Bethlehem is pursuing modifications of the dam to pass the 100-year flood event, and should review and update the Emergency Operations Plan when modi fications are completed. The Town should also maximize Town emergency preparedne ss for a potential dam failure. The Town should continue its ongoing program of inspection and maintenance. In addition, all Class C & B dams in the Town should continue to be regularly inspected by their respective owners and DEP, with maintenance performed as required to keep the dams in safe and functional order. The Town s hould also consider implementing occasional Town inspections of Class A, AA, BB, and unranked dams. The Town of Bethlehem should consider in cluding dam failure areas into a CodeRED- style emergency notification system. This system 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. The COGCNV is currently investigating the installation of such technology in al l of its member municipalities. 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 Bethlehem, along with low-de nsity suburban type development found at the margins of these areas known as the wild land interface. Structural fires in higher density areas of the To wn are not considered. The Town of Bethlehem is considered a low -risk area for wildfires. Wildfires are of particular concern in the ma ny wooded areas and other areas with poor access for fire- fighting equipment. Figure 9-1 presents th e wildfire risk areas for the Town of Bethlehem. Hazards associated with wild fires include property damage and loss of habitat. Wildfires are considered a likely ev ent each year, but when one occurs it is generally contained to a small range w ith 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. 254 254254 254 254 254 254254254254254254254254254254254254254254254 254 254 254 254254 254 254254 254 254254254 254 254254254 254254254 254 254 254254 254 254254254254254254254254 254254254254254 254 254254254254254254 254 254 254 254 254 254254254254254254254254254 254 254 254254254 254254 254254 254254254 254 254 254254254 254254254254254254254254254 254254254254 ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼¼ ¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼ ¼ ¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼ ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ¼¼ 9 ; !a © Figure 9-1: Bethlehem Wildfire Risk Area 0 0.5 1Miles COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY ² ” )132 ” )61 ” )61 ” )132 ? ® t ®t n n 9: ¨ Legend Town Boundary Major Roads Local Roads Water Bodies Streams Wildfire Type ? Facilities 9 Town Offices © Fire Stations a Police Stations Schools n 9: ¨ Public Works ; Wellspring Foundation Elderly Housing Facilities Æ T Retirement Community ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼Forest 254 254 254254Hay Fields For general planning p urposes only. Deline ations m ay not be ex act. Source: “Roads”, c1984 – 2008 T ele Atlas, Rel. 04/08. “T own Boundary”, DEP “Facilities”, ” Wildfire A rea”, COGCNV August 2008 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 netw ork of fire lookout towers and patrols, and regulations regarding open bur ning. The severe fire weather in the 1940’s prompted the state legislature to join the Northeastern Inte rstate Forest Fire Protection Compact with its neighbors in 1949. Today, most of Connecticut’s forested areas are secondary growth forests. According to the Connecticut DEP, forest has reclaimed over 500,000 acres of land that was used for agriculture in 1914. However, that new forest has been NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 Bethlehem is privately owned forest, and fires have o ccurred throughout the Town. 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 9-5 Bethlehem Subdivision Regulations require the creation of fire ponds for new subdivisions or re-subdivisions. In addition, new roads, subdivisions, and fire ponds 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 Beth lehem 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 capabilit y, but primarily relies on the use of 32 fire ponds with dry hydrants to fight fires throughout Town. The Bethlehem Fire Department is often the first responder for fires that happen in the Land Trust on the Watertown/Woodbury/Beth lehem boundary, and coordinates with the Watertown and Woodbury Fire De partments to control these forest fires. The Fire Department is also the first responder to part of Camp Columbia’s property off Munger Lane and the nearby state forest in Morris. The DEP has recently increased public access to this area, so the Town feels it is at a higher risk for fires. The Bethlehem Fire Department has a four-wheel drive brush tr uck capable of accessing 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 comp ile forest fire probability forecasts. This allows the Division and the Town of Bethlehem 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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. Indeed, To wn personnel reported that the largest fires only burn a couple of acres before being contai ned despite the rural nature of the Town. The wildfire risk areas presented in Figure 9-1 were defined as being contiguous wooded areas greater than 30 acres in size with limited access. These areas are generally associated with wooded water company lands , privately owned land trust property and forests, and Town-owned open space. The limited access conservation properties are NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 9-7 considered to be at the highest risk for fires. 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. As described in Section 2, Bethlehem has many rural areas with hayfields. Town personnel feel that these areas ar e also at risk for wildfires, as such fires could quickly encompass the entire field during a drought. These areas are delineated separately on Figure 9-1, and often occur near residential areas and roadways, presenting an increased risk of smoke, heat, and fi re damage to residents. Despite having a large amount of forest/urban interface, the overall risk of wildfires occurring in the Town of Bethlehem is considered to be low. Such fires fail to spread far due speed of detection and strong fire response. The Town has no state parks, so there are few fires caused by out of control campfires . Town personnel report that the larger private tracts of forest do not te nd to attract kids. As most of the Town has fire-fighting water available nearby in the forms of fire ponds, a large amount of water can be made readily available for fire fighting equipment. The Town also has the support of the Watertown Fire District to pr ovide access to their extensive watershed 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 Bethlehem. 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 consist of the elderly, a small number could consist of linguistically isol ated households, and several w ith disabilities could reside near wildfire impact areas. Thus, it is impor tant for the Bethlehem Fire Department to be prepared to assist these special populations during emergencies, including wildfire. There are many areas of Town where roads are narrow and one-way. This hinders emergency access to fight fires. This is a particular problem around Long Meadow Pond, NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 9-8 such as on West Shore Drive and in the private Kasson community. Fire trucks often need to drive into such areas in line with the last one in being the first one to back out as there is no place to turn around. In other places, fire trucks simply can’t get to the houses that are up narrow dirt roads. The Fire Department should consider public education in these areas and encourage homeowners and pr ivate communities to widen the access for emergency vehicles if possible. In summary, areas adjacent to hayfields are cons idered most at risk from wildfires. In addition, there is concern about fires in th e wooded southeastern, northern, and western sections of Town. While fires are infrequent 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 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 9-9 Water system improvements are an important class of potential mitigation for wildfires. The following recommendation could be implemented to mitigate forest fire risk: ‰ The Town of Bethlehem should continue to require the installation of fire ponds and dry hydrants in new subdivisions, and should look to install additional ponds where adequate water supplies do not currently exist. ‰ Encourage property owners to widen access roads such that fire trucks and other emergency vehicles can access remote locations. Other potential mitigation strategies for preventing wildfires include: ‰ Continue to promote inter-municipal c ooperation in fire fighting efforts; ‰ Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of forest fire danger and how to use comm on fire fighting equipment; ‰ Continue 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 r ecommendations is applicable to all hazards, because it includes recommendations for im proving public safety and planning for emergency response. Instead of repeating th ese recommendations in section after section of this Plan, these are described herein. Informing and educating the public about how to protect themselves and their property from natural hazards is essential to any su ccessful hazard mitigation strategy. The Local Emergency Planning Commission 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 10-2 ‰ “Is Your Home Protected from Wildfire Disaster? – A Homeowner’s Guide to Wildfire Retrofit” 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, Bethlehem should attempt to acquire an emergency notification system such as CodeRED. Databases could 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://ci .bethlehem.ct.us/) dedicated to citizen education and preparation for natural hazard events. ‰ Consider implementation of an emergency notification system. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 10-3 ‰ Upgrade emergency communications to a hi gh band system to better facilitate emergency response, particularly in coor dination with neighboring municipalities. ‰ Encourage residents to purchase and use NOAA weather radios with alarm features. ‰ Continue to review and update the Town Emergency Operations Plan at least once annually. ‰ Consider modifying the Plan of Conser vation and development to encourage two modes of egress into every neighborhood by the creation of through streets. ‰ Continue reviewing subdivision applic ations to ensure new neighborhoods and driveways are properly sized to a llow access of emergency vehicles; Inland Flooding Prevention ‰ Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System. ‰ Continue to regulate 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 Watertown Fire District has completed their final mapping of the Aquifer Protection Area for their wellfield in northeastern Woodbury. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 10-4 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. Structural Projects ‰ Pursue funding to elevate Crane Hollow Road to prevent future instances of overtopping. ‰ Pursue funding to elevate the road near the south end of Hickory Lane, or to widen the stream and install a box culvert. ‰ Encourage the State Department of Transpor tation to elevate the level of Route 132 between Lakes Road and Sky Meadow Lane, or to widen the stream and install a box culvert. Wind Damage Related to Hurricanes, Summer Storms, and Winter Storms ‰ 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 undergr ound in existing developed areas. ‰ 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 10-5 ‰ Increase tree limb maintenance and insp ections, especially along Route 61, Route 132, and other evacuation routes . Increase inspections of trees on private property near power lines and Town right-of-ways. Winter Storms ‰ Review and disseminate potential evacuati on plans to ensure timely migration of people seeking shelter in all areas of Bethlehem. ‰ 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. ‰ Prioritize plowing routes and post the snow plowing prioritization in Town buildings each winter to increase public awareness. ‰ Pursue grant funding to install drainage along Cabbage Lane and Route 132 to eliminate icing at this da ngerous intersection. Consid er removing some trees to improve sight lines if possible. ‰ Investigate complaints of icing at the intersection of Wood Creek Road and Route 132, and perform corrective actions if applicable. ‰ Encourage the Horace Mann Nature Center to widen and improve the access road from Bethlehem to facilitate emergency and standard vehicular access. Earthquakes ‰ Consider preventing new residential deve lopment in areas prone to collapse. ‰ Continue to require adherence to the state building codes. ‰ Ensure that municipal departments have ade quate backup facilities in case earthquake damage occurs. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 10-6 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 Bethlehem. ‰ Consider implementing Town inspections of Class AA, A, and unranked dams. ‰ If the Town acquires an emergency notifica tion system, include dam failure areas in the contact database. ‰ When possible, have copies of the Class C dam EOPs and Dam Failure Analyses on file in the Town hall for public viewing. ‰ Continue pursuing modifications to L ong Meadow Pond Dam to pass the 100-year flood event, review and update the Emergenc y Operations Plan when modifications are completed, and maximize Town emergency preparedness for a potential dam failure. ‰ Continue the ongoing program of inspecti on and maintenance of Long Meadow Pond Dam. ‰ Consider forming a Flood and Erosion Control Board in Bethlehem to oversee municipal dam maintenance and pr oblems with flooding and erosion. Wildfires ‰ The Town of Bethlehem should continue to require the installation of fire ponds and dry hydrants in new subdivisions, and should look to install additional ponds where adequate water supplies do not currently exist. ‰ Encourage property owners to widen access roads such that fire trucks and other emergency vehicles can access remote locations. ‰ Continue to promote inter-municipal c ooperation in fire fighting efforts. ‰ Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of forest fire danger and how to use common fire fighting equipment. ‰ Provide outreach programs on how to pr operly manage burning and campfires on private property. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 10-7 ‰ Patrol Town-owned open space and parks to prevent unauthorized campfires. ‰ Enforce regulations and permits for open burning. 10.3 Sources of Funding The following sources of funding and technical assistance may be available for the priority projects listed above. This in formation comes from the FEMA website (http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/index.s htm). Funding requirements and contact information is given in Section 11.4. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Ag ency) Grants and Assistance Programs Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP) http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/bzpp/index.shtm This grant provides security and risk management capabilit ies at State and local level for Tier I and II critical infrastructure sites that are considered high-risk/high- consequence facilities. Each State with a BZPP site is eligible to submit applications for its local communities to participate in and receive funding under the program. The funding for this grand is based on the number, type, and character of the site. Citizen Corps Program National Emergency Technology Guard (NET Guard) Pilot Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/netguard/index.shtm The purpose of this grant, under the Homela nd Security Act of 2002, is to re-establish a communication network in the event that the current information systems is attacked and rendered inoperable. A to tal of $80,000 may be available to each applicant provided they ar e a locality that meets the required criteria. Community Disaster Loan Program http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/fs_cdl.shtm This program provides funds to any eligible jurisdiction in a designated disaster area that has suffered a substantial loss of tax and other revenue. The assistance is in the form of loans not to exceed 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 10-8 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 10-9 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 10-10 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 10-11 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 10-12 U.S. Fire Administration Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFGP) http://www.firegrantsupport.com/afg/ http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fi reservice/grants/ The primary goal of the Assistance to Fi refighters Grants (AFG) is to meet the firefighting and emergency response need s of fire departments and nonaffiliated emergency medical services organizations . Since 2001, AFG has helped firefighters and other first responders to obtain critic ally needed equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training, and other reso urces needed to protect the public and emergency personnel from fire and related hazards. The Grant Programs Directorate of the Federal Emergency Management Agen cy administers the grants in cooperation with the U.S. Fire Administration. 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 10-13 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. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 10-14 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. ‰ 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 Bethlehem, and guide it through the FEMA approval process. The individual recommendations of the hazard mitigation plan must be implemented by the municipal departments that oversee these ac tivities. The Office of the First Selectman and the Highway Department / Public Works in the Town of Bethlehem will primarily be responsible for developing and implementing se lected projects. Appendix A incorporates an implementation strategy and schedule, detailing 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 Subdivision Regulations, will reference this plan and its updates. The Offi ce of the First Selectman will be responsible for ensuring that the actions identified in th is plan are incorporated into ongoing Town planning activities, and that the information and require ments of this plan are incorporated into existing planning documents within five years from the date of adoption or when other plans are updated, whichever is sooner. The Office of the First Selectman will be responsible for assigning appropriate Town officials to update the Plan of Conservati on and Development, Subdivision Regulations, Wetlands Regulations, and Emergency Operations Plan to include the provisions in this plan. Should a general revision be too cu mbersome or cost prohibitive, simple NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 11-2 addendums to these documents will be added that include the provisions of this plan. The Plan of Conservation and Development and th e Emergency Operations Plan are the two documents most likely to benefit from the incl usion 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 include the goals and objectives of the original plan, hazards or disasters that occurred during the preceding period, mitigation activities that have been accomplished to date, a discussion of reasons that implementation may be behind schedule, and recommendations for new projects and revised activities. The 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 Bethlehem. 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 Bethlehem 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; ‰ Pomperaug River Watershed Association; ‰ Key organizations from the list presented on Page 1-10; ‰ Town of Washington Public Works De partment and Planning Department; ‰ Town of Morris Public Works Department and Planning Department; ‰ Town of Watertown Public Works Depa rtment and Planning Department; and ‰ Town of Woodbury Public Works Depa rtment and Planning Department; Updates may include deleting recommendati ons as projects are completed, adding recommendations as new hazard effects arise, or modifying hazard vulnerabilities as land NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 11-4 use changes. In addition, the list of shelters and critical facilities should be updated as necessary, or at least every five years. 11.4 Technical and Financial Resources This Section is comprised of a list of resources to be considered for technical assistance and potentially financial assistance for comple tion of the actions outlined in this plan. This list is not all-inclusive and is intended to be updated as necessary. Federal Resources Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I 99 High Street, 6 th floor Boston, MA 02110 (617) 956-7506 http://www.fema.gov/ Mitigation Division The Mitigation Division is comp rised of three branches that administer all of FEMA’s hazard mitigation programs. The Risk Analysis Branch applies planning and engineering principles to identify hazards, assess vulnerabilities, and develop strategies to manage the risks associated with natural hazards. The Risk Reduction Branch promotes the use of land use controls and building practices to manage and assess risk in both the existing built developments and fu ture development areas in both pre- and post-disaster environments. The Risk Insurance Branch mitigates flood losses by providing affordable flood insurance fo r property owners and by encouraging communities to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations. FEMA Programs administered by the Risk Analysis Branch include: ‰ Flood Hazard Mapping Program , which maintains and updates National Flood Insurance Program maps; ‰ National Dam Safety Program , which provides state assistance funds, research, and training in dam safety procedures; ‰ National Hurricane Program , which conducts and supports projects and activities that help protect communities from hurricane hazards; and NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 11-5 ‰ 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 of the eligible contract users and the natural hazard programs. Contracts and services include: NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 11-6 ‰ 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 restorati on, and reviews and provides assistance with such projects. Bureau of Water Management – Planning and Standards Division – Administers the Clean Water Fund and many other programs dir ectly and indirectly related to hazard mitigation including the Section 319 non-point source pollution reduction grants and municipal facilities progra m which deals with mitigating pollution from wastewater treatment plants. Office of Long Island Sound Programs (OLISP) – Administers the Coastal Area Management Act (CAM) program and L ong Island Sound License Plate Program. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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 BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 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. Connecticut Department of E nvironmental Protection. 2007. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan For 2007-2010. ___. 2007. High Hazard & Significant Hazard Da ms in Connecticut, rev. 9/11/07. http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/water_inlan d/dams/high_significant_hazard_dams.pdf ___. 2004. Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for 2004-2007. ___. GIS Data for Connecticut – DEP Bulletin Number 40, rev. 2008. Connecticut Department of Public Healt h. Connecticut Emergency Medical Service Regions. http://www.ct.gov/dph/cwp/view.as p?a=3127&Q=387372&dphNav_GID=1827&dphNa v=| Connecticut Flood Recovery Committee. 1955. Report of the Connecticut Flood Recovery Committee, November 3, 1955. Connecticut State Library. http://www.cslib.org/floodrecov.pdf Council of Governments of the Ce ntral Naugatuck Valley. 2008. Central Naugatuck Valley Regional Plan of Conservation and Development. Environmental Defense. 2004. Bracing for Climate Change in the Constitution State: What Connecticut Could Face. Federal Emergency Management Agency. April 2008. HAZUS ®-MH Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States. FEMA document 366. ___. 2007. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. March 2004, Revised November 2006 and June 2007. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 12-2 ___. 2005. Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding: A Guide for Communities. FEMA document 511. ___. 1987. Reducing Losses in High Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local Officials . The Association of State Floodplain Managers. ___. 1990. Flood Insurance Study, Town of Bethlehem, 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. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 12-3 Northeast States Emergency Consortium. Earthquakes. http://www.nesec.org/hazards/Earthquakes.cfm. Accessed 7/17/2008. Kafka, Alan L. 2004. Why Does the Earth Quake in New England? The Science of Unexpected Earthquakes . Boston College, Weston Observatory, Department of Geology and Geophysics. http://www2.bc.edu/~kafka/Why_Qua kes/why_quakes.html. Accessed 7/17/2008. Kocin, P. J., Uccellini, L .W. 2004. A Snow fall Impact Scale Derived From Northeast Storm Snowfall Distributions. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85, 177-194. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/res earch/snow-nesis/kocin-uccellini.pdf Massachusetts Emergency Management Agen cy and Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2004. Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Milone & MacBroom, Inc. 2008. Town of Cheshire Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan . Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___. 2008. Town of Prospect Natural Haza rd Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. Council of Governments of the Central Na ugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___. 2008. Town of Wolcott Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. Council of Governments of the Central Na ugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___. 2007. City of Waterbury Natural Haza rd Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. Council of Governments of the Central Na ugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___. 2007. Town of Nantucket Natural Haza rd Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. ___. 2006. Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Greater Bridgeport Regional Pla nning Agency, Bridgeport, CT. ___. 2005. City of New Haven Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Miller, D.R., G.S. Warner, F.L. Ogden, A.T. DeGaetano. 2002. Precipitation in Connecticut . University of Connecticut College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Connecticut Institute of Wa ter Resources, Storrs, CT. 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. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 12-4 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (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/ 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 NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 12-5 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation 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 Bethlehem, Connecticut. 2006. 2006 Annual Report. ___. 2003. Subdivision Regulations. ___. 1999. Plan of Conservation & Development. ___. 1977. Earth Materials Ordinance. ___. Inland Wetlands and Wate rcourses 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/ United States Department of Transportation. 2002. The Pote ntial Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation . The DOT Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting. Workshop, October 1-2, 2002. Summary and Discussion Papers. United States Geological Survey. USGS Water Data for Connecticut . http://nwis.waterdata .usgs.gov/ct/nwis/nwis United States Geological Surve y, Earthquake Hazards Program. Connecticut Earthquake History. Abridged from Earthquake Information Bulletin, January – February 1971. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/ connecticut/history.php. Assessed 7/17/2008. NATURAL HAZARD PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PLAN BETHLEHEM, CONNECTICUT NOVEMBER 2008 12-6 ___. 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. Voices. 2007. Bethlehe m Town Guide. 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 APPENDIX A STAPLEE MATRIX CategorySTAPLEE Criteria 1. Prevention Good = 3, Average =2, and Poor = 1 A. Ongoing 2. Property Protection B. 2009-2014 3. Natural Resource Prot. C. 2014-2019 4. Structural Projects D. 2019-2024 5. Public Information ALL HAZARDS Dissemination of informational pamphlets regarding natural hazards to pu blic locations First Selectman B x xxxxxx1,2,53333333 21 Add pages to Town website dedicated to citizen education and preparation for natural hazard events First Selectman B x x xxxxx1,2,53323333 20 Consider implementation of an enhanced emergency notification system suc h as CodeRED First Selectman A x x xxxxx1,2,53233321 17 Upgrade emergency communications to high band radio system First Selectman B x xxxxxx 2,3323333219 Encourage residents to purchase and use NOAA weather radio with an alarm feature First Selectman B x xxxxxx 2,5232332116 Continue to review and update Emergency Operations Plan, at least once a nnually First Selectman A x xxxxxx 1333333119 Consider modifying the Plan of Conservation and Development to encourage two modes of egress into every neighborhood via through streets PZCBx xxxxxx 1 323332117 Continue reviewing subdivision applications to ensure proper access for emergency vehicles PZCA xxxxxxx 1 332332218 INLAND FLOODING Prevention Consider joining FEMA’s Community Rating System First Selectman B x x x x 2332332117 Continue to regulate activities within SFHAs 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 contour maps to develop more exac t regulatory flood maps using FEMA flood elevations DPWC, D xxxx 1,2 2222231 14 Adopt an aquifer protection overlay zone once Watertown Fire District fi nalizes 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 Structural Projects Pursue funding to elevate Crane Hollow Road First Selectman B x x x x x 2,4232332116 Pursude funding to elevate the road near the south end of Hickory Lane, or to widen the stream and install a box culvert First Selectman Bx x x x x 41222321 13 Encourage the State DOT to elevate Route 132 between Lakes Road and Sky Meadow Lane, or to widen the stream and install a box culvert First SelectmanCx x x x x 43233321 17 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/LUCAx x x 13333331 19 Provide for the Building Department to make literature available during the permitting process regarding appropriate design standards PZC/LUCBx x x 13333331 19 Strategies Listed by Primary Report Section for Bethlehem Associated Report Sections Inland Flooding Hurricanes Summer Storms and Tornadoes Winter Storms Earthquakes Dam Failure Wildfires Environmentally beneficial? STAPLEE Sum of Scores Responsible Department 1 Schedule Socially acceptable? Technically feasible? Administratively workable? Politically acceptable? Can it be legally implemented? Economically beneficial? Page 1 CategorySTAPLEE Criteria 1. Prevention Good = 3, Average =2, and Poor = 1 A. Ongoing 2. Property Protection B. 2009-2014 3. Natural Resource Prot. C. 2014-2019 4. Structural Projects D. 2019-2024 5. Public Information Strategies Listed by Primary Report Section for Bethlehem Associated Report Sections Inland Flooding Hurricanes Summer Storms and Tornadoes Winter Storms Earthquakes Dam Failure Wildfires Environmentally beneficial? STAPLEE Sum of Scores Responsible Department 1 Schedule Socially acceptable? Technically feasible? Administratively workable? Politically acceptable? Can it be legally implemented? Economically beneficial? WINTER STORMS 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 evacuation plan to ensure timely evacuation of shelterees from all areas of Town, and post publicly First Selectman B x x x xxxx 5333333119 Prioritize plowing routes and post the snow plowing prioritization in To wn buildings each winter DPW B x 5 233333118 Pursue grant funding to install drainage along Cabbage Lane near Route 1 32 to eliminate icing First Selectman B x x x x 1,4 232332116 Encourage the Horace Mann Nature Center to widen and improve the access road from Bethlehem to facilitate emergency access First Selectman Bx x x x x 1,42233322 17 EARTHQUAKES Consider preventing residential development in areas prone to collapse, such as below steep slopes PZCB x12332322 17 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 Bethlehem First SelectmanAx xx 2 3333333 21 Continue pursuing modifications to Long Meadow Pond Dam to pass the 100- year flood event, update EOP, and maximize preparedness for dam failure First Selectman, DPWAx x x 1,2,43333322 19 Consider implementing Town inspections of Class A, AA, and unranked dams DPWB x xx2 2312132 14 If an enhanced emergency notification system is acquired, include dam fa ilure innundation areas in database First SelectmanBx 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 Continue ongoing inspections and maintanence of Long Meadow Pond Dam DPWA x1,2 3333321 18 Consider forming a Flood and Erosion Control Board to oversee municipal dam maintenance and problems with flooding and erosion First SelectmanBx x x x x 1,2,3,43333332 20 WILDFIRES Continue to require the installation of fire ponds and dry hydrants in n ew developments, and pursue additional ponds where supplies are inadequate PZC, Fire Dept.Axx2,4 3233332 19 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 Encourage property owners to widen access roads to facilitate emergency access to remote locations First SelectmanBxxxxxx 1 223222114 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.A x1,3 2223333 18 1Notes PZC = Planning Commission LUC = Land Use Coordinator 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 mitigatio n in the Town of Bethlehem 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 BETHLEHEM Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Initial Data Collection Meeting March 4, 2008 Minutes Revised August 6, 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) ‰ Jim Kacerguis, Bethlehem Public Works Director ‰ Mike Devine, Bethlehem Emergency Management ‰ John Rudzavice, Bethlehem Fire Marshall ‰ Roger Natusch, Bethlehem Building Official ‰ Jean Donegan, Bethlehem Land Use Coordinator 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. Bethlehem 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. Jean Donegan was selected to be the main point of contact for billing. The Board of Selectman will be the governing body to eventually approve the Plan. IV. Hazards to Address The Bethlehem plan will likely address floodi ng, hurricanes and tropical storms, winter storms and nor’easters, summer storms and tornadoes, earthquakes, dam failure, and wildfires. March 4, 2008 Page 2 V. Discussion of Hazard Mitigation Procedures in Effect & Problem Areas ‰ The Town has an almost entirely residentia l tax base, so funding of capital projects is difficult. The Town relies on outside grants , which can be difficult to obtain due to the small size of the Town. ‰ The FEMA FIS is in need of updating, but L itchfield is a low priority in the MapMod program. ‰ The Town has had no known history of earthquakes. ‰ The informational public meeting was scheduled for April 21 st at 7:00 PM in the Town Hall. Emergency Response Capabili ties & Evacuation Routes ‰ The Fire House is the primary shelter used for small, short term events. Memorial Hall is used for larger events, but has limited bathrooms. Both have their own generators, as does each building in the m unicipal complex. The problem is that Memorial Hall and the Firehouse share the sa me long driveway, which could create a conflict during an emergency. ‰ Other sheltering spots that could be util ized include Bethlehem Elementary School and the private school (The Woodhall School) in Town during the summer. Neither have generators. In addition, the Wisdom House in Litchfield has been used as a shelter in the past for families that had extended power outages. ‰ The Abby of Regina Laudis Priory may also be used as a shelter in an emergency, but the Town is hesitant to do so because of the cloistered nature of the facility. The Town would only ask under the direst circumstances. ‰ Evacuation routes are regionally defi ned by the Regional Evacuation Plan. Evacuation Routes are Route 61 and Route 132. Flanders Road is also another good route south into Woodbury. Route 132 ha s some areas where flooding has been a problem where a watercourse crosses the road. ‰ There are three problem areas for the emergency personnel of Bethlehem related to surrounding Towns: 1. A piece of Camp Columbia’s property in Morris has public access off Munger Lane from Route 109 in Morris. Part of th is property is state forest in Morris. They do some logging and the DEP has recently increased public access. March 4, 2008 Page 3 2. The Horace Mann Nature Center in Washi ngton is located off the end of Arch Bridge Road. There is no public access to this property in Washington due to private roads and limited egress over Sprain Brook. Approximately 30-40 children are bussed in each week from New York, 40 weeks per year. This facility has dorms and outbuildings being built and renovated in a $10 million upgrade, and has COPE-style facilities a nd ziplines. The Town of Washington has asked the Town of Bethlehem to be the first responders to this facility in the case of an emergency, as it takes 22 minutes to reach the center from their fire house. Bethlehem has accepted this responsibility, but is wary as the road from Bethlehem is unpaved, narrow and steep. It is extremely difficult to get up the road when it snows in winter, despite the sand that is put down. The Town of Bethlehem plows most of the road with a pickup truck because of how narrow it is. Bethlehem worries about the studen ts being isolated during an emergency, though the facility is well-funded and safety conscious. 3. Land Trust on the Woodbury / Watertown border. Physical access is via Bethlehem off the south end of Hickory La ne (Falls Road). The Town tries to keep the gate here locked, but people repeatedly cut the lock. Woodbury limits access but the tract is not well-managed. The tract is supposed to be used for “passive recreation” but is primarily us ed by ATVs and horses, especially along developed trails and the power lines. ATVs access the property via Watertown and other locations such as Route 6 and along the power lines. Bethlehem is the first responder here as well, but access is limited because of a bad crossing and poor road conditions. This forest ofte n has problems related to alcohol – ATV and snowmobile accidents, parties, underage drinking, etc. ‰ The Town communications system is poor. All the adjoining Towns have upgraded to a high band radio system, so Bethle hem cannot communicate with any of its neighbors via its antiquated low band. The state trooper operates at 800 MHz. The Town does have the means to communicate to DEMS-5. Communications with their neighbors and police consists of walking up to them and talking while responding. A communications study is underway, which will likely recommend a new UHF/VHF communication system. The Town wants a system compatible with all personnel and surrounding Towns. However, the cost of th e upgrade will be very high and difficult to fund through the Town budget. Instead, th e Town plans to apply for grant funding in consecutive funding cycles in an effo rt to cobble together grant money from various sources. ‰ The Town has no emergency notification syst em, and no method to alert residents of floods or other problems. ‰ Homes around Long Meadow Pond are difficult to reach. This includes West Shore Drive and the private Kasson community. So me of the streets are essentially one- way. Fire trucks need to go in line with the last one in being the first one to back out March 4, 2008 Page 4 because there is no place to turn around. In some places, the fire trucks simply can’t get to the houses that are up narrow dirt roads. Critical Facilities ‰ 40-unit “North Purchase Elderl y Home” at 11 Jackson Lane is considered a critical facility. ‰ There are several group homes for troubled children in Town, including 84 Judge Lane (4 children), Wellspring Foundation at 21 Arch Bridge Road (more than 20 children, also has a day school called Arch Bridge School), and Angelus House at 158 Flanders Road (approximately 10 children) ‰ The Town maintains a salt shed in the muni cipal complex, but plans are in place to replace it. It is too small, and DEP wants it to be a covered structure. The Town would like to move the entire Public Works facility. The DEP has a consent order on the Town regarding this, but the Town ha s limited funding. This project won’t be eligible under PDM due to the consent order, but still is useful to be in the plan. ‰ The Town Hall, Department of Public Works & Highways, Fire House, elderly housing, group homes, and schools are considered to be critical facilities. Many of the Town buildings are in the municipal complex. Subdivision, Inland Wetlands and Other Regulations ‰ Regulations were collected from Jean. Noted Flooding and/or Dr ainage Problem Areas ‰ Crane Hollow Road – water floods out at least once every two year s. The road over the Weekeepeemee acts as a dike and eventually overtops. ‰ Arrowhead Lane – Homes here are near the Weekeepeemee River and can flood out. The two homes at the end of the street ha ve flooding problems associated with the nearby pond. ‰ South end of Hickory Lane – The culvert he re is undersized and floods the road every two years, but the Town can’t fix this pr oblem without elevating the road. This culvert is near Land Trust property. ‰ Hard Hill Road North – There are drainage issues along the road, but they occur primarily on private property. Farmers pass along drainage to their downstream neighbor. For example, one farmer built a 500’ berm, which caused flooding problems on a field downstream. March 4, 2008 Page 5 ‰ Route 132 near Swenson’s Farm – water ov ertops the road near the fire pond. ‰ Double Hill Road – A resident has beavers on her property, and the beavers create a lake that eventually overtops the road . This might be along the Weekeepeemee River. The owner does not want the beav ers to be bothered, so Town personnel don’t try to remove the dams. Problem Areas for Wind Damage ‰ The electric utility (CL&P) performs tr ee maintenance, and the Town has a tree warden who encourages the removal of trees that pose a danger to power lines. Outages due to tree fall have been less frequent recently. ‰ There are no mobile home parks in Bethlehem. ‰ A Tornado struck Morris in 1989 and passed over Bethlehem before landing again in Watertown. Bethlehem received some resi dual damage from that event from flying debris. Problems Due to Snow and Ice ‰ There are many hills in Bethlehem whic h can sometimes make driving difficult during icy weather. ‰ The south end of Cabbage Lane has a draina ge problem where it intersects Route 132. The end of the road is a low point and wa ter collects and freezes in the winter, and cars slide out into Route 132 wh en trying to stop. There is also a poor sight line for cars on Route 132 to see cars coming out of Cabbage Lane, and people tend to speed on this relatively straight section of R oute 132. This area is a serious problem, although reportedly there have been no fatali ties. The Town wants to install 200 feet of catch basins down the side of Route 132 to help drain the area, but DOT won’t pay for it because the problem is on the Town road. ‰ Plowing isn’t prioritized because the school buses go down every road in Town, so DPW does all the side streets as fast as they can. CT DOT plows the state roads, which are the main routes in Town. Beth lehem uses “magic salt” which is supposed to cause less vehicle rust, while DOT uses regular salt. Dams ‰ The Town owns Long Meadow Dam. The dam is not considered to be a significant hazard dam as of 2007, but was formerly a Class B dam. The dam needs to be elevated and spillway enlarged, or the whole dam needs to become a spillway. March 4, 2008 Page 6 Haested Engineering inspected this dam and made the recommendations. The Town would like to be able to find a way to get funding through PDM or another grant program for the necessary dam work (which is due to a design flaw, not a failure of the Town in performing regular maintenance) . The Town needs to talk to DEP to weigh its options. ‰ Long Meadow Pond is shallow (10-12 feet d eep maximum) but very long so it has a lot of volume. It would have a signif icant dam failure inundation area to the Weekeepeemee River. ‰ Bronson Lockwood Dam is Class C but is in good condition. Wildfires and Fire Protection ‰ Fires only burn a couple of acres at their largest. The Town has no state parks, so there are no public camping related fires. The large private tracts of land don’t tend to attract kids. The limited-access conservation properties are considered to be at the highest risk for fires. ‰ Bethlehem has a 4-wheel drive brush truck and utilizes a system of 32 fire ponds with dry hydrants to provide fire protection to the Town. ‰ In addition to the forest areas, the Town feels that its many hayfields are a significant fire risk, particularly just prior to harvest time. ‰ The Town has mutual aid agreements with all its neighbors. Development Trends ‰ Bethlehem has almost no development ongoing because there is no public water, no public sewer, and poor soils for large on-site septic systems. Such systems would be expensive due to the poor soils. Applicati ons are typically for very small (1-2 lot) subdivisions. Last real developm ent push was in the late 80’s. ‰ Underground utilities are required in new developments wherever possible. ‰ Bethlehem has a lot of undeveloped open space, but it is primarily private forest or land trust property. VI. Acquisitions ‰ Bethlehem Town Guide – Voices, March 2007 ‰ 2006 Annual Report – Bethlehem, Connecticut ‰ Bethlehem Inland Wetlands Regulations – Undated, but most current copy Meeting Minutes March 4, 2008 Page 7 ‰ Earth Materials Ordinance – Bethlehem, Connecticut effective May 5, 1977 ‰ Subdivision Regulations effective October 10, 2003 ‰ Plan of Conservation & Development effective November 1, 1999. Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Bethlehem, Connecticut Presented by : David Murphy, P.E. – Associate Milone & MacBroom, Inc. Sam Eisenbeiser, AICP Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. April 21, 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 ret rof it , home acquisition, and planning projects State Description Grant Colorado Detention pond $3,000,000 Oregon Water conduit replacement $3,000,000 Wa s h in g t o n Ro a d e le v a t 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 Oregon Ice storm retrofit $1,570,836 No rt h Da ko t a Po we r t ra n s mis s io n re p la c e me n t $1,511,250 Texas Home elevations $1,507,005 Florida Storm sewer pump station $1,500,000 Massachusetts Flood hazard mitigation project $1,079,925 Kansas Effluent pump station $765,000 South Dakota Flood channel restoration $580,657 Ma s s a c h u s e t t s Cu lv e rt p ro je c t $525,000 Te xa s St o rm s h e lt e r $475,712 Mas s achus etts Hous ing elevation and retrofit $473,640 Ut a h Fire s t a t io n re t ro fit $374,254 Washington Downtown flood prevention project $255,000 New York WWTP Floodwall construction $223,200 Mas s achus etts 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 Ba n k s t a b iliza t 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 A Road Closure During / After a Large Scale Rainfall Event is a Type of Hazard Mitigation What is Hazard Mitigation? M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Reduce loss / damage to life, property, and infrastructure • Reduce the cost to residents and businesses • Educate residents and policy-makers about natural hazard risk and vulnerability • Connect hazard mitigation planning to other community planning efforts • Enhance and preserve natural resource systems in the community Long-Term Goals of Hazard Mitigation M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Terrorism and Sabotage • Disaster Response and Recovery • Human Induced Emergencies (some fires, hazardous spills and contamination, disease, etc.) What a Hazard Mitigation Plan Does Not Address M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Identify natural hazards that could occur in Bethlehem • Evaluate the vulnerability of structures and populations and identify critical facilities and areas of concern • Assess adequacy of mitigation measures currently in place • Evaluate potential mitigation measures that could be undertaken to reduce the risk and vulnerability • Develop recommendations for future mitigation actions Components of Hazard Mitigation Planning Process M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Emergency Services – Police, Fire, Ambulance • Municipal Facilities – Town Hall • Public Works Center Bethlehem’s Critical Facilities M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Health Care and Assisted Living – North Bridget Home • Group Homes • Shelters – Fire House, Memorial Hall, Bethlehem Elementary School Bethlehem’s Critical Facilities M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Potential Mitigation Categories M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Public Education Prevention Structural Projects Natural Resource Protection Property Protection Emergency Services • Updating Communications Systems • Adopt local legislation that limits or regulates development in vulnerable areas • Public education programs – dissemination of public safety information • Construction of structural measures • Allocate technical and financial resources for mitigation programs • Preserve critical land areas and natural systems Potential Mitigation Measures M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Inland flooding • Winter storms, nor’easters, heavy snow, blizzards, ice storms • Hurricanes • Summer storms, tornadoes, thunderstorms, lightning, hail • Dam failure • Wildfires • Earthquakes Primary Natural Hazards Facing Bethlehem M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Winds • Heavy rain / flooding Hurricanes M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Heavy wind / tornadoes / downbursts • Lightning • Heavy rain • Hail Lightning over Boston Flooding in MN Tornado in KS Summer Storms and Tornadoes M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Blizzards and nor’easters • Heavy snow and drifts • Freezing rain / ice Connecticut CT River – April 2007 Winter Storms M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Southbury – April 2007 • Severe rains or earthquakes can cause failure • Possibility of loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage Dam Failure M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Bronson Lockwood Pond Dam Long Meadow Pond Dam • Bethlehem has low to moderate risk of wildfires • Land subject to wildfires is mostly private or land trust forests or farms during drought • Fire • Heat • Smoke Photo courtesy of FEMA Wildfires M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Bethlehem is in an area of minor seismic activity • Chester, CT experienced a small, 2.0 magnitude earthquake on March 11, 2008 • Can cause dam failure ŠShaking Š Liquefaction Š Secondary (Slides/Slumps) Photos courtesy of FEMA Earthquakes M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Roadway and property flooding at rivers and streams Š Crane Hollow Road Š Arrowhead Lane Š Route 132 Š Double Hill Road • Localized problems Š Hard Hill Road North • Flooding caused by poor drainage Š Hickory Lane Š Cabbage Lane at Route 32 – ice Other potential hazards • Long Meadow Pond Dam • Drought conditions – wildfires in hay fields Area-Specific Problems M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. • Dowd Brook and tributary at Crane Hollow Road • Homes along the Weekeepeemee on Arrowhead Lane • Route 132 overtops at the pond near Swanson’s farm. • Beaver dams back water over Double Hill Road Flooding at Rivers and Streams M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Localized Problems • Hard Hill Road North – farmers pass drainage from one field to the next M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Flooding and Ice Caused by Poor Drainage • Hickory Lane – culvert undersized, but can’t fix without elevating road • Cabbage Lane – poor drainage at R oute 132 causes dangerous icing conditions Route 132 at Cabbage Lane • Long Meadow Pond dam • Hay fields could spread wildfires during drought Other Potential Hazards M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Fields off Munger Lane • 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. Natural Hazard Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Questions and Additions M ILONE & M AC BROOM Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Meeting Minutes N ATURAL H AZARD PRE -D ISASTER M ITIGATION PLAN FOR BETHLEHEM Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Public Information Meeting April 21, 2008 I. Welcome & Introductions The following individuals attended the public meeting: ‰ David Murphy, P.E., Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) ‰ Samuel Eisenbeiser, Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. (FHI) ‰ Virginia Mason, Council of Governme nts Central Naugatuck Valley (CGCNV) ‰ Jean Donegan, Bethlehem Land Use Coordinator ‰ Jim Kacerguis, Bethlehem Public Works Director ‰ Mike Devine, Bethlehem Emergency Management ‰ Nancy McMillan, Conservation Commission ‰ Meike Schuyler, Long Meadow Pond Management ‰ Theresa O’Neill, municipal agent for the elderly ‰ Ted Crawford, resident ‰ Vince McDermott, resident ‰ John Vail, Jr., resident Ms. Mason introduced the project team and th e project, explaining the COG’s role in the project, the goals of the Disa ster Mitigation Act, and the relationship to the FEMA pre- disaster and post-disast er funding processes. II. Power Point: “Natural Hazard Pre-Disast er Mitigation Plan, Bethlehem, Connecticut” Mr. Murphy and Mr. Eisenbeiser pr esented the power point slideshow. III. Questions, Comments, and Discussion Corrections and Comments: ‰ “Swanson’s” farm is “Swenson’s” farm ‰ North “Bridget” Home is North “Purchase” Home ‰ Dowd Brook may not be the problem at Crane Hill Road. It may be a different stream. This needs to be checked. Discussion: ‰ Ms. McMillan reported that an icy spot occurs at Route 132 and Wood Creek Road near the Weekeepeemee River due to poor drainage. Meeting Minutes April 21, 2008 Page 2 ‰ A long discussion took place regarding the condition of Long Meadow Pond Dam and the potential impacts in Bethlehem, Woodbur y, and Southbury if the dam should fail. Ms. Schuyler of the Long Meadow Pond Management Association would like to work with Milone & MacBroom, Inc. after th e public meeting to ensure that proper documentation is available for the pla nning project. A potential teaming of communities such as Bethlehem and Southbury was discussed to apply for PDM grants for Long Meadow Pond Dam maintenance. ‰ Another discussion involved inadequate comm unication during emergencies. The town Communications Plan specifies the use of Morris Fire House as a Command Center but radio communications are not possible inside the facility. Mr. Murphy explained that PDM grants are generally not available for communications but that it was necessary to describe the problem and recommend improvements in the plan. ‰ Mr. Vail believes that more tree and branch trimming is necessary due to vulnerability of power lines. ‰ Flooding at Swenson’s farm reportedly prevents emergency response to the Woodlands, Cabbage Lane, and Hard Hill Road neighborhoods. 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

Recharge Mapping:  |  1 COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY RECHARGE  MAPPING: A GIS‐ based  tool for identifying  areas  of  land  with  significant   groundwater  recharge September  2009         Prepared  in  collaboration  by:     Carol  Haskins,  Pomperaug  River  Watershed  Coalition   Glenda  Prentiss,  Council  of  Governments  of  Central  Naugatuck  Valley   Kirk  Sinclair  and  Mark  Brown,  Housatonic  Valley Association               Recharge Mapping:  |  2 Acknowledgements   The  funding  for  this  project  comes  through  the  Connecticut  Community  Foundation’s  (CCF)  grant  made  to the   Pomperaug  River  Watershed  Coalition  (PRWC)  to  support  the  addition  of  its  Outreach  Program,  and  was  made  to  the  PRWC  to work  collaboratively  with  the  Housatonic  Valley Association  (HVA).  The  PRWC  is  known  for   extensive  scientific  resear ch  of  their  watershed,  and  HVA  has  many  years  of experience  in  outreach  and   education.   The  collaboration  allows  the  organizations  to  work  together  and  learn  from  each  other  in  terms  of   the  research  and  outreach  methods  each  uses.   The  goal  being  to  export  the  science  completed  in  the   Pomperaug  Watershed  to  other  organ izations and  regions  as  well  as  to determine  the  best  methods  for sharing   the  research  findings  with  stakeholders  in  their  own watershed.   The Recharge  Mapping  Tool  is  an  example  of a   product  that  achieves  both  of  these  goals.       The  Recharge  Mapping  Tool,  documented  by  Carol  Haskins ‐‐PRWC  Outreach  Director,  is  the  culminating  pr oduct  of  many  meetings  and  discussions  with  a  dedicated  workgroup.  Countless  thank  you’s go  to  the  staff  at the   Council  of  Governments  of  Central  Naugatuck  Valley  for  providing  meeting space  and,  more  importantly,  the   expertise  of  Glenda  Prentiss  and Virginia  Mason.   Glenda,  GIS  Specialist,  was  instrumental  in developing  an d  documenting  the  GIS  (geographic  information  systems)  methods  presented  in  the  Recharge  Mapping  Tool,  and   would  not be  possible  without  her  expertise.   Virginia,  Assistant  Director,  provided invaluable  insight  towards   how  the resulting  recharge  data  can  be  best  applied  in  town  planning  and  watershed  management  situations.    Kirk  Sinclair,  GIS  Manager  at HVA,  also  provided  inva luable input towards  developing  the  GIS  methodology,   while  Mark  Brown,  GIS  Associate  at  HVA,  was  the  first  person  outside  the initial  workgroup  to  test  the  Recharge   Mapping  Tool  and  ease  in  following  the  methods.   David Bjerklie,  with the  US  Geological  Survey  (USGS),   provided  the  essential  statistical  results  from  the  Preci pitation Runoff  Modeling  System  project  completed  by   the  USGS  for  the  Pomperaug  Watershed  on  which  the  Recharge  Mapping  Tool  is  derived.       We  all  hope  that  the  information  presented  herein  will  assist  other  watershed  groups  and  towns  estimate  how  much  water  should  recharge  into  their  underlying  aquifers and  how  that  data  can  be  used  in  the  con text of   planning  and  watershed  management  to  ensure  the  quantity  and  quality  of  their  water  supplies.   Recharge Mapping:  |  3 Contents   I.  OVERVIEW  ……………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………. ……………………..  4   II.   PHYSICAL  ATTRIBUTES  THAT  INFLUENCE  RECHARGE  ……………………………………………………………… …………..  4   III.  MAPPING  METHODOLOGY  ……………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………….  6   A.  Data  Acquisition  and Preliminary  Data  Manipulation  ……………………………………………………………… ……..  6   B.   Calculating  and  Mapping  Recharge  Using  ArcGIS  ……………………………………………………………… ………………  10  IV.  APPLICATIONS  OF  RECHARGE  DATA  ……………………………………………………………… ………………………………..  11  V.   LIMITATIONS  OF  DATA  ……………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………. ….  12  VI.  FUTURE  REFINEMENTS  &  EXTENSIONS  ……………………………………………………………… …………………………….  13  ATTACHMEN T  A  (Tables)  ……………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………. ………  14  Table  1  ‐  Regression  Statistics  for  Multiple  Linear  Regression  of  Physical  Attributes  to  Predict  Groundwater   Recharge,  in inches  per  day  ……………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………. ..  15  Table  2  ‐  Summary  Table  of  Sources  and  Associated  Links for  Physical  Attribute  GIS  Datalayers  ………………….  16  ATTACHMENT  B  (Maps)  ……………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………. ………..  17  Map  1 –  Coarse  Stratifie d Drift,  Central  Naugatuck  Valley  Region  Map  2 –  Class  D  Soils,  Central  Naugatuck   Valley  Region  ……………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………. ……………………  18  Map  2 –  Class  D  Soils,  Central  Naugatuck  Valley  Region  ……………………………………………………………… ………….  19  Map  3 –  Percent  Effective  Impervious  by  Basin,  Central  Naugatuck  Valley  Region   …………………………………….  20  Map  4 –  Drai nage  Density,  Central Naugatuck  Valley  Region  ……………………………………………………………… …..  21  Map  5 –  Recharge  Map,  Central  Naugatuck  Valley  Region  ……………………………………………………………… ………  22    Recharge Mapping:  |  4 I.  OVERVIEW     This Recharge  Mapping  Tool  is  a  simplified  geographic  information  system  (GIS) ‐based  version  of  the   United  States  Geological  Survey’s  (USGS)  Precipitation  Runoff Modeling  System, a  mathematical  watershed  model.   While the PRMS  model  provides  a  thorough  analysis  of  land  use  impacts  on  streamflow  and   groundwater  recharge,  it  is  both  cost  prohibitive  and  time  consu ming to model  every  watershed.   Yet much  of   the  physical  watershed  characteristics  (“attributes”)  used  in the  model  can  be  obtained  from  publicly  available   geospatial  data  sources  and  can  be  mapped  using GIS software.       The  availability  of  the  physical  parameter  data  and  widespread  use  of  GIS,  together  with  a  statistical   understan ding  of  how  physical  watershed  characteristics  impact  streamflow  and  groundwater  recharge  obtained  from  the  PRMS  modeling,  made  it feasible  to  develop  this  Tool  to  estimate  the  average  annual  amount   precipitation  that  recharges  into  the  underlying  aquifer  in  a given  area.   Thus,  the  science  of  the  PRMS  model   can  readily  and inexpensively  be a pplied to  other  watersheds  or  geographically  and  politically  defined  regions  beyond  the Pomperaug  Watershed.    The Tool  allows  watershed  and  other  environmental  organizations,   municipal  commissions,  developers,  consultants, and  state  agencies  to  identify  areas  of land  with  significant   groundwater  recharge  for  the  purposes  of  making  planning  level  watershed  management  decisions involving  the   quality  an d  quantity  of  their  water  resources.    Presented  here  is  the  procedure  developed  by the  Pomperaug  River  Watershed  Coalition  (PRWC),  the   Council  of  Governments  of  Central  Naugatuck  Valley  (COGCNV),  and  the  Housatonic  Valley Association  (HVA) for   creating  a  Recharge  Map  that  displays  an  estimated  relative  mean  recharge  value  (in  inches/day)  for  a  give n  area  of  land.   It  includes  descriptions  of  the  attributes  that  influence  the  quantity  of  recharge,  a  listing  of  where   to  obtain  the  necessary  data  layers,  steps to  extract  the  specific  attributes  of  interest,  the procedure  to create  the  final  Recharge  Map,  and  different  watershed  management  applications of  the  da ta.       I. PHYSICAL  ATTRIBUTES  THAT  INFLUENCE  RECHARGE  The United  States  Geologic  Survey  (USGS) has  worked  in  cooperation  with  the  PRWC  to develop  the   precipitation  runoff  modeling  system  watershed  model  (PRMS)  to  evaluate  the  relationship  between   precipitation  and  runoff  in  the  Pomperaug  Watershed.   In  general  terms,  the  model  determined  the  fate  of   precipitation  as  it landed  on the  ground  –  whether  it  would  (1 ) flow  over  the  surface  of  the  ground  into  the   stream  right  away  (surface  runoff)  or  (2)  if  it  would  soak  into  and  flow  through  the  ground  or  underlying  aquifer   until  it  feeds  into  the  stream  at  a  later  time  (subsurface  runoff  or  groundwater  runoff).   The relationship   betwee n  precipitation  and  the  form  of  runoff  was  evaluated  using  many  attributes  of  the  watershed.   Attributes  used  in the  model  included  climate,  precipitation,  surficial  geology  (coarse  stratified  drift), soil  type  (class  D   soils),  land  cover  (impervious  surface  cover),  drainage  density,  topography  (slope,  aspect,  and  elevation),  land   use,  and  others.   The ph ysical  attribute  data was  obtained  from  publically  available  geospatial  data  sources.     To  best  understand  the  relationship  between  precipitation  and runoff,  the  Pomperaug  Watershed  was   divided  into  smaller  hydrologic  research  units (HRUs),  which  were  delineated  based  on the  distribution  and   hydrologic  homogeneity  of  the  above  attributes.    The  model  was  calibrated  by  comparing  modeled  results  of   streamflow  to  actual  reco rded  streamflow  for  the  given  period  of  historic  precipitation  data  imported  into  the  model.        Recharge Mapping:  |  5 The  relationship  between  the  simulated  groundwater  runoff (and  conversely  surface  runoff)  and  each  of   the  physical  attributes  listed  above  was  statistically  analyzed  for  each  hydrologic  response  unit  using  multiple   linear  regression  analysis.   The  results  of  this  analysis  are  shown  in  Table  1 , which  is  included  in  Attachment  A .   The  analysis  was  comple ted to  provide  a  greater  understanding  of  which  physical  attributes  have  the  greatest   influence  on  the  fate  of precipitation  –  surface  runoff  versus  groundwater  runoff.  In  the  terms  of  this  Recharge   Tool , it  is  important  to  note  that  an assumption  was  made  that the  groundwater  runoff  modeled  in  the  PRMS   model  is the  same  as recharge,  and  her e  forward  will  be  referred  to  as  recharge.   It  was  assumed  that  when   water  infiltrates  into  and  recharges  the  aquifer  the  pressure  displaces  and  equal  amount  of  water  already  stored   in  the  aquifer;  thus,  the  stored  water  becomes  the groundwater  runoff  that  flows  into  a  river  or  stream.        F or the  Pomperaug  River  watershed,  the  statistics  indicate  that  together  all  of the  physical  attributes   that  were  modeled  account  for  64%  of  the  variation  in  recharge,  which  gives  the  data  user  confidence  that  the   physical  attributes  are  strong  indicators  for  assessing  recharge  (and  conversely  surface  runoff)  within  the   hydrological  research unit.   In  an  effort  to  develop  a  pred ictive equation  for  estimating  recharge  in  an  HRU,   statistical  analyses  were  also  used  to directly  compare  the  magnitude  of  the  effect  of  each  attribute  on  the   estimated  recharge, and  how  significant  each  attribute  was  in  the  predictive  outcome.   The  results  of  these   analyses  are  also  included  in  Tabl e 1.   These  results  indicate  that  four  particular  attributes,  which  happen  to  be  the  ones  that  differ  the  most  from  HRU  to  HRU,  have  the  most  significant  influence  on  recharge.   These   attributes  are:     Surficial  geology  –  Coarse  stratified  drift  (sand  and  gravel  material  deposited  by  glaciers)  is  the  surficial  material  of  key  interest.   Th ese  deposits  allow  for  easy  water  movement  or  infiltration.   They  also  form   the  principal  water  bearing  units  in  the  watershed  and  transmit  the  greatest  amount  of  water  to  wells.    In  the  PRMS  model,  the  HRUs  with  the  most  recharge  occurred  in  areas  of coarse  stratified  drift.     Soil  typ e  –  The  key  soil  type  of interest  here  is  the  Class  D soils,  which  are  clayey  soils with  low   permeability.   These soils  hold  water  but  do  not  transmit  water  vertically  (as  recharge)  very  rapidly,  and   thus  tend  to  be  sources  of  higher  surface  runoff.   Class D soils  are  generally  cha racteristic of  wetland   environments,  but  may  also be  in unique  ecosystems  where  soil  is  shallow  to  bedrock.      Impervious  Cover –  Impervious  surfaces  are  hard,  compacted  areas  of  land  cover  (like  buildings,  roads,   parking  lots,  driveways,  etc.)  that  prohibit  vertical recharge  of  precipitation  and  result  in  high  surface   runoff  (surface  runoff  in  the  PRMS  mod el equates  to  streamflow).   The  case  of  high  surface  runoff  is   especially  notable  where the  runoff  from  impervious  surfaces  is  collected  in  storm  drains  and  routed  directly  into  stream  courses.     Drainage  Density  ‐ The  drainage  density  (length of stream  per  unit  area,  usually  mile  / square  mile)  is  an   indica tor  of  the  perennial  drainage  characteristics  of  the  sub ‐watershed.  Where  the  density  is  higher   and  the  drainage  network  is  well  established,  a  more  stable  discharge  regime  is  indicated,  which  also   indicates  a  well  established  baseflow.   In the  Pomperaug  Watershed,  the  presence  of  coarse  stratified  drift  and  high  drainage  density  indicated   higher  recharge  (or  lower  surface  runoff)  and  the  presence  of  Class  D  soils  and  impervious  surfaces  indicated   reduced  recharge  (or  increased  surface  runoff).   It is  worth  noting  that  because  the  Pomperaug  Watershed,  in  its  current  condition,  has  rela tively  low amounts  of  effective  impervious  surface , a  hypothetical  model  was   developed  with  a  wider  range  of  percent  impervious  surfaces  across  the watershed.   The  statistical  significance   of  impervious  cover  is  based  on  this  hypothetical  model.    Recharge Mapping:  |  6 Coefficients  arrived  at  in  the  statistical  analyses  of  these  attributes  were  used  in  the  simplified  predictive  equation  for  estimating  mean  relative  recharge  within  each  HRU  ( Equation  1 ).       Recharge  (in  inches  per  day)  =          (Equation  1)   0.032953  +  0.002036*(Drainage  Density)  + 0.031247*(%  Stratified  Drift)    –  0.03792*(%  Class D  Soils)  –  0.09292*(%  Effective  Impervious  Surface)     Please  note  that  this  predictive  equation  permits  a  quantitative  estimation  of  mean  relative  recharge  for   a  hydrologic  research  unit.  The  recharge  estimate,  made  in inches  per  day,  is  based  on  the  mean  annual   precipitation  records  for  the  Pomperaug  Watershed,  with  the  assumption  made  that  rainfall  is  distributed   evenly  over the  course  of  a  calen dar  year.   The recharge  estimate  is  made  relative  to  other  hydrologic  research  units  within  in  the  watershed.           II. MAPPING  METHODOLOGY     While the predictive  equation  was derived  using  precipitation  data  specific  to  the  Pomperaug   Watershed,  it  can  be  extended  to  regions  with  similar  climatic  conditions  as  the  Pomperaug.   Instead of  using   hydrologic  research  units, the predictive  equation is  applied  at  the  basin  scale,  which  is  a  geographic  unit  of  area   roughly  equivalent  in size  to  the  HRUs  defin ed in  the  PRMS  model  (both  approximately  one  square  mile  in size).       The physical  attribute  data needed  to  make  the recharge  estimate  is  available  from  publically  available   geospatial  data  sources,  and  can  be  mapped  using  GIS  software.   The  analytical  tools  in  GIS  software  allow  the   user  to  ex tract  the  specific  attribute  data  required  to  complete  the  calculation  that  estimates  recharge  (Equation   1),  which  is  also  completed  in  GIS.    Please  note,  specific  GIS  extensions  and  “plug ‐ins” are  required  to use  this   Recharge  Mapping  Tool :  Spatial  Analyst, ISAT  Tool  (discussed  below under  Impervious  Cover),  and  Soil  Data   Viewer  (discussed  below  u nder  Class  D  Soil).     Utilizing  the  example  maps  for  the  Central  Naugatuck  Valley  region  ( Attachment  B ), created  by  the   Council  of  Governments  for  the  Central  Naugatuck  Valley  (COGCNV)  during  the  collaborative  process  of   developing  this  Tool,  the  data  acquisition  steps  and  the  simplified  recharge  calculation  are  discussed  in  de tail  below.     A. Data  Acquisition  and Preliminary  Data  Manipulation     The data  sources  for  each  of  the  physical  attributes  used  in the  recharge  equation  and  additional   geospatial  data  required  in  this  Recharge  Mapping  Tool  are summarized  in  Table  2 , which  is  included  in   Attachment  A .   The  data  sources  discussed  above  for  each  attribute  are  also  su mmarized in  Table  2 , which  is   included  in  Attachment  A .    Sample  maps  for  the  Central  Naugatuck  Valley  Region  are  included  in  Attachment  B .   1. Base  Layer  Data  Obtain  base  layer  data  necessary  to  define  the spatial  extent  of  area  of  interest.   This  could  be  defined  by  political  boundaries  for  a  town,  a  region  (cluster  of  towns  or  a  county),  a  state,  or  hydro ‐geographic   boundaries  for  a  watershed.   Major roads may  also be  included  on  th e  base  layer,  in addition  to  rivers  Recharge Mapping:  |  7 (hydrography  lines)  and  waterbodies  (hydrography)  within  the town  and/or  watershed  boundary  to  help  orient  the map  reader.     The  data  source  for  the  town  boundary,  major  roads, rivers  and waterbodies  was  the  Connecticut   Department  of  Environmental  Protection  (CTDEP),  which  provided  data  on  a  scale  of  1:24,000.   This   information  is  available  for  download  fr om  the  CTDEP  website  using  the  following  link:    http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2698&q=322898 .    More  accurate  and  up ‐to ‐date  road   information  may  be obtained  from  Tele  Atlas  (c1984 ‐2006, Rel.  10/06).   Municipalities  can  obtain  this   data  from  the  Department  of  Public  Safety.   2. Basins    Even  if  rivers  and waterbodies  are  not  displayed  on  the  base  layer  map, hydrography  data is  necessary   to  complete  the  recharge  estimate  calculation,  as  recharge  is  estimated  at  the  basin  level.   The  basin   data  layer , provided  at  the  scale  of  1:24,000,  is  available  for  download  from  the  CTDEP  website  using   the  following  link:   http:// www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2698&q=322898 .      3. Coarse  Stratified  Drift     The surficial  geology  considered  in the  PRMS  model  was  the  presence  of  coarse  stratified  drift  (or glacial   deposits).   As part  of  the  overall  CTDEP  geology  database,  a  surficial  materials  data  exists  on  the   1:24,000  scale.   The  source  for  this  GIS  datalayer  was the  CTDEP:   http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2698&q=322898 .     A  coarse  stratified  drift layer  is created  by  using  GIS  tools.   All surficial  materials,  except the  coarse   stratified  drift  data  (sand  and  gravel)  are  separated  out  of  the  surficial  geology  data  layer.    Note:   We   used  data with  ANY  coarse  material  (coarse,  coarse  over  fines,  fines over  coarse,  etc).   4. Class  D Soil     The soil  type  considered  in  the  PRMS  model  was  the  Class  D  soil.   The  source  for  this  GIS  datalayer  was   the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  (USDA),  Natural Resources  Conservation  Services  (NRCS).    The  soil  data  is  available  for  download  from  USDA/NRCS  website  using  the  following  link:    http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/ .   The  source  included  all  soil  types,  but  using  GIS  tools,  all soils  types   were  separated  out  except  for  Class  D  soils.   Unlike  some  of  the  other  data  layers,  the soils  data  requires  a  little  more  manipulation  to  obtain  the   specific  attribute  of interest.  The  following  steps  outline  how  to download  the  data  and  separate  out  Class  D  Soils:   a. Download  the  NRCS  soils  for  Connecticut  from  http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov   b. Clip  to  your  area  if  desired.   c. Download  the  Soil  Data  Viewer  from  http://soildataviewer.nrcs.usda.gov/download.aspx   d. Open  ArcMap  and  add the Soil  Data  Viewer  and  the NRCS  soils  to  the  project.   e. Click  on the  button  to  activate  the  Soil  Data  Viewer  and  select  the soil  layer  to use  as  input.   f. Select  the  “Soil  Qualities  and  Features  ‐ Hydrologic  Groups”  from  the  list  on  the  left  Then  choose  the   “Map”  tab  along  the bottom  right  g. Right  click on  the  “hydrologic  group”  in  ArcMap’s  table  of  contents  and  select  “data  ‐export  data”  to   save  this  data  as  a shape  file  (“Hydro  Soil  Group”)   h. In  this  shapefile,  selecting  by attribute  equaling D  in  the  field  “Hydrolgrp”  will  give  you  the  Class  D   soils.  Save  just  the class  D  soils  as  a  separate  shapefile  (“Class  D  Soil”).     Recharge Mapping:  |  8   5. Existing  Imperviousness   The  PRMS  model  took  into  account  the impervious  surfaces  within  each  local  basin.   The source  for  the   existing  imperviousness  GIS  datalayer  is Connecticut’s  Center  for  Land  use  Education  and Research  (CLEAR)  2006  LandCover  database:  http://clear.uconn.edu/proj ects/landscape/index.htm .   This  land   cover  data  must  be  used  conjuction  with  the  ISAT  Tool  in  order  to  apply  the  impervious  coefficients  from   the  2002  dataset.   The  ISAT  Tool is  available  for  download  from   http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/cwq/isat.html .    The  GIS  extension,  Spatial  Analyst®,  is required  in  order  to  run  the  ISAT  Tool  and  the  following  inputs  are  required  to  apply  to  the  2002  coefficients  to  the  2006   dataset:    Land  cover  grid   Polygon  data  set  for  which  percentage  of  impervious  surface  is  to  be  calculated    Set  of la nd  cover  impervious  surface  coefficients  calibrated  for low,  medium,  and  high   population  densities    Option  population  density  theme     Please  note  some  towns  may  have  more  up ‐to ‐date  data  based  on  recent  flyovers.   For accuracy,  the   most  up ‐to ‐date  information  should be  used.   Also note  the  data  represents  current  la nd  use  data,  not   that  of  a  projected  build ‐out.    To  apply  to  the  2002  impervious  coefficients  to  the  2006  data  set:   a. Add  the ISAT  and  Spatial  Analyst  tools  to  your  toolbar.    b. Turn  on  the  ISAT  and  Spatial  Analyst  tools  (Tools  ‐ Extensions).    c. Add  the 2006  LandCover  grid  to  your  pro ject.   d. Add  the Basin  polygon  shapefile  that will  be  used  to  define  the  areas  over which  impervious   surface  estimates  will  be  calculated.   e. Add  the ISAT  Coeffients  developed  by NEMO  for  the  2002  land  cover  data  for  Connecticut  as  shown  below.   On the  Impervious  Surface  Tools menu,  choose  Ch ange  Coefficients.   Click New   and  create  a  new  coefficient  set  as  shown  below.                                 Recharge Mapping:  |  9 f. Choose  “Run  Impervious  Surface  Analysis”  from  the  Impervious  Surface  Tools menu  and  Select   the  density  (High,  Medium,  or  Low  based  on population  per  square  mile)  of  your  town.                                      g. The  output  attribute  table  includes  a  calculated  value for  the  percent  impervious  area  and  total  impervious   surface  area  of  each  selected  polygon  (i. e. basins).     h. Effective  Imperviousness  is the  value  that  needs  to  be  calculated  for using  the Recharge  Model   equation.   Bjerklie (USGS)  developed  an  equation  (Equation  2 ) for  calculating  effective   imperviousness,  which  is  based  on  the  Alley  and  Veenhuis  model  in conjunction  with  the  Charles   River  mod el  and then  adjusted  based on  variables  considered  in the  PRMS  model.      Effective  Impervious  (Bjerklie) =         (Equation  2)   0.0001*(Actual  Impervious) 3 –  0.005*(Actual  Impervious) 2 +  0.2282*(Actual  Impervious)     To calculate  Effective  Imperviousness,  create  a new  field  in  the  ISAT  impervious  table  called   “EffectiveImp.”   Field calculate  this value  for  each  basin  using  Equation  2.   Use  the  field  “pctIS”   for  Actual  Impervious.   Note : Actual  Impervious  is  a  percent  value  and  is  inserted  into the   equation  as  a percent  (ex.  16%  would  be 16  – not  0.16).       6. Drainage  Density   In  the  PRMS  model,  drainage  density  is  one  of  the  key  physical  attributes  of  the  land  surface  in  each   local  basin  that  controls  runoff.  Th e  source  for  the  hydrography  line  datalayer  (“hydronet”)  and  local   basin  datalayer  is the  CTDEP:   http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2698&q=322898 .    To  calculate  the  length  of stream  per  unit  area,  the  hydrography  line  datalayer  was unioned  with  the   local  basin  datalayer,  and each  local  basin  was  summarized  by “stream  length  in  miles”  divided  by  the   “area”  of the  local  basin  in  square  miles.     Recharge Mapping:  |  10 B. Calculating  and  Mapping  Recharge  Using  ArcGIS     While  the above  attributes  are  mapped  for  the  greater  area  of  interest,  recharge is  quantified  at the   small  basin scale.   As such,  the attributes  are  summarized  for each  basin  within  the  greater  area of  interest   before  applying  the weighted,  statistically  based  equation  to  quantify  recharge  (Equation  1).   The  following  steps   guide  th e  GIS ‐user  in  summarizing  each  of  the  physical  attributes  for  the  basins  within  the  area  of  interest  and,   ultimately,  calculating  recharge  for  each  basin.       1. Define  the  Area  of  Interest  (AOI)  –  a  town,  a  region  (cluster  of  towns),  state,  or  watershed  –  and  save   selected  area  as  a new  shapefile.     2. Select  all  basins  from  basin  that  overlap  the  Area  of Interest  and  save  as  a new  shapefile.   (Note:  The  basin  layer  breaks  up  the  “local  basin”  level  in smaller  areas  and the  basin  is  roughly  equal  in  size  to  the   HRUs  used  in  the  PRMS  model.)     3. Calculate  Drainage Density .   Intersect  hydronet  with  the  AOI  basin  layer.  “Calculate  Geometry”  for  the   length  of  each  segment.   Summarize  the  attribute  table  based  on  the  “BASIN_NO”  field  and  include  sum   for the  “length”  column. Link this table  to  the  AOI  basin  layer  and save  as  a separate  shapefile  called   Recharge.  Add a  new  field  to  the  Recharge  table  called  DRAIN_DENS.   Field  Calculate  the  drainage   density (DRAIN_DENS)  by  dividing  length  of  stream  by  area  of  basin  (miles/square  miles).     4. Calculate  percentage  of Class  D  soils  in  each  basin.   Intersect  Class  D  soils  with  AOI  basin  layer.    “Calculate  Geometry”  for  the  “AREA_SQMI”  field.  Summarize  based  on  the  “BASIN_NO”  field  and   include  sum  for  the  “AREA_SQMI”  field.  Join  this table  to  the  Recharge  shapefile based  on  the   “BASIN_NO”  field.  Create  a  new  field  in  the  Recharge  table  called  “PERCENT_D”.  Field calculate  for  this   field  (= ClassDSoilAREA_SQMI /basinAREA_SQMI)    5. Calculate  percent of  Coarse  Stratified  Drift  in  each  basin.   Intersect  Coarse  Stratified  Drift  with  AOI   basin  layer.  “Calculate  Geometry”  for  the  “AREA_SQMI”  field.  Summarize  based  on  the  “BASIN_NO”   field and include  sum  for  the  “AREA_SQMI”  field.  Join  this table  to  the  Recharge  shapefile  based  on  the   “BASIN_NO”  field.  Create  a  new  field  in  the  Recharge  table  called  “PERCENT_SD”.  Field  calculate  for this   field  (=CoarseStratifiedDrift AREA_SQMI/basinAREA_SQMI)     6. Effective  Imperviousness  was calculated  for  each  basin  in  the  ISAT  tool impervious  table  in the   Preliminary  Data Manipulation  procedure  above.  Join  this  shapefile  to  the  Recharge  shapefile based  on   the  “BASIN_NO”  field.   Create  a new  field  in  the  Recharge  table called  “EFFECT_IMP.”   Field  calculate  this   field  to equal  the  “Effective  Imp” field  from  the  ISAT  Impervious  table  divided  by 100.   This  division   changes  the  numbers  in  the  table  from  percentage  to  decimal  form  so  that  it matches  the  format  of  the   other  items  in  Equation  1  for  the  recharge  calculation  (e.g.  16%  was  previously  listed  as 16  but  now  will   be listed  as  0.16).     7. Calculate  Estimated  Relative  Mean  Recharge  (inches  per  day)  for  each  basin.  Once  you  have  values   needed  for the  calculation  of  recharge  (inches  per  day)  in  the  Recharge  table,  add  a  new  field,   RECHARG_INDAY,  and  Field  Calculate  recharge:       Recharge Mapping:  |  11 Recharge  (inches  per  day)  =    0.032953  +  0.002036  (Drainage  Density)  +  0.032147  (%  Stratified  Drift) ‐ 0.03792  (%  Class  D  Soils)    ‐ 0.09292  (%  Effective  Impervious  Surface)   OR  Recharge  (inches  per  day)  =   0.032953  +  0.002036  ( RechargeDRAIN_DENS)  +  0.032147  ( Recharge PERCENT_SD)    ‐ 0.03792  ( Recharge PERCENT_D)  ‐ 0.09292  ( Recharge EFFECT_IMP)     Note:  The  %  stratified  drift,  %  class  D  soil,  and  %  effective  impervious  should  all  be  values  less  than  or   equal  to  1.0.   The  drainage  density  value  should  be  mostly  0 ‐10,  with  a  few  basins  higher  than  this.     8. Display  the  Estimated  Relative  Mean  Recharge  on  a  Recharge  Map  to  identify  areas  of high,  medium,   and low  recharge  within  the  area  of  interest.   This  done  by  changing  the  symbology  for the  Recharge   shapefile to  3  “natural  breaks” for  the  recharge  value  field  that  was calculated  in  step  7.   This  divides  the   range  of recharge  values  (calculated  in  inches  per  day)  equally  into  three  categories,  thus the  basins  of   high,  medium,  and  low  recharge  are  relative  to  other  basins  in  the  larger  area of  interest.         III. APPLICATIONS  OF  RECHARGE  DATA     So  what?   Why  does  it  matter  if  an  estimate  can  be  made  as to how  much  water  will  recharge  an   aquifer?   And,  how  can this  information  be  used  in a  land  use  planning,  development,  conservation  context?     In  a development  and  stormwater  context, a  dilemma  exists  when  there  is  a  choice  be tween  developing  in  a high  recharge  area  vs.  a  low  recharge  area.   In  a  high  recharge  area,  there  is  capacity  to  absorb  storm  water;   these  areas  have good  infiltration  potential.   Thus,  one  could  argue  this  would  be  a  great  site  to  develop  as  stormwater  can easily  be  mitigated  on  site.   The  only  conc ern here  would  be  if  the  stormwater  infiltrates too  rapidly,  foregoing  the  filtering  capacity of  the  soil,  as  in the  case  of  Class  A  soils.   In a low  recharge  areas,   infiltration  is  naturally  inhibited  and  the  addition  of  more  impervious  surface  won’t  reduce  total  watershed   recharge  that  much.   However,  it  could  cut  off  the littl e that  currently  exists  and  may  be sustaining  a  small  headwater  stream  during  the  summer.   Development  in  these  areas  may also have  a  detrimental  impact  on  the   associated  ecosystems  (wetlands  /  shallow  to  bedrock).       To  further  address  this  dilemma  between  developing  in  high  recharge  versus  low  recharge  areas,  the   locations  of  Public  Water  S upply  Wells  and  Aquifer  Protection  Areas  can  be  overlaid  on the  recharge  map.   Note,   the  spatial  data available  from  the  CTDEP  ( http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2698&q=322898 ) for   Aquifer  Protection  Areas  and  well  locations,  may  not be  the  well  locations  themselves,  and may  instead  be the   business’s  address.Infiltration  is important  to  recharge  wells  (both  public  and  private).     With  this  information,  major  recharge  areas  feeding  public water can  be  identified  as  perhaps  more  “valuable”  than  other  high   recharge  areas  that  don’t  feed  p ublic water  supply  wells.   In relation  to  public  supply wells,  the  quantity  of  water  recharging  the  aquifer  is  certainly  important,  but  the quality  of  water  recharging  is  equally  as  important.    Concerning  the  quality  of  water,  some  caution  may  want  to  be  taken  in regards  to  the  ty pes  of  land  use  and   resulting  stormwater  near public  water supply  areas.       Recharge Mapping:  |  12 Also  in  relation  to public  water supply  wells,  it  may  also be  worth  considering  the amount  of  water  that   recharges  the  aquifer  on  an  annual  basis  in  comparison  to  the  amount  of water  withdrawn  from  the  aquifer  to   ensure  a  “sustainable  yield.”       While  groundwater  recharge  is  clearly  important  to  maintaining  well  water  supplies,  rechar ge is  also   valuable  in terms  of  maintaining  stream flows.   Water  stored  in  the  soil  is  slowly  released  and  provides   “baseflow”  to  streams.   This  baseflow  is  particularly  important  during  times  of  dry  weather  or  during  prolonged  periods  of  no  precipitation  as  groundwater  may  be  the  only  source  of  water  supplying  st reamflow.  This flow   from  groundwater  to  stream  is  the  typical  directional  exchange  between  these  “reservoirs”  of  water.   However,  there  are  “losing  reaches,”  where the  opposite  exchange  occurs; the  stream  loses  water  to  the  surrounding  soil  and  recharges  groundwater.       Overlaying  hydrography  (streams)  and  the  location  of  losing  reaches  may  be help ful  for  thinking  about   recharge  as  it pertains  to  stream  flow.   Typically  groundwater  feeds  the  stream  and  maintains  the  baseflow,   losing  reaches  are  just  the  opposite.   Losing  reaches  located  in  basins  of  high  recharge  may  be of  particular   interest  as  the  stream,  itself, feeds water  to  the  aquifer.   In terms  of  developm ent, this  may  be an area  where   you  do  not  want  to  increase  impervious  surfaces  as  more  surface  water  runoff  (potentially  polluted  runoff)  flows   to  stream,  then feeding  into  the  aquifer.       Maintaining  streamflow  is  also  critical  for  fish  and  other  aquatic  organisms.   From  the  MesoHabSim    study  conducted  in  the  Pomperaug  Watershed  by  Piotr  Parasiewicz  of  the  Northeast  Ins tream Habitat  Program,   the  PRWC  has  information  about  existing  fish  populations  in  the  watershed  and  knowledge  of  important  habitat   characteristics  (including  streamflow)  for  each  species  at  various  times  of  the  year.   This  information  could   potentially  be  used  to  identify  critical  areas  of  maintaining  rechar ge for  the  preservation  of  instream   biodiversity.     So,  while  consideration  can be  given  to  where  to  develop  with  groundwater  recharge,  the  location  of   public  water supplies,  and  stream  flows  in  mind,  the  reality  of the  matter  is  that  each  building  and  road  that  gets   constructed  reduces  water  infiltration  into  the  soil.   Ideally,  each  pe rson living  or working  in  those  buildings   should  feel  the  responsibility  to  put  the  water  back  where  it  used  to  be.   As the  landscape  is  developed,  efforts   should  be  made  to mimic  the  natural  processes  of  the  landscape.   Mimicking  natural  recharge  will  help  maintain   the  quantity  and  quality  of  our  already  clean ground water as  soil  acts  as  a filter  to  remove  pollutants  as  water  infiltrates.   The infiltration  alone  is  important  to  recharge  wells  and  recharge  streams  in  dry  weather.   As  such,  it   seems  most  feasible  to look  at  recharge  on  the  basin  scale  in  attempts  to  mimic  the  natural  amount  of rec harge  in  an  area.       IV. LIMITATIONS  OF  DATA    The  first  limitation  of  the  recharge  data  is  the  geographic  area  for  which  this  simplified  version  of  the   USGS’s  PRMS  model  can  be  applied.    The  Recharge  Tool  was  derived  from  the  PRMS  model  developed   specifically  for  the  Pomperaug  Watershed.   One of  the  key  elements  of  the  PRMS  model  is  the  precipitation  and   climati c  data  that  is  input  into  the  model.   Thus,  the  estimate  of  recharge  calculated  using  this Recharge  tool  is  based  on  the  historical  precipitation  record  for  the  Pomperaug  Watershed  and  it  should  only  be  applied  to   regions  with  climatic  conditions  similar  to  those  of  the  Pomperaug.   Note  that  the  recharge  e stimate  is  also   made  in a  way  that  averages  out  the  total  amount  of  rainfall  per  year  on  a  daily  basis.   Thus,  the  estimate  of   recharge  in  inches  per  day  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  an  equal  amount  of  rain  will  fall  every  day  of the   year.   The reality  is that  th e quantity  of  rainfall  varies  from  day  to day  and  week  to  week,  and  the  Recharge  Tool   Recharge Mapping:  |  13 does  not  account  for the  soil  moisture  conditions  that  may  result  in  a  greater  volume of  surface  runoff  when  the   ground  is  saturated.       The  scale  at  which  the  recharge  data  can  be  applied  is  also  limited.   The original  intent of  this   methodology  was  to  develop  a  model  that  would  allow  watershed  organizations,  land trust s, municipal   commissions  like  Inland  Wetlands,  Planning,  and  Zoning,  and  other  agencies  to  quantify  recharge  at  the  parcel  scale  in  order  to  help  prioritize  parcels  identified  in open  space  conservation  efforts.   The resolution  of  the   available  spatial  data makes  this  impossible  at  this  time.   Most  of  the  data  is  av ailable  at  the  1:24000  while  parcel  data is  available  at  a  much  finer  resolution.   The scale  dictates  how  confident  you  can  be  that  the   particular  feature  will  be  present  at  that  spatial  extent.   For  example,  if  you  are  viewing  coarse  stratified  drift,   which  has  a  scale  of  1:24000,  the  largest  scale  (fi nest resolution)  you  can  view  the  data  at  and  still  be  confident   that  you  have  accurately  delineated  that  feature  is  1:24000.   When you  zoom  in  closer,  you  lose  confidence  that   the  feature  will still  be  present.   So, if  you  were  to  overlay  parcels  onto  the  coarse  stratified  drift  and  zoomed  into  a  par ticular  parcel, you  cannot  be  totally  sure  that  coarse  stratified  drift will  be  found  within  that  parcel.     Related  to  scale  limitations,  it  was  decided  that  basins  were  the  most  appropriate  scale  at  which   estimations  of  recharge  could  be  made  given the  spatial  extent  of  the  data  required.   Similarly,  the  basin  sc ale is   most  comparable  to  the  size  of  the  geographic  units  used  in the  PRMS  model  to evaluate  the  relationship   between  precipitation  and  recharge.     Lastly,  the  overall  rankings  of  “High”,  “Medium”,  and  “Low”  recharge  are  based  on  natural  breaks in  the   data.   Natural  breaks  evenly  divide  the  range  of  values  so  an  even  numb er of  basins  will  fall  under  each  category.    Thus,  the  high,  medium,  or  low  recharge  designation  is  given  relative  to  the  quantity  of  recharge  estimated  in   each  of  the  basins  within  the  area  of  interest.   For  example,  a  basin  with  1  inch  per  day  of recharge  may  be  considered  hi gh  if  it  is  in  the  highest  third  of the  estimated  recharge  values  for  the  basins  in  the  area  of  interest.    The  relative  ranking  may  change  as the  area  of  interest  is  increased  or  decreased.   This  is  an  important   consideration  if  land  use  policies  are  developed  in  re cognition  of  high  and  low  recharge  areas.       V. FUTURE  REFINEMENTS  &  EXTENSIONS     Considering  the limitations  of  the  Recharge  Mapping  Tool , areas  of refinement  and  possible  extensions   come  to light.   The  resolution  of  the  spatial  data is  perhaps  the  greatest  limitation  at this  time.   As technology   advances  and  the  resolution  of  spatial  data  become  more refined,  so  will  the  scale  at  which  the  recharge  data   can  be  applie d.   The  ultimate  goal  is  to  quantify  the amount  of  recharge  (or  runoff)  from  a  given  parcel  based on  its  physical  attributes,  so  the  data  can  be  used  in  the  context  of  land  use  planning,  stormwater  management,   low  impact  development,  and open  space  preservation.    The  geographic  extent  at  w hich  the  Tool  can  be  applied  can  be  increased  as  the  USGS’s  PRMS  model  has   been  applied  in  other  areas  of  the  country  with  differing  physical  characteristics  and  climatic  conditions,  and  a   similar,  but  regionally  based  Recharge  Tool  could  be  derived.   The  statistical  confidence  in  this  Tool  could  also   increase  if  th e PRMS  model  were to  be  applied  in  other  locales  similar  and in  relatively  close  proximity  to  the   Pomperaug  Watershed.   Likewise,  the  relative  designations  of  “high”,  “medium”,  or  “low”  recharge  could  be   better  delineated  in  terms  of  absolute  measures  if  the  PRMS  model  were  applied  in  other  areas  and  then  a   refined  version  Re charge  Tool  is  applied  to  a  greater  geographic  extent.         Recharge Mapping:  |  14                       ATTACHMENT  A     Tables     Table  1  ‐  Regression  Statistics  for  Multiple  Linear  Regression  of  Physical  Attributes  to  Predict   Groundwater  Recharge     Table  2  ‐  Summary  Table  of  Sources  and  Associated  Links  for Physical  Attribute  GIS  Datalayers   Recharge Mapping:  |  15 ATTACHMENT  A     Table  1  ‐  Regression  Statistics  for  Multiple  Linear Regression  of  Physical  Attributes  to  Predict   Groundwater  Recharge,  in  inches  per  day       Regression  Statistics         Multiple  R   0.813615             R  Square   0.66197         Adjusted  R   Square   0.639053         Standard  Error   0.009251         Observations   64           Coefficients   Standard   Error   t  Stat P‐value Lower   95% Upper   95%   Intercept   0.032953   0.003666 8.989751 1.19E‐12 0.025618 0.040288   Coarse   Stratified  Drift   Percent   0.032147   0.005286 6.081957 9.45E‐08 0.021571 0.042724   Class D  Soil   Percent   ‐0.03792   0.010748 ‐3.52784 0.000818 ‐0.05942‐0.01641   Drainage  Density   0.002036   0.001031 1.975862 0.052853 ‐2.6E‐05 0.004099   Percent   impervious   ‐0.09292   0.027984 ‐3.32032 0.001546 ‐0.14891‐0.03692       Note:  The coefficients  can be  used  to  directly  compare  the magnitude  of  the  effect  of  each  attribute   on  the  recharge  estimate,  and  the t‐ stat  indicates  how significant  the  attribute  was  in  the  prediction   outcome.   The most  important  attributes  for  predicting  recharge  are  the  stratified  drift,  class  D  soils,   and  the impervious  surface, and  to a  lesser  deg ree the  drainage  density.   For the  Pomperaug  River   watershed,  the presence  of  stratified  drift  and high drainage  density  indicates  higher recharge  and the   presence  of  Class  D  soils  and impervious  surfaces indicates  reduced recharge.   Recharge Mapping:  |  16 ATTACHMENT  A     Table  2  ‐  Summary  Table  of  Sources  and  Associated  Links  for Physical  Attribute  GIS  Datalayers      Data Layer   Source  Link  Base  Layer   Town  Boundary     CTDEP     http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2698&q=322898   Major  Roads   Waterbodies   Rivers   Basins   Physical  Attributes  (Hydrologic  Parameters)   Coarse Stratified  Drift   CTDEP  http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2698&q=322898   Class D  Soils   NRCS  http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/   Percent  Impervious   Surface   CLEAR  2002  http://clear.uconn.edu/proj ects/landscape/index.htm   Drainage Density   CTDEP  http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2698&q=322898   Other Attributes   Aquifer Protection   Areas   CTDEP   http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2698&q=322898   Digital Land  Parcels   Local  Town   Assessor’s   Office  or   Council  of   Governments      Recharge Mapping:  |  17   ATTACHMENT  B     Maps     Physical  Attribute  Maps  for  the  Central  Naugatuck  Valley  Region     Recharge Mapping:  |  18 Map  1 – Coarse  Stratified  Drift, Central  Naugatuck  Valley Region Recharge Mapping:  |  19 Map  2 – Class  D Soils, Central  Naugatuck Valley Region Recharge Mapping:  |  20 Map  3 – Percent  Effective Impervious  by Basin, Central  Naugatuck  Valley  Region   Recharge Mapping:  |  21   Map  4 – Drainage  Density, Central  Naugatuck Valley Region Recharge Mapping:  |  22 Map  5 – Recharge  Map,  Central  Naugatuck  Valley  Region