Town of Guilford Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan

TOWN OF GUILFORD NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

ADOPTED JUNE 4, 2012

MMI #2426-10-4

Prepared for:

TOWN OF GUILFORD Town Hall 31 Park Street Guilford, Connecticut 06437 (203) 453-8015 http://www.ci.guilford.ct.us/default.htm

The preparation of this report has been financed in part through funds provided by the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection under a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The contents of this report reflect the views of the Town of Guilford and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection. The report does not constitute a specification or regulation.

Prepared by:

MILONE & MACBROOM, INC. 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 (203) 271-1773 www.miloneandmacbroom.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

CONTACT INFORMATION ...... ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ES-2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Purpose ...... 1-1 1.2 Hazard Mitigation Goals ...... 1-5 1.3 Identification of Hazards and Document Overview ...... 1-6 1.4 Discussion of STAPLEE Ranking Method...... 1-12 1.5 Discussion of Benefit-Cost Ratio...... 1-15 1.6 Documentation of the Planning Process ...... 1-15

2.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE

2.1 Physical Setting ...... 2-1 2.2 Existing Land Use ...... 2-3 2.3 Geology ...... 2-5 2.4 Climate ...... 2-15 2.5 Drainage Basins and Hydrology ...... 2-15 2.6 Population and Demographic Setting ...... 2-18 2.7 Development Trends ...... 2-23 2.8 Governmental Structure ...... 2-24 2.9 Review of Existing Plans ...... 2-30 2.10 Review of Existing Regulations...... 2-41 2.11 Critical Facilities, Sheltering Capacity, and Evacuation ...... 2-53

3.0 INLAND FLOODING

3.1 Setting ...... 3-1 3.2 Hazard Assessment ...... 3-3 3.3 Historic Record ...... 3-6 3.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ...... 3-9 3.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ...... 3-11 3.5.1 Vulnerability Analysis of Private Properties ...... 3-11 3.5.2 Vulnerability Analysis of Critical Facilities ...... 3-13 3.5.3 Vulnerability Analysis of Areas Along Watercourses ...... 3-13 3.5.4 HAZUS-MH Vulnerability Analysis ...... 3-21 3.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ...... 3-26 3.6.1 Prevention ...... 3-26 3.6.2 Property Protection ...... 3-30 3.6.3 Emergency Services ...... 3-32

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 TC-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

3.6.4 Public Education and Awareness ...... 3-33 3.6.5 Natural Resource Protection ...... 3-33 3.6.6 Structural Projects ...... 3-35 3.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ...... 3-35

4.0 COASTAL FLOODING AND SHORELINE CHANGE

4.1 Setting ...... 4-1 4.2 Hazard Assessment ...... 4-2 4.3 Historic Record ...... 4-10 4.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ...... 4-13 4.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ...... 4-15 4.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ...... 4-26 4.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ...... 4-33

5.0 HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS

5.1 Setting ...... 5-1 5.2 Hazard Assessment ...... 5-1 5.3 Historic Record ...... 5-5 5.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ...... 5-11 5.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ...... 5-14 5.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ...... 5-25 5.6.1 Prevention ...... 5-25 5.6.2 Property Protection ...... 5-27 5.6.3 Public Education and Awareness ...... 5-28 5.6.4 Emergency Services ...... 5-28 5.6.5 Structural Projects ...... 5-29 5.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ...... 5-29

6.0 SUMMER STORMS AND TORNADOES

6.1 Setting ...... 6-1 6.2 Hazard Assessment ...... 6-1 6.3 Historic Record ...... 6-7 6.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ...... 6-10 6.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ...... 6-12 6.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ...... 6-14 6.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ...... 6-15

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 TC-ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

7.0 WINTER STORMS AND NOR'EASTERS

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 ...... 7-8 7.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ...... 7-9 7.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ...... 7-10 7.6.1 Prevention ...... 7-10 7.6.2 Property Protection ...... 7-10 7.6.3 Public Education and Awareness ...... 7-11 7.6.4 Emergency Services ...... 7-11 7.7 Recommended Actions ...... 7-11

8.0 EARTHQUAKES

8.1 Setting ...... 8-1 8.2 Hazard Assessment ...... 8-1 8.3 Historic Record ...... 8-4 8.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ...... 8-5 8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ...... 8-6 8.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ...... 8-16

9.0 WILDFIRES

9.1 Setting ...... 9-1 9.2 Hazard Assessment ...... 9-1 9.3 Historic Record ...... 9-2 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 DAM FAILURE

10.1 Setting ...... 10-1 10.2 Hazard Assessment ...... 10-1 10.3 Historic Record ...... 10-5 10.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ...... 10-7 10.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ...... 10-8 10.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ...... 10-13

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 TC-iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1 Additional Recommendations ...... 11-1 11.2 Summary of Specific Recommendations ...... 11-1 11.3 Prioritization of Specific Recommendations ...... 11-10 11.4 Sources of Funding ...... 11-15

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 MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 TC-iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

TABLES

Table 1-1 Effects of Natural Hazards ...... 1-8 Table 1-2 Hazard Event Ranking ...... 1-9 Table 1-3 Hazard Effect Ranking ...... 1-10 Table 2-1 Land Cover by Area (2006) ...... 2-3 Table 2-2 Bedrock Geology ...... 2-6 Table 2-3 Surficial Geology ...... 2-11 Table 2-4 Soil Classifications ...... 2-13 Table 2-5 Minimum Setbacks from Coastal Resources ...... 2-49 Table 2-6 Critical Facilities ...... 2-54 Table 3-1 FIRM Zone Descriptions ...... 3-5 Table 3-2 Inland Flooding Repetitive Loss Properties ...... 3-12 Table 3-3 Critical Facilities Located Within or Adjacent to Floodplains ...... 3-13 Table 3-4 HAZUS-MH Flood Scenario – Basic Information ...... 3-24 Table 3-5 HAZUS-MH Flood Scenario – Building Stock Damages ...... 3-24 Table 4-1 Coastal Flooding Repetitive Loss Properties ...... 4-15 Table 4-2 Critical Facilities Located Within or Adjacent to Flood Zones ...... 4-16 Table 4-3 HAZUS-MH Flood Scenario – Basic Information ...... 4-17 Table 4-4 HAZUS-MH Flood Scenario – Building Stock Damages ...... 4-18 Table 4-5 Future Flood Scenarios Mapped by the Coastal Resilience Tool ...... 4-24 Table 4-6 Downscaled Sea Level Rise Projections for Long Island Sound Across Several Emission Scenarios ...... 4-25 Table 5-1 Tropical Cyclones by Month Within 150 Miles of Guilford, 1851-2011 ...... 5-6 Table 5-2 Return Period in Years for Hurricanes to Strike Connecticut ...... 5-14 Table 5-3 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Basic Information ...... 5-20 Table 5-4 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Number of Residential Buildings Damaged .... 5-21 Table 5-5 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Total Number of Buildings Damaged ...... 5-21 Table 5-6 HAZUS-MH Hurricane Scenarios – Essential Facility Damage ...... 5-22 Table 5-7 HAZUS-MH Hurricane Scenarios – Debris Generation (Tons) ...... 5-23 Table 5-8 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Shelter Requirements ...... 5-24 Table 5-9 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Economic Losses (x $1,000) ...... 5-24 Table 6-1 Fujita Scale...... 6-3 Table 6-2 Enhanced Fujita Scale ...... 6-5 Table 6-3 Tornado Events Near Guilford ...... 6-8 Table 6-4 NOAA Weather Watches ...... 6-11 Table 6-5 NOAA Weather Warnings ...... 6-11 Table 7-1 NESIS Categories ...... 7-3 Table 7-2 Reported Roof Collapse Damage, 2011 ...... 7-6 Table 8-1 Comparison of Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity ...... 8-3 Table 8-2 Probability of a Damaging Earthquake in the Vicinity of Guilford ...... 8-8 Table 8-3 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Number of Residential Buildings Damaged ...... 8-9

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 TC-v

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Table 8-4 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Total Number of Buildings Damaged .... 8-10 Table 8-5 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Essential Facility Damage ...... 8-10 Table 8-6 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Utility, Infrastructure, and Fire Damage ...... 8-11 Table 8-7 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Debris Generation (Tons) ...... 8-13 Table 8-8 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Shelter Requirements ...... 8-13 Table 8-9 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Casualty Estimates ...... 8-14 Table 8-10 HAZUS-MH Estimated Direct Losses From Earthquake Scenarios (x $1000) .. 8-15 Table 9-1 Wildland Fire Statistics for Connecticut ...... 9-3 Table 10-1 Dams Registered With the DEEP in the Town of Guilford ...... 10-4 Table 10-2 Dams Damaged Due to Flooding From October 2005 Storms ...... 10-6 Table 12-1 Plans and Regulations to be Potentially Updated ...... 12-3

FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Location Map ...... 2-2 Figure 2-2 2006 Land Cover...... 2-4 Figure 2-3 Bedrock Geology ...... 2-8 Figure 2-4 Surficial Geology ...... 2-9 Figure 2-5 Subregional Watersheds ...... 2-16 Figure 2-6 Population Density ...... 2-20 Figure 2-7 Elderly Population ...... 2-21 Figure 2-8 Disabled Population ...... 2-22 Figure 2-9 Critical Facilities ...... 2-55 Figure 3-1 FEMA Flood Zones ...... 3-2 Figure 3-2 FEMA Flood Zones – Sucker Brook ...... 3-15 Figure 3-3 FEMA Flood Zones – North Guilford ...... 3-16 Figure 3-4 FEMA Flood Zones – Bittner Park ...... 3-18 Figure 3-5 FEMA Flood Zones – Mill Pond Area ...... 3-19 Figure 3-6 FEMA Flood Zones – Spinning Mill Brook ...... 3-20 Figure 3-7 FEMA Flood Zones – Guilford Lakes Area ...... 3-22 Figure 3-8 FEMA Flood Zones – West Lake Area ...... 3-23 Figure 4-1 FEMA Flood Zones along Long Island Sound ...... 4-3 Figure 4-2 Hurricane Surge Inundation Areas and Critical Facilities ...... 4-4 Figure 5-1 Historical Hurricane Storm Tracks ...... 5-19 Figure 6-1 Anatomy of a Tornado ...... 6-2 Figure 10-1 Dams Registered with the DEEP ...... 10-3

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 TC-vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

APPENDICES

Appendix A STAPLEE Matrix Appendix B Plan Development Meeting Minutes Appendix C Public Meeting Announcements and Presentation, September 2010 Appendix D Public Meeting Announcements and Presentation, September 2011 Appendix E Emergency Announcements for Hurricanes Earl (2010) and Irene (2011) Appendix F Hurricane Evacuation Study Appendix G Evacuation Map Appendix H HAZUS Documentation Appendix I Photographs of Flooding Appendix J The Nature Conservancy Coastal Resilience Project Maps Appendix K Photographs of Damage From Hurricane Irene Appendix L Record of Municipal Adoption Appendix M Annual Worksheet

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 TC-vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AEL Annualized Earthquake Losses ARC American Red Cross ASFPM Association of State Floodplain Managers BCA Benefit Cost Analysis BCR Benefit-Cost Ratio BFE Base Flood Elevation BOCA Building Officials and Code Administrators CLEAR Center for Land Use Education and Research (University of Connecticut) CL&P Connecticut Light & Power CM Centimeter CRS Community Rating System DEEP Department of Energy & Environmental Protection DEMHS Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security DFA Dam Failure Analysis DMA Disaster Mitigation Act DOT Department of Transportation DPW Department of Public Works ECC Emergency Communications Center EOC Emergency Operations Center EOP Emergency Operations Plan FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FIS Flood Insurance Study FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance GIS Geographic Information System GPA Guilford Preservation Alliance HMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMP Hazard Mitigation Plan HURDAT Hurricane Database (NOAA's) HURISK Hurricane Center Risk Analysis Program ICC International Code Council IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change KM Kilometer KT Knot LID Low Impact Development LOMC Letter of Map Change MM Millimeter MMI Milone & MacBroom, Inc. MPH Miles Per Hour NAI No Adverse Impact NCDC National Climatic Data Center

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 TC-viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)

NESIS Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale NFIA National Flood Insurance Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NFIRA National Flood Insurance Reform Act NOAA The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OPM Office of Policy and Management PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation RFC Repetitive Flood Claims RLP Repetitive Loss Property RWA Regional Water Authority SCRCOG South Central Regional Council of Governments SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SLOSH Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes SRL Severe Repetitive Loss SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic STAPLEE Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental TNC The Nature Conservancy USD United States Dollars USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGS United States Geological Survey

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 TC-ix

CONTACT INFORMATION

Local Points of Contact:

Committee:

John Henningson Chairman, Hazard Mitigation Plan Oversight Committee Town of Guilford 203-458-0192 [email protected]

Town:

George Kral Town Planner Town of Guilford 31 Park Street Guilford, CT 06437 203-453-8039 [email protected]

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Town of Guilford Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan

The primary purpose of a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is to identify natural hazards and risks, existing capabilities, and activities that can be undertaken by a community to prevent loss of life and reduce property damages associated with identified hazards. 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 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program grants and Post-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds under the Hazard Mitigation Assistance program.

Situated on the Connecticut coastline bordering Long Island Sound, the Town of Guilford's (the Town or Guilford) landscape has many different features that make the Town particularly vulnerable to an array of natural hazards. These hazards include but are not limited to areas of inland flooding, coastal flooding, shoreline change, erosion, hurricanes and tropical storms, summer storms, tornadoes, winter storms and nor'easters, earthquakes, wildfires, dam failures, and rock slides. The Guilford Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (the Plan) discusses each of these natural hazards in detail with the understanding that a particular hazard effect (i.e., damage from falling trees) can be caused by a variety of hazard events (e.g., high winds) that can be caused by a variety of storms (e.g., hurricanes, tropical storms, and winter storms).

Guilford considers its critical facilities the Community Center, high school, fire stations and headquarters, police station, Emergency Operations Center (EOC), Town Hall, Public Works building, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, senior living facilities, and the Yale-New Haven Shoreline Medical Center. Neither the Community Center nor the high school has hurricane-proof roofs. Three fire stations, the EOC, the Public Works building, and some senior living facilities are located within floodplains. Route 1 just north of the West Side Cemetery has flooded during significantly high volume precipitation events.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 ES-2

The Town's EOC houses its emergency communications. The EOC is located in the Town's Fire Department building. However, the Reverse 911 Emergency Communications Center (ECC) is located in the basement of the Town Hall, a building that has a flood history (e.g., hurricane of 1938). The building, however, is not within a mapped floodplain according to FEMA. Establishing the ECC in Town Hall rather than the Police Department or Fire Headquarters was strategically selected as it is the Town's intention to limit the scope of impact a terrorist attack would have on emergency operations. The Police Department and Fire Headquarters, which are located next to one another, were viewed by the Town as a critical location for each if a terrorist attack were to take place. The Town operates radio, internet, and television communications whenever emergency planning takes place. As a result of its flooding history, the Town should review the ECC's location in an effort to improve the viability of the Town's emergency communications.

While there are three inactive geologic faults in Guilford, there are no active faults. Two of the inactive fault lines in northern Guilford are orientated in a northeast-southwest direction while the third fault line is orientated north-south in the central-western portion of town. Guilford is unlikely to experience a damaging earthquake in any given year as it is mostly underlain by glacial till.

The Town drains to seven major watersheds: Coginchaug River, West River, Branford River, South Central Shoreline, Sluice Creek, East River, and the Neck River. One-hundred percent of the Town eventually drains to Long Island Sound, a large-scale estuary of the Atlantic Ocean. There are also a number of freshwater bodies in Town including Quonnipaug Lake, Lake Menunkatuck, West Lake, and Lower and Upper Guilford Lakes. The major flowing surface water bodies in town are the East and West Rivers, which flow through the Town before discharging into Long Island Sound at the eastern and western boundaries of Town.

The Town has a number of measures in place to prevent flood damage including regulations, codes, and ordinances preventing encroachments and development near floodplains and floodways. Three hundred thirty-four acres are located within the 500-year flood zone boundary,

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 ES-3

4,363 are located within the 100-year flood boundary, and 354 acres are located within the VE flood zone (coastal areas with a 1% or greater chance of flooding and an additional hazard associated with storm waves). In addition, nuisance flooding occurs near streams and rivers throughout Town as a result of poorly functioning drainage, low-lying roads, bridges and culverts with insufficient capacity, and other factors. Some areas away from the coast that experience this type of flooding include the Route 77/West River corridor south of Lake Quonnipaug and the Spinning Mill Brook Crossing of Long Hill Road above Route 1, as well as several other locations.

In Guilford, wind damage occurs in both summer and winter of each year. The amount of damage incurred from wind action is variable. Typically, wind damage is comparable to other shoreline communities. Most damage is a secondary result of wind speed and is caused by falling limbs and/or debris bringing about damage to public property. Summer and winter storms have increased in intensity recently in Connecticut. Therefore, damage amounts have increased as well. Although hurricanes and tornadoes are infrequent, they represent extreme wind events alongside select nor'easters. HAZUS-MH simulations predict that minimal wind damage will occur in Guilford for events with top wind speeds less than 83 miles per hour (approximately a 50-year event). As previously discussed, major winter nor'easters have the potential to occur every few years and produce above-average snowfall amounts and moderate to excessive wind damage.

Based on potential hazard as determined through the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection's (CT DEEP) Dam Safety Section of the Inland Water Resources Division, Guilford has two Class C dams, two Class B dams, five Class BB dams, five Class A dams, and five unclassified dams. The list of dams is taken from the current "List of Owners of High Hazard and Significant Hazard Dams in Connecticut" and the "Connecticut Dams" GIS layer, which is listed on the CT DEEP website. Failure of Classes BB, B, or C dams can cause moderate to great economic loss and possibly loss of life. Guilford has two Class C dams, the Menuckatuck Reservoir Dam and the Upper Guilford Lakes Dam. The dams are privately owned, and both have an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and Dam Failure Analysis maps.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 ES-4

The Town is at a relatively low risk for wildfires. Those areas at the highest risk are limited access upland forests and other areas such as coastal phragmites marshes away from water sources where tanker trucks must be relied on to fight a fire. In addition, agricultural fields and pastures are considered to be higher risk areas as they pose the potential to burn quickly during drought conditions.

Guilford lists the Community Center as its current primary shelter while the Guilford High School is listed as secondary. Both facilities meet specific American Red Cross (ARC) guidelines for shelters. Amenities and operating costs are the responsibility of the community, not the ARC. However, upgrades to the roofs to exceed local codes and meet hurricane wind standards are believed necessary, along with other modifications.

A variety of recommendations are listed in this Plan. These recommendations are applicable to each natural hazard type. Recommendations are summarized in Sections 11.1 and 11.2. Section 11.3 summarizes the highest-ranking recommendations based on the Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental (STAPLEE) analysis and a review of the Town's vulnerabilities. Some of the top recommendations include continued use of certain regulations for development in the inland and coastal special flood hazard areas, acquisition of lands within special flood hazard areas, technical assistance for owners of repetitive loss properties, structural upgrades to shelters, relocation of the Public Works facility, elevation of key roadways such as Route 146, replacement of bridges and culverts along the West River corridor to improve flood conveyance, increased tree and tree limb maintenance, provision of water for fire protection where none currently exists, and development of EOPs for high-hazard dams.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 ES-5

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 disasters, pre-disaster hazard mitigation is commonly defined as any sustained action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people, property, and resources from hazards and their effects.

The primary purpose of a hazard mitigation plan (HMP) is to identify natural hazards and risks, existing capabilities, and activities that can be undertaken by a community 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 Guilford, Connecticut. The HMP is relevant not only in emergency management situations but also should be used within Guilford'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 FEMA- approved mitigation plan in order to be eligible to apply for and receive Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grants. The HMA "umbrella" contains five competitive grant programs designed to mitigate the impacts of natural hazards. This HMP was developed to be consistent with the general requirements of the HMA program as well as the specific requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for post-

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-1

disaster mitigation activities, as well as the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Management Assistance (FMA), Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC), and Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) programs. These programs are briefly described below.

Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program

The PDM 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 Mitigation Funding to providing a vehicle for funding,

the PDM program provides an Applications for hazard mitigation grant funding are administered under the Unified opportunity to raise risk awareness Hazard Mitigation Assistance program. within communities. The grant to More information on this and the following programs can be found at FEMA's website, prepare this plan was through the http://www.fema.gov/ PDM program.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-2

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 any opportunities 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 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.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-3

Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) Program

The RFC grant program was authorized by the Bunning- Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, which amended the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968. Up to $10 million is available annually for FEMA to provide RFC funds to assist states and communities in reducing flood damages to insured properties that have had one or more damage claims under the NFIP. FEMA may contribute up to 100% of the total amount approved under the RFC grant award to implement approved activities if the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed activities cannot be funded under the FMA program.

Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Program

The SRL grant program was authorized by the Bunning- Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, which amended the NFIA of 1968 to provide funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to SRL structures insured under the NFIP. The program is meant to reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP through project activities that will result in the greatest savings to the NFIF. A SRL property is defined as a residential property that is covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy and (a) has at least four NFIP claim payments (including building and contents) over $5,000 each, with the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding $20,000; or (b) for which at least two separate claims payments (building payments only) have been made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the market value of the building. For both (a) and (b), at least two of the claims must have occurred within any 10-year period and must be greater than 10 days apart.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-4

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 HMP is expected to:

Increase access to and awareness of funding sources for hazard mitigation projects. Certain funding sources, such as the PDM and HMGP, may be available if the HMP is in place and approved.

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 the Town's development through interdepartmental and intermunicipal coordination.

Improve the mechanisms for pre-disaster and post-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 easing recovery and reducing the cost of repairs and reconstruction.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-5

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 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 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 with the NFIP program and thus the benefits that it derives from FEMA. At this time, the Town of Guilford does not participate in the CRS.

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 Guilford:

Inland Flooding

Coastal Flooding, Sea Level Rise, and Shoreline Change

Hurricanes and Tropical Storms

Summer Storms and Tornadoes

Winter Storms

Earthquakes

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-6

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, or a winter storm. Thus, Tables 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 on the following pages provide summaries of the hazard events and hazard effects that impact the Town 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 Guilford's community profile, including the physical setting, demographics, development trends, governmental structure, and sheltering capacity. Next, each chapter of this Plan that is dedicated to a particular hazard event 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, for chapters with several recommendations, a Summary of Recommendations. These are described below.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-7

TABLE 1-1 Effects of Natural Hazards

Causes

Natural Hazard Hurricanes and Hurricanes Storms Tropical and Rise Sea Level Shoreline Change and Summer Storms Tornadoes Winter Storms Wildfires Earthquakes Dam Failure

Inland Flooding X X X Flooding from Poor Drainage X X X Coastal Flooding X X X Storm Surge X X Coastal Erosion X X X Wind X X X Falling Trees/Branches X X X Lightning X X Hail X Snow X Blizzard X Ice X Fire/Heat X Smoke X Shaking X Dam Failure X X Power Failure X X X X X Various Structural Failures* X X X X X

*Structural failures could include roofs failing from snow and ice buildup, road heaving from excessive heat or rapid freeze/thaw, road sinkholes due to erosion, or septic system failure due to sea water infiltration.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-8 Table 1-2 Hazard Event Ranking

Each hazard may have multiple effects; for example, a hurricane causes high winds, inland flooding, and a storm surge. Some hazards may have similar effects; for example, hurricanes and nor'easters both cause storm surges.

Location Frequency of Magnitude / Rank Natural Hazards Occurrence Severity 1 = small 0 = unlikely 1 = limited 2 = medium 1 = possible 2 = significant 3 = large 2 = likely 3 = critical 3 = highly likely 4 = catastrophic Winter Storms 3 3 2 8 Hurricanes 3 2 3 8 Sea Level Rise and Shoreline Change 3 3 2 8 Summer Storms and Tornadoes 2 3 2 7 Earthquakes 3 1 2 6 Wildfires 1 2 1 4 Dam Failure 1 1 1 3

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 in next 100 years 2 = likely between 10 and 100% probability in the next year; or at least on 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 of 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; shutdown of several critical facilities for more than one week; property severely damaged <25% and >10% 3 = critical injuries and / or ilnesses result in permanent disability; complete shutdown of critical facilities for at least two weeks; property severely damaged <50% and >25% 4 = catastrophic multiple deaths; complete shutdown of facilities for 30 days or more; property severely damaged >50%

Frequency of Occurrence, Magnitude / Severity, and Potential Damages based on historical data from NOAA National Climatic Data Center Table 1-3 Hazard Effect Ranking

Some effects may have a common cause; for example, a hurricane causes high winds, inland flooding, and a storm surge. Some effects may have similar causes; for example, hurricanes and no'easters both cause storm surges.

Location Frequency of Magnitude / Rank Natural Hazard Effects Occurrence Severity 1 = small 0 = unlikely 1 = limited 2 = medium 1 = possible 2 = significant 3 = large 2 = likely 3 = critical 3 = highly likely 4 = catastrophic Nor'Easter Winds 3328 Snow 3328 Hurricane Winds 3238 Nor'Easter Storm Surge 3328 Coastal Flooding 3328 Blizzard 3328 Coastal Erosion 2327 Ice 2226 Thunderstorm and Tornado Winds 2226 Riverine/Overbank Flooding 2316 Falling Trees/Branches 2316 Shaking 3115 Hurricane Storm Surge 2125 Fire/Heat 1225 Lightning 1315 Flooding from Poor Drainage 1315 Hail 1214 Smoke 1214 Flooding from Dam Failure 1113

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

2 = significant injuries and / or illnesses do not result in permanent disability; shutdown of several critical facilities for more than one week; property severely damaged <25% and >10%

3 = critical injuries and / or ilnesses result in permanent disability; complete shutdown of critical facilities for at least two weeks; property severely damaged <50% and >25%

4 = catastrophic multiple deaths; complete shutdown of facilities for 30 days or more; property severely damaged >50%

Frequency of Occurrence, Magnitude / Severity, and Potential Damages based on historical data from NOAA National Climatic Data Center

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 Guilford 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 Guilford.

Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives provides a summary of the recommended courses of action for Guilford that is included in the STAPLEE analysis described below.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-11

This document concludes with a strategy for implementation of the HMP, 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, is outlined in FEMA planning documents such as Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3) and Using Benefit- Cost Review in Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-5). STAPLEE stands for the "Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental" criteria for making planning decisions.

Benefit-cost review was emphasized in the prioritization process. Criteria were divided into potential benefits (pros) and potential costs (cons) for each mitigation strategy. The following questions were asked about the proposed mitigation strategies:

Social: Benefits: Is the proposed strategy socially acceptable to Guilford? Costs: Are there any equity issues involved that would mean that one segment of Guilford could be treated unfairly? Will the action disrupt established neighborhoods, break up voting districts, or cause the relocation of lower-income people? Is the action compatible with present and future community values?

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-12

Technical: Benefits: Will the proposed strategy work? Will it reduce losses in the long term with minimal secondary impacts? Costs: Is the action technically feasible? Will it create more problems than it will solve? Does it solve the problem or only a symptom?

Administrative: Benefits: Does the project make it easier for the community to administer future mitigation or emergency response actions? Costs: Does Guilford have the capability (staff, technical experts, and/or funding) to implement the action, or can it be readily obtained? Can the Town perform the necessary maintenance? Can the project be accomplished in a timely manner?

Political: Benefits: Is the strategy politically beneficial? Is there public support both to implement and maintain the project? Is there a local champion willing to see the project to completion? Can the mitigation objectives be accomplished at the lowest cost to the community (grants, etc.)? Costs: Have political leaders participated in the planning process? Do project stakeholders support the project enough to ensure success? Have the stakeholders been offered the opportunity to participate in the planning process?

Legal: Benefits: Is there a technical, scientific, or legal basis for the mitigation action? Are the proper laws, ordinances, and resolutions in place to implement the action? Costs: Does Guilford have the authority to implement the proposed action? Are there any potential legal consequences? Will the community be liable for the actions or support of actions, or for lack of action? Is the action likely to be challenged by stakeholders who may be negatively affected?

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-13

Economic: Benefits: Are there currently sources of funds that can be used to implement the action? What benefits will the action provide? Does the action contribute to community goals, such as capital improvements or economic development? Costs: Does the cost seem reasonable for the size of the problem and the likely benefits? What burden will be placed on the tax base or local economy to implement this action? What proposed actions should be considered but be tabled for implementation until outside sources of funding are available?

Environmental: Benefits: Will this action beneficially affect the environment (land, water, endangered species)? Costs: Will this action comply with local, state, and federal environmental laws and regulations? Is the action consistent with community environmental goals?

Each proposed mitigation strategy presented in this plan was evaluated and quantitatively assigned a "benefit" score and a "cost" score for each of the seven STAPLEE criteria, as outlined below:

For potential benefits, a score of "1" was assigned if the project will have a beneficial effect for that particular criterion or a "0" if the project would have a negligible effect or if the questions were not applicable to the strategy. For potential costs, a score of "-1" was assigned if the project would have an unfavorable impact for that particular criterion or a "0" if the project would have a negligible impact or if the questions were not applicable to the strategy. Technical and economic criteria were double weighted (x2) in the final sum of scores. The total benefit score and cost score for each mitigation strategy were summed to determine each strategy's final STAPLEE score.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-14

An evaluation matrix with the total scores from each strategy can be found in Appendix A. Strategies are prioritized in Section 11.3 according to final score. The highest scoring is determined to be of more importance economically, socially, environmentally, and politically and, hence, prioritized over those with lower scoring.

In addition, structural projects were also evaluated qualitatively. The results of the qualitative assessment are included in Appendix A.

1.5 Discussion of Benefit-Cost Ratio

Although a community may implement recommendations as prioritized by the STAPLEE method, an additional consideration is important for those recommendations that may be funded under the FEMA mitigation grant programs. To receive federal funding, the mitigation action must have a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) that exceeds one. Calculation of the BCR is conducted using FEMA's Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) toolkit. The calculation may be complex, varying with the mitigation action of interest, and is dependent on detailed information such as property value appraisals, design and construction costs for structural projects, and tabulations of previous damages or NFIP claims.

Although it is beyond the scope of this plan to develop precise BCRs for each recommendation, the likelihood of receiving funding is estimated for each recommendation as presented in Appendix A. When pursuing grants for selected projects, this information can be used to help select the projects that have the greatest chance of successfully navigating through the application review process.

1.6 Documentation of the Planning Process

Mr. John Henningson of the Guilford Harbor Management Commission coordinated the development of this HMP through a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee convened for the

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-15

purpose of developing the plan. The development of the plan was funded through a PDM planning grant received from FEMA via the Connecticut DEEP.

Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) developed the subject plan working with the Pre- Disaster Mitigation Committee. The following individuals from Guilford provided information, data, studies, reports, photographs, and observations and were involved in the development of the Plan through their membership on the committee:

Mr. John Henningson, Harbor Management Commission and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee Mr. Hank Graver, Marina Commission and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee Mr. Dave North, Planning and Zoning Commission and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee Mr. Sam Bartlett, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee Ms. Joan Stettbacher, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee Mr. Bernie Lombardi, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee Ms. Bunny Logan, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee Mr. Sid Gale, Adjunct to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee

Ms. Jennifer Allcock, a former resident and member of the Guilford Conservation Commission, was initially on the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee but relocated out of state during the initial stages of the Plan development.

An extensive data collection, evaluation, and outreach program was undertaken to compile information about existing hazards and mitigation in the Town as well as to identify areas that should be prioritized for hazard mitigation. Appendices B through D contain copies of meeting minutes, the public information meeting presentation, and other records that document the development of this Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. The following is a list of meetings that were held as well as other efforts to develop this HMP:

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-16

A project kickoff meeting with the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee was held August 24, 2010 at Town Hall. The scope of the project was overviewed, and a gathering of necessary information began. Meeting minutes are attached in Appendix B.

Field reconnaissance was conducted on October 1, 2010. Observations were made of problem areas within the Town based on preliminary correspondence with local officials.

A project meeting with Town department heads was held on September 7, 2010. Necessary documentation was collected, and problem areas within the Town were discussed. Meeting minutes are attached in Appendix B.

A public information meeting was held September 23, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. The project was presented and public comments solicited. The newspaper announcements, a copy of the Town's website announcement, a copy of the presentation, and the sign-in sheet are provided in Appendix C.

Coastal Resiliency Program meetings coordinated by The Nature Conservancy were attended on December 13, 2010, March 3, 2011, and July 28, 2011. During these meetings, The Nature Conservancy provided updates on its Coastal Resiliency Program in general and as related to a Guilford case study. Members of the Town Planning Department, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee, and MMI attended these meetings.

Monthly meetings of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee were held in September, October, and November 2010 and January through August 2011. These meetings were announced through municipal notices and were all open to the public. The committee reviewed the plan progress and related issues during these meetings. Meeting minutes are attached in Appendix B.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-17

A second public information meeting was held September 13, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. The draft Plan was presented and public comments solicited. The newspaper announcements, a copy of the Town's website announcement, a copy of the presentation, and the sign-in sheet are provided in Appendix D.

The adoption of this Plan in the Town was coordinated by the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee and conducted by the Board of Selectmen. The Approvable Pending Adoption (APA) notice from FEMA was received on April 3, 2012. The Board of Selectmen meeting to discuss the plan was held on May 21, 2012. The Board of Selectmen public hearing to adopt the plan was held on June 4, 2012. The resolution is included in Appendix L.

Public Involvement

Residents, business owners, and other stakeholders of Guilford, neighboring communities, and local and regional agencies were invited to the two public information meetings via information posted on the Town website and in three newspapers: the New Haven Register (daily), the Guilford Courier (weekly), and the Shoreline Times (weekly). A press release described the planning process in these newspapers. Copies of these announcements are included in Appendices C and D as noted above.

Similarly, a number of private community organizations and individuals known to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee to have experienced flood damage within the Town were invited to the public meeting(s) via a mailed/emailed copy of the press release that announced the public information meetings. The invited neighborhood organizations were as follows:

Point of Rocks (Guilford Point) Association Indian Cove Association

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-18

Old Quarry Association Sachems Head Association Leetes Island Association Tuttles Point Association Vineyard Association Mulberry Point Association Little Harbor Association Great Harbor/Trolley Road Association Guilford Lakes Association Seaside/Whitfield South Wingate Association Guilford Property Owners Association

A total of 13 people attended the initial public meeting on September 23, 2010, representing residents, municipal officials, and members of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee. In addition, two attendees represented the press (New Haven Register and Shore Publishing). Approximately 25 people attended the second public meeting on September 13, 2011.

Final opportunities for the public to review the Plan were implemented in advance of the May 21, 2012 meeting to discuss the plan and the June 4, 2012 public hearing to adopt this Plan. The draft that was sent for FEMA review was posted on the Town website (www.ci.guilford.ct.us/) and was made available in the Guilford Free Libraryand Town Hall during April and May 2012, providing residents a final opportunity for public review and comment.

If any final Plan modifications result from the comment period leading up to and including the public hearing to adopt the Plan on June 4, 2012, these will be submitted to FEMA as page revisions with a cover letter explaining the changes. It is not anticipated that any modifications will occur at this phase of the project.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 1-19

2.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE

2.1 Physical Setting

The Town is located on the north shore of Long Island Sound and has approximately 15 miles of shoreline. The town stretches about 13 miles in length north to south and has a width of three miles resulting in a land area of roughly 47 square miles. Faulkner's Island (part of the Stuart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge) is located three miles off the Guilford shoreline and is part of the Town along with many other smaller, uninhabited islands just off the Guilford shoreline. Refer to Figure 2-1 for a map showing the regional location of Guilford.

Guilford is located in southeastern New Haven County and borders the municipalities of Madison to the east, Durham to the north, and Branford and North Branford to the west. The Town is one of 27 municipalities that comprise New Haven County. Guilford was first settled in 1639 by a group of English Puritans. The Town is currently one of the 15 municipalities that comprise the South Central Regional Council of Governments (SCRCOG).

The topography of Guilford increases in elevation moving from the shoreline inland toward the Durham town boundary at the north. A significant decrease in developed land cover density is evident north of I-95 in comparison to the south. Farmland cover is most widespread north of I-95 within Guilford. Nonetheless, farmlands exist both to the north and to the south of I-95, which indicates that productive agricultural soils exist in the Town.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-1

Figure 2-1

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-2

2.2 Existing Land Use

According to the University of Connecticut Center for Land Use Education and Research (CLEAR), land use in Guilford includes but is not limited to agriculture, deciduous and coniferous forests, tidal wetlands, open water, and developed land cover. Guilford is a rural suburban town generally characterized by an increasing population since the advent of the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) in 1956. Both residential and commercial development increased following the establishment of I-95.

Table 2-1 summarizes the Town's 2006 land cover data, which was derived from satellite imagery. According to this data, just over half of the Town's approximately 47 square miles is forested.

TABLE 2-1 Land Cover by Area (2006)

Land Cover Area (acres) Percent of Town Deciduous Forest 15,925.56 52.91 Developed 5,159.85 17.14 Agricultural Field 1,571.54 5.22 Water 588.82 1.96 Coniferous Forest 1,424.21 4.73 Turf & Grass 1,976.24 6.57 Forested Wetland 1,487.26 4.94 Other Grasses 486.29 1.61 Barren 144.48 0.48 Non-Forested Wetland 86.18 0.29 Tidal Wetland 1,172.59 3.90 Utility ROWs (Forest) 74.48 0.25 Total 30,097.50 100

Source: UCONN Center for Land Use Education and Research (CLEAR)

Figure 2-2 presents generalized land uses based on the 2006 land cover data. Areas shown as turf and grass are maintained grasses such as residential and commercial lawns or golf courses.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-3

Figure 2-2

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-4

The far northern and eastern areas of Guilford are predominantly forested. Agricultural land use areas are spread throughout the Town. Although residential land uses are interspersed throughout Guilford, higher density residential uses are situated near Guilford Harbor and the East and West Rivers as previously mentioned. Numerous neighborhoods that border the shoreline in Guilford are private. These private neighborhoods include Tuttles Point, Sachems Head, Mulberry Point, Indian Cove, Little Harbor, and Wingate. The area of the Town Green, located between Broad Street and Boston Street, hosts numerous commercial businesses along with Town Hall and the Guilford Free Library.

2.3 Geology

Geology is important to the occurrence and relative effects of natural hazards such as earthquakes. Thus, it is important to understand the geologic setting and variation of bedrock and surficial formations in Guilford. The following discussion highlights Guilford's geology at several regional Bedrock Geology scales. Geologic information discussed in

the following section was acquired in Connecticut bedrock geology is comprised of several "terranes." Geographic Information System (GIS) Terranes are geologic regions that format from the United States Geological reflect the role of plate tectonics in Connecticut's natural history. Survey and the Connecticut DEEP.

Guilford lies almost entirely in the landscape region of Connecticut called the "Coastal Slope," a zone that begins approximately 12 miles north of the coastline and extends toward the continental shelf. In this zone, the plane of hilltop elevation decreases at a slope of about 50 feet per mile, about twice the slope of zones further inland. Hilltop elevations near Guilford's northern border typically range from 400 to 500 feet above sea level. The northwest portion of the Town technically lies outside the "Coastal Slope" and is part of the Central Valley landscape region. The highest hilltop elevation within Town is 720 feet and is located within the Central Valley landscape region in the northwest

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-5

portion of town. At the northeastern end of Totoket Mountain, in the area of Bluff Head, 420 feet of vertical relief relative to the nearby Coginchaug River valley is found at this location. In comparison, the Town center lies just 20 feet above sea level. The West River valley, Guilford's largest drainage basin, drops from Lake Quonnipaug (elevation 180 feet) to sea level at a slope averaging 25 feet per mile.

In terms of North American bedrock geology, Guilford is located in the northeastern part of the Appalachian Orogenic Belt, also known as the Appalachian Highlands, which extend from Maine southward to Mississippi and Alabama. The Appalachian Highlands were formed when Pangaea assembled during the late Paleozoic era. The region is generally characterized by deformed sedimentary rocks cut through by numerous thrust faults.

Guilford contains various bedrock types, which lie in fairly diagonal bands. The western boundary of Town accounts for 12 different bedrock zone types. Bedrock maps are generalized, so many borders between rock types are approximate. The various bedrock types are depicted in Figure 2-3. Table 2-2 lists the bedrock geology within Guilford.

TABLE 2-2 Bedrock Geology

Area Percent of Formation (acres) Town Plainfield Formation, Stony Creek Granite, and Narragansett Pier Granite undivided 2,896.41 9.61 Quartzite unit in Plainfield Formation, Stony Creek Granite Gneiss, and Narragansett Pier Granite undivided 522.22 1.73 Stony Creek Granite Gneiss and Narragansett Pier Granite undivided 1,133.76 3.76 Waterford Group and Branford Gneiss undivided 0.03 0.00 Waterford Group, Stony Creek Granite Gneiss, and Narragansett Pier Granite undivided 843.38 2.80 Buttress Dolerite 218.52 0.72 Collins Hill Formation 4,935.14 16.37 East Berlin Formation 2,830.75 9.39 Hampden Basalt 327.78 1.09

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-6

TABLE 2-2 (Continued) Bedrock Geology

Area Percent of Formation (acres) Town Holyoke Basalt 2,151.02 7.14 Metavolcanic member of Collins Hill Formation 212.46 0.70 Middletown Formation 8,220.25 27.27 Monson Gneiss 2,665.54 8.84 Portland Arkose 596.61 1.98 Shuttle Meadow Formation 197.63 0.66 Talcott Basalt 215.25 0.71 Waterford Group 1549.02 5.14 Unmapped 627.27 2.08 Total 30,143.04 100%

Source: Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection GIS Data

As shown numerically in Table 2-2 and visually in Figure 2-4, the Middletown Formation dominates the bedrock geology of Guilford. The Middletown Formation is a heterogeneously interlayered dark- to light-gray, generally medium-grained gneiss and granofels, ranging from quartz-biotite gneiss through felsic amphibole gneiss to amphibolites and characteristically containing anthophyllite with or without hornblende. Additionally, layers of calc-silicate rock and biotite gneiss with quartz-sillimanite nodules are present. The Middletown Formation is of the Middle Ordovician age.

The next three largest formations in order from largest to smallest are:

Collins Hill Formation: This formation is composed of gray, rusty-weathering, medium-to-coarse grained schist.

Plainfield Formation, Stony Creek Granite, and Narragansett Pier Granite undivided: Consists of an interlayered thinly bedded quartzite, mica schist, and dark-gray gneiss, and granite.

East Berlin Formation: Comprised of reddish-brown silty shale.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-7

Figure 2-3 (Bedrock Geology)

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-8

Figure 2-4 suficial

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-9

One main fault, the "Eastern Border Fault," is orientated from southwest to north- northeast above Connecticut State Route 80 in Guilford. Upon reaching Connecticut State Route 77, the fault and the roadway generally follow one another to the north- northeast into Durham. The Eastern Border Fault was created following the spreading of the Atlantic Ocean during the The amount of stratified drift present in the middle of the Mesozoic Era. The Town is important as areas of stratified materials are generally coincident with Eastern Border Fault stretches 130 inland floodplains. These materials were miles from New Haven, Connecticut deposited at lower elevations by glacial streams, and these valleys were later to Keene, New Hampshire. The inherited by the larger of our present day fault is classified as "FH," a high streams and rivers. However, the smaller glacial till watercourses throughout Guilford angle fault that is mostly Jurassic can also cause flooding. and is currently inactive. There are The amount of stratified drift also has three short "stem" faults that branch bearing on the relative intensity of off the Eastern Border Fault. These earthquakes and the likelihood of soil subsidence in areas of fill. faults are classified as "F" faults.

Glaciers began forming in the northern hemisphere about three million years ago. Since then, the southernmost portions of these glaciers covered Guilford on at least two occasions. At the end of the ice age, the last of the glaciers' mineral holdings were released with the melting ice. Guilford's different formations born of bedrock while exposed to hydrological, atmospheric, and glacial processes include glacial till, stratified drift, rivers and lakes, outwash plains, and coastal formations. Refer to Table 2-3 and Figure 2-4 for a depiction of surficial geology.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-10

TABLE 2-3 Surficial Geology

Area Percent of Surficial Material (acres) Town Alluvium 14.18 0.05 Alluvium overlying sand and gravel 226.05 0.75 Alluvium overlying sand and gravel overlying sand 44.89 0.15 Beach 4.24 0.01 Fines 86.38 0.29 Salt marsh and estuarine deposits 1,081.54 3.58 Sand 835.82 2.77 Sand and gravel 2,515.06 8.32 Sand and gravel overlying fines 18.73 0.06 Sand and gravel overlying sand 62.96 0.21 Sand and gravel overlying sand overlying fines 154.52 0.51 Sand overlying fines 42.08 0.14 Swamp 364.98 1.21 Talus 65.20 0.22 Thick till 1,508.01 4.99 Till 22,793.41 75.44 Water 397.50 1.32 Total 30,215.55 100%

Source: Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection GIS Data

As shown above, both in acreage and percent coverage, Guilford is covered primarily by glacial till; 80.43% of the Town is covered by either "till" or "thick till." Till contains an unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders deposited by glaciers as a ground moraine. Till is present from the shoreline of the Long Island Sound north to Guilford's Town boundary with Durham. Two narrow sand and gravel stratified drift deposit corridors follow the general paths of the East and West Rivers in Guilford and make up the predominant remaining land coverage in Town. Also apparent on Figure 2- 5, sand and salt marsh deposits are dominant along the coastline of Long Island Sound.

In terms of soil types, Guilford is diverse. The Town's most common soil types are those that make up the Charlton-Chatfield complex, the Holyoke-Rock outcrop complex, and

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-11

the Cheshire-Holyoke complex. The remaining approximately 52% of Guilford contains the other various soils that are listed in Table 2-4. Approximately 28% of Guilford is covered by soils listed as being either "Prime Farmland Soils" or "Additional CT Important Farmland Soils." The remaining approximately 72% of Town consists of the many other rocky soils, various sandy loams, silt loams, wetland soils, urban land, and others listed in Table 2-4. 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 glaciated plains, hills, and ridges. The soil is often stony or very stony. Slope ranges from 3% to 45%. Crystalline bedrock is at depths of 20 to 40 inches. Saturated hydraulic conductivity is moderately high to high in the mineral soil.

The Holyoke-Rock outcrop complex soils are characterized as being shallow to moderately deep in their depths to bedrock. The parent material of the soils is loamy eolian deposits over melt-out till derived from basalt and/or sandstone and shale. The soils are well drained with the permeability being moderate, available water capacity low, and extremely acidic to moderately acidic.

The Cheshire-Holyoke complex includes the following:

o The Cheshire soils are typically very deep and well drained, and their parent material is coarse-loamy melt-out till derived from basalt and/or sandstone and shale. o Additionally, Cheshire soils typically have moderate to moderately rapid permeability, a high capacity of water availability, a very strong acid to

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-12

moderately acid reaction, a depth of greater than 72 inches to a restrictive feature, a depth of greater than six feet to the seasonal water table, and no flooding. o The Holyoke soils are typically shallow to moderately deep and are also typically well drained. The soils are extremely acid to moderately acid in their reaction, and the depth to restrictive feature is 10 to 20 inches to bedrock (lithic). o Holyoke soils are also derived from loamy eolian deposits over melt-out till derived from basalt and/or sandstone and shale. The soils' permeability is moderate, and they have a low available water capacity. The depth to seasonal water table is greater than six feet, and there is no flooding.

TABLE 2-4 Soil Classifications

Area Percentage of Soil Type (acres) Town Agawam fine sandy loam 449.89 1.57 Bash silt loam 138.12 0.48 Beaches-Udipsamments complex, coastal 25.55 0.09 Belgrade silt loam 1.00 0.00 Branford-Holyoke complex 8.77 0.03 Branford silt loam 358.86 1.25 Canton and Charlton soils 938.36 3.28 Catden and Freetown soils 429.69 1.50 Charlton-Chatfield complex 4,997.93 17.46 Cheshire-Holyoke complex 3,860.42 13.49 Cheshire fine sandy loam 315.80 1.10 Deerfield loamy fine sand 34.08 0.12 Dumps 3.07 0.01 Ellington silt loam 110.56 0.39 Gloucester gravelly sandy loam 2.15 0.01 Haven and Enfield soils 179.56 0.63 Hinckley-Urban land complex 30.04 0.10 Hinckley gravelly sandy loam 725.54 2.54 Hollis-Chatfield-Rock outcrop complex 1,763.85 6.16 Holyoke-Rock outcrop complex 4,077.17 14.25 Leicester fine sandy loam 30.33 0.11 Ludlow silt loam 677.81 2.37 Manchester gravelly sandy loam 245.25 0.86

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-13

TABLE 2-4 (continued) Soil Classifications

Area Percentage of Soil Type (acres) Town Ninigret and Tisbury soils 480.40 1.68 Paxton-Urban land complex 30.83 0.11 Paxton and Montauk fine sandy loams 561.69 1.96 Pootatuck fine sandy loam 26.93 0.09 Raynham silt loam 19.61 0.07 Raypol silt loam 279.58 0.98 Ridgebury fine sandy loam 38.09 0.13 Ridgebury, Leicester, and Whitman soils, extremely stony 105.73 0.37 Rippowam fine sandy loam 170.74 0.60 Rock outcrop-Hollis complex 21.58 0.08 Rock outcrop-Holyoke complex 196.00 0.68 Saco silt loam 17.97 0.06 Sutton-Urban land complex 1.07 0.00 Sutton fine sandy loam 365.23 1.28 Timakwa and Natchaug soils 463.38 1.62 Udorthents-Urban land complex 66.97 0.23 Udorthents, loamy, very steep 8.39 0.03 Udorthents, smoothed 166.55 0.58 Urban land 57.95 0.20 Urban land-Charlton-Chatfield complex, rocky 7.20 0.03 Walpole sandy loam 604.11 2.11 Watchaug fine sandy loam 39.56 0.14 Water 492.15 1.72 Westbrook mucky peat 1,139.96 3.98 Wethersfield loam 1,579.94 5.52 Wilbraham and Menlo soils, extremely stony 1,056.76 3.69 Wilbraham silt loam 451.59 1.58 Woodbridge-Urban land complex 14.52 0.05 Woodbridge fine sandy loam 367.18 1.28 Yalesville fine sandy loam 381.41 1.33 Total 14,972 100%

Source: 2007 Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for the State of Connecticut

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-14

2.4 Climate

Guilford has an agreeable climate characterized by moderate but distinct seasons. The mean annual temperature is approximately 51.7 degrees Fahrenheit as reported by CLRChoice, Inc. Summer temperatures rise in the mid 80s, and winter temperatures dip into the upper 20s to mid 30s as measured in Fahrenheit. Extreme conditions raise summer temperatures to near 100 degrees and winter temperatures to below zero. Additionally, according to CLRChoice, Inc., median snowfall is approximately 25 inches per year. Mean annual precipitation is 42.00 inches, normally with an increase in the spring.

By comparison, average annual statewide The continued increase in precipitation only heightens precipitation based on more than 100 years of record the need for hazard mitigation is nearly the same at 44.8 inches. However, average planning as the occurrence of floods may change in annual precipitation in Connecticut has been accordance with the greater increasing by 0.95 inches per decade since the end of precipitation. the 19th century (Miller et al., 1997; NCDC, 2005). An extremity within this trend was the winter of 2010-2011, which saw upwards of 80 inches of snow fall on parts of Connecticut. Likewise, total annual precipitation in the Town has increased over time. The increase in precipitation, along with sea level rise, must be accounted for in Guilford's planning.

2.5 Drainage Basins and Hydrology

Guilford is divided among eight subregional watersheds as shown in Figure 2-5. Seven of the eight total drainage basins either directly or indirectly drain to Long Island Sound. Streams in the extreme northern part of Town drain into the Coginchaug River, which flows northerly to the Mattabesset River, a primary tributary of the Connecticut River.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-15

Figure 2-5

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-16

Streams flowing through the majority of the eastern portion of Guilford flow into the East River, which eventually discharges into Long Island Sound just to the west of the Guilford Town boundary with Madison in Guilford's southeastern corner. The East River is formed by the confluence of Little Meadow Brook and the Guilford Lakes outflow. Iron Stream flows into the upper Guilford Lake; its headwaters are located in the northern portion of the town of Madison. The headwaters of Little Meadow Brook are located just east of Lake Quonnipaug (described below) in the North Guilford section of Town. The main tributary of Little Meadow Brook is Hall Lot Brook. Hall Lot Brook begins in the vicinity of Race Hill Road, also in North Guilford.

Streams throughout central Guilford flow into the West River, which discharges directly into Long Island Sound alongside Chaffinch Island State Park. The West River begins as the outflow of Lake Quonnipaug in North Guilford. Lake Quonnipaug has several unnamed tributary streams and one named tributary, Sucker Brook.

After flowing from Lake Quonnipaug, the West River is joined by numerous tributary streams including the outflow from Menuckatuck Reservoir (one of the sources of public water supply to South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority), Schoolhouse Brook, Spinning Mill Brook, and many unnamed brooks. Lanes Pond (one of the sources of public water supply to the town of Wallingford) and Beaver Head Swamp are located in the subwatershed of Menuckatuck Reservoir and are therefore tributary to the West River.

Streams along the western part of Town drain to the Farm River, the Branford River, or the South Central Shoreline, all of which drain directly into Long Island Sound. Munger Brook begins west of North Guilford and flows into the town of North Branford. West Lake and Cedar Lake, both located in Guilford, are tributary to Munger Brook. Further south, Wolf Swamp and Tower Swamp are both tributary to Hoadley Creek. Hoadley Creek flows into Long Island Sound near the Guilford/Branford boundary.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-17

On the other side of Town, the Neck River forms a short segment of the eastern boundary of Guilford. Neck River has very few tributaries in Guilford, and it joins the East River estuary in the town of Madison.

Sluice Creek is a notable coastal stream in southern Guilford. Sluice Creek begins in two general areas, Guilford center and northeast of Guilford center. The two branches come together in the vicinity of the railroad tracks where they are already tidally influenced. Sluice Creek joins Long Island Sound at the Guilford Harbor.

2.6 Population and Demographic Setting

Demographic trends for the Town are similar to many other communities in Connecticut and are closely tied to the state's economy. Located approximately 15 miles to the west of Guilford, the city of New Haven plays a role in the Town's demographics and population. According to the Census Bureau's 2009 population estimate, the Town was the 68th largest municipality of Connecticut's 169 municipalities. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Guilford had a year-round population of 21,398 people. The recently released 2010 census data reveals a population of 22,375, an increase of approximately 1,000 persons since Census 2000.

The suburbanization that characterized the United States after World War II from the late 1940s through the 1970s, with the construction of new roads (in particular the Connecticut Turnpike or I-95) and the enhanced availability of the automobile and federally funded housing programs, yielded a boost in population size in Guilford. The completion of I-95 in Connecticut in 1956 played a major role in the increase of Guilford's year-round population from 5,100 in 1950 to 8,000 in 1960. This increasing population trend has been and continues to be evident in Guilford and many other areas subject to metropolitan expansion along the eastern seaboard since the 1940s.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-18

Following the explosion in population after the completion of the Connecticut Turnpike, Guilford's population has seen a continuous increase in total amount. The rate increase in total population was somewhat curbed in the 1980s and 1990s when Guilford established the four-acre-minimum lot size in the R-8 Residential Zone. Since 1978, which established the R-8 Residential Zone minimum lot size, Guilford's population has increased approximately 20%.

According to Census 2000, approximately 25% of the population of Guilford was under 18 years of age, 61% was between the ages of 18 and 64, and only 13% was 65 years and older. These figures have not yet been released for Census 2010. The estimated current population density of Guilford is approximately 475 people per square mile. However, Guilford Center and the neighborhoods south of I-95 are home to more residents than other areas in the community. Population density by census block is illustrated in Figure 2-6.

According to the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management (OPM), the projected Town population in 2020 is 23,200. While these projections are somewhat outdated, they reveal a relatively slow growth in the coming years.

Guilford has small populations of people who are elderly and/or posses disabilities. These are depicted by census blocks in Figures 2-7 and 2-8. Not surprisingly, the more populated census block groups include a higher percentage of individuals who may require special assistance or different means of notification before and during natural hazards. These needs will be discussed in subsequent sections.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-19

Figure 2-6

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-20

Figure 2-7

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-21

Figure 2-8

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-22

2.7 Development Trends

Similar to many coastal communities in the United States, residential development in Guilford is concentrated along the shoreline. This is the typically the case for business development within Guilford also.

Almost all developable parcels south of I-95 have been developed to date. Low-density development has occurred north of I-95. Similar to residential and commercial development trends across the state and the rest of the United States, Guilford has seen a virtual halt in development during the economic hardships over the past few years beginning in 2008. As of September 27, 2010, a number of subdivisions have unbuilt lots as follows (with total numbers of lots also noted):

Andrew's Ridge – Route 77, 18 lots, 8 lots unbuilt Bluff Head Section 9 – Blue Hills Drive, 7 lots, 7 lots unbuilt Cambridge – South Hoop Pole Road, 6 lots, 4 lots unbuilt Chestnut Grove – West Lake Avenue, 16 Lots, 4 lots unbuilt River Meadow – White Birch Drive, 5 lots, 3 lots unbuilt Sparview – Route 146, 3 lots, 2 lots unbuilt Woodruff Gardens – Long Hill Road, 15 lots, 5 lots unbuilt Northern Heights – Crooked Hill Road, 35 lots, 23 lots unbuilt Raymond – Little Meadow Road, 8 lots, 4 lots unbuilt Brookview – North Madison Road, 6 lots, 1 lot unbuilt East Bear House Hill Estates – East Bearhouse Hill Road, 18 lots, 4 lots unbuilt Pine Grove & Bill Rogers – Tanner Marsh Road, 23 lots, 14 lots unbuilt Gorfein/West Lake Estates – West Lake Avenue, 11 lots, 4 lots unbuilt Mountain View Planned Residential Development – Route 77, 7 lots, 7 lots unbuilt Benton's Knoll at Sachems Head – Colonial Road, 14 lots, 14 lots unbuilt

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-23

Most of these developments are scattered across Guilford rather than concentrated in a few discrete areas. None are located within inland or coastal floodplains.

A small handful of commercial developments have been proposed in recent years, including retail stores. These are generally located along the Route 1 corridor running west to east through the southern portion of Guilford. None have been proposed within inland or coastal floodplains.

2.8 Governmental Structure

The Town is managed by a Board of Selectmen. The Board of Selectmen oversees many of the municipal departments, commissions, and boards and is directly responsible for appointing members of many commissions and boards. Many municipal departments, commissions, and boards are involved with natural hazard mitigation. The following subsections describe general departmental responsibilities, and duties related to natural hazard mitigation. Where applicable, one or more of the six types of mitigation (prevention, property protection, natural resource protection, structural projects, emergency services, and public education) are identified as relevant for each department.

Public Works Department and Commission

This Public Works Department is under the general supervision of the First Selectman. The department is responsible for planning, organizing, and administering the public works operations as well as managing the public works staff and budget. Responsibilities include directing highway construction and maintenance procedures.

As is common throughout Connecticut, the Public Works Department is often charged with implementing numerous structural projects that are related to hazard mitigation. Specifically, roadway/infrastructure maintenance and complaint logging/tracking are the two primary duties of the Public Works Department. For example, the Public Works

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-24

Department tracks, plans, prepares for, and responds to flooding, inundation, and/or erosion of roads and infrastructure such as the sewer pumping station and the wastewater treatment plants. The Public Works Department also conducts snow removal and deicing on roads; tree and tree limb removal in rights-of-way; and maintains and upgrades storm drainage systems to prevent flooding caused by rainfall.

Because of the duties described above, the Public Works Department is often the de facto first responder during emergencies. The Public Works Department must maintain access for the Police and Fire Departments to respond to emergencies.

The Public Works Commission is appointed by the Board of Selectmen. This commission is charged with the following:

Management and oversight of the Public Works Department

Development of a proposed budget estimating anticipated expenditures and revenues for the operations of the Public Works Commission for each fiscal year

Review of the Town's needs with respect to public works and making such recommendations to the Board of Selectmen and other Town agencies and departments as it deems appropriate

Establishment of regulations for the effective operation of the Public Works Department including the duties of the department and its superintendent or director with respect to construction and maintenance of Town buildings, highways, sidewalks, sewers and drains, the care of trees and grounds, collection and disposal of garbage and rubbish, and maintenance of apparatus and equipment used by the Department of Public Works

Review and approval of the department's maintenance and care of school buildings and grounds as requested by the Board of Education and to be charged to Board of Education appropriations

Review and approval of the department's maintenance and care of beaches and parks on request of the Parks and Recreation Commission

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-25

Review and approval of the department's maintenance and repair of such other apparatus and equipment as may be used by other agencies or departments of the Town upon request of such agencies or departments

Building and Engineering Department

The Building Official administers the Town's building inspection program adhering to and enforcing all code requirements of the State of Connecticut relating to building construction. Additional responsibilities include administering and enforcing all related state codes for the safety, health, and welfare of persons and properties in Town, supervising departmental policies and procedures, and providing technical assistance to Town officials.

The Building Official has a unique responsibility when it comes to hazard mitigation as he or she is responsible for overseeing a number of codes such as those related to wind damage prevention as well as those related to inland and coastal flood damage prevention. Although other departments and commissions may review development plans and develop or revise regulations, many important types of pre-disaster mitigation are funneled through and enforced by the Building Department. For example, the Building Department enforces A- and V-zone standards for floodproof construction and building elevations, maintains elevation certificates, and enforces building codes that protect against wind and fire damage. Thus, the types of mitigation that are administered by the Building Department include prevention and property protection.

The Town Engineer plans, directs, and coordinates engineering contracts and construction projects, including bridges, sanitary, and marine development. This official provides technical consultation to Town boards and commissions and serves as Town liaison with various state agencies. As such, the Town Engineer will often need to review issues related to drainage, flood conveyance, and flood mitigation and related elements of structural hazard mitigation.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-26

Fire Department and Emergency Management Agency

The Fire Department is the primary agency involved with hazard mitigation through emergency services and public education. The mission of the Guilford Fire Department is "to provide the highest quality fire protection, emergency medical services, fire prevention, safety education, community services, and mitigation of emergency and non- emergency incidents for the citizens and visitors to the town of Guilford."

Chapter 27 of the Town of Guilford Code establishes a Civil Preparedness Agency. The Director of Civil Preparedness shall be a staff person reporting directly to the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Guilford and shall be primarily responsible for the planning and coordination of disaster emergency operations. According to the Town Code, the director's duties may include but will not necessarily be limited to the following:

Planning for specific and general emergencies that involve one or more town departments or agencies and/or that overload normal resources

Recruiting and/or training volunteers and town employees to operate within the context of civil preparedness

Coordination with the State Office of Civil Preparedness on all matters pertaining to civil preparedness

Procurement and/or coordination of such facilities, equipment, and supplies as are required

Preparation of required reports, procedures, and other necessary paperwork to ensure that the town receives all possible funding, equipment, assistance, and other benefits available to the town through state and federal civil preparedness agencies

In the event of disaster as declared by the Governor of the State of Connecticut or the President of the United States, the acting Chief Executive Officer or the Board of

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-27

Selectmen, as available, may assume complete command of all local government functions and facilities, including public schools and personnel.

The Town implements the provisions of Chapter 27 of the code through the Emergency Management Agency. The Fire Chief is the director of the Emergency Management Agency. The Town of Guilford EOP was most recently updated in 2007. The EOP articulates the composition of the Emergency Management Agency as follows: Director (appointed by First Selectman), First Selectman, Health Director, Police Chief, Superintendent of Schools, Public Works Director, Town Engineer, Communications Supervisor, and Director of Parks and Recreation.

The Emergency Management Agency meets as needed. For example, the agency met in September 2010 before Hurricane Earl's anticipated landfall. At that time, the agency issued the following statement via the Town website (refer to Appendix E for a copy):

"Currently our area is under a tropical storm warning. Listen to local television or radio stations for the latest updates. Our Emergency Departments are on standby and ready to go into action if necessary. If an emergency shelter is required, the community center will be open. If evacuations become necessary and you have pets, contact the Animal Shelter at 453-8083. As a precaution have at least two days of necessary supplies stockpiled."

Police Department

Day-to-day duties of the Police Department include crime prevention, criminal investigations, traffic enforcement, motor vehicle accident investigations, and patrols. Duties related to natural hazard mitigation include planning and coordination of personnel, equipment, shelters, and other resources necessary during an emergency. The types of mitigation that are directly administered by the Police Department include mainly emergency services and public education. Communication and coordination with the Fire Department is critical before, during, and after natural hazard emergencies.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-28

Planning Department

The Town Planner is managed by the Office of the First Selectman. The Town Planner is responsible for managing the Planning and Zoning and Inland/Wetlands staff. The planning office provides assistance to the Health Department and Building and Engineering Departments and is responsible for housing and economic development planning. The Zoning Enforcement Officer/Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer enforces the zoning regulations and is the administrator of the inland wetlands regulations and coastal site plan decisions on issues of zoning compliance.

Because the Planning Department assists the applicable commissions with administration of the Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, and Inland Wetland Regulations (described below in Section 2.8), the department is responsible for elements of almost all six facets of mitigation (prevention, property protection, natural resource protection, structural projects, emergency services, and public education).

Commissions Related to Hazard Mitigation

In addition to the Public Works Commission and Emergency Management Committee described above, numerous commissions are involved with hazard mitigation:

Conservation Commission – Charged with the development, conservation, supervision, and regulation of natural resources and water resources (hazard mitigation through natural resource protection)

Harbor Management Commission – Charged with the duty and purpose of developing a Harbor and Waterways Management Plan for Guilford (hazard mitigation through prevention, property protection, structural projects, emergency services, and public education)

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-29

Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission – Charged with implementing and enforcing all provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes as regards the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act (hazard mitigation through prevention, natural resource protection, and structural projects)

Land Acquisition Commission – Charged with determining and recommending to the Board of Selectmen the feasibility of acquiring land, development rights, and conservation easements and prioritizing properties for acquisition by the Town (hazard mitigation through natural resource protection)

Marina Commission – Charged with the control, development, management, operation, and maintenance of the Town marina (hazard mitigation through property protection and emergency services)

Planning and Zoning Commission – Charged with establishing, implementing, and overseeing planning and zoning regulations as provided by the Connecticut General Statutes (hazard mitigation through prevention, property protection, natural resource protection, structural projects, emergency services, and public education)

Pre-Disaster Plan Mitigation Oversight Committee – Formed to develop the subject plan and pursue HMA project grants

Flood and Erosion Control Board

Like many Connecticut municipalities, the Town is enabled to appoint a Flood and Erosion Control Board. These boards were created pursuant to the authority of Public Act No. 509 of the General Assembly, now Sections 25-84 through 25-94 of the Connecticut General Statutes. The duties of the Flood and Erosion Control Board are carried out by the Inland Wetlands Commission.

2.9 Review of Existing Plans

The Town has an active planning process through numerous boards and commissions, the results of which are evident by the numerous plans and reports available to the public.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-30

Many of these plans and reports address elements of hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness.

Master Plan for Preservation and Scenic Conservation (1995)

The Master Plan for Preservation and Scenic Conservation was developed under the direction of the Guilford Preservation Alliance (GPA) in the 1980s and revised in 1995. Since the GPA is a private organization and not one of the Town's official boards or commissions, this plan is not an official document adopted by the Town.

The plan included a review of early versions of the Comprehensive Plan of Development and Conservation (1978) and Open Space Plan (1984) existing at the time. Although it is consistent with some of the plans and documents described below, many of its recommendations are in conflict with the Town's official plans for economic development. The Master Plan for Preservation and Scenic Conservation called for purchase of tidal marshes north of the marina, portions of the East and West River estuaries, and portions of Joshua Cove. While these were recommended for reasons such as preservation of scenic areas, preservation of coastal areas is also a method of hazard mitigation.

Plan of Conservation and Development (2002)

The Plan of Conservation and Development was updated in 2002 with contributions from local boards and commissions, citizens, and citizen groups. The purpose of the plan is to balance growth with maintaining the quality of life that citizens within the Town embrace. The plan does not directly address pre-disaster mitigation or natural hazards. However, the Town is in the process of updating the Plan of Conservation and Development and expects to include discussion of emerging issues such as resiliency from sea level rise and associated coastal hazards.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-31

Transportation Plan (2003)

The Transportation Plan prepared by the Transportation Planning Committee is a review of existing transportation conditions and a proposal of long-term solutions to issues and/or problems identified by the committee. To the knowledge of the committee, it was the first study to cover the various modes of transportation across the entire Town. The plan takes into account ongoing growth and builds on various recommendations made in the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development. Recommendations that are potentially related to hazard mitigation include the following:

1.16. The Board of Selectmen should explore opportunities for creating a satellite public works facility north of the I-95 corridor to deploy a portion of the heavy duty equipment closer to areas of Town which it will serve. The relocation would enhance efficiency, reduce traffic in the Town's commercial center, and reduce pollution from vehicles. Such site should be large enough to absorb the entire Public Works facility as a future contingency.

2.2. The committee believes that roads are desirable in order to improve public safety by facilitating the movement of emergency vehicles when time is critical and to allow better connections between various parts of Town. The Board of Selectmen should consider the following opportunities for constructing east/west road connections as Town development patterns warrant:

2.2.1 Bullard Drive to Route 77 (contingent on developments of the middle school campus) 2.2.2 Nut Plains West, to Route 77. 2.2.3 Briarwood Road extension to Hahn Road and West Lake neighborhood. 2.2.4 Connector Road from Little Meadow Road/Hoop Pole Road to Route 77 between Route 80 and Stepstone Road. 2.2.5 Connector Road between Podunk Road and Goose Lane.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-32

2.2.6 New England Road extension to West Lake Avenue. In addition, numerous recommendations were offered to locally improve traffic movement in various areas of the Town.

Growth Management Plan (2004)

The Growth Management Strategies Plan was developed to address recommendations from the Plan of Conservation and Development. The Planning and Zoning Commission formed the Planning Committee, a group of Guilford residents and commission members to respond to the 2002 document. The committee both considered and incorporated, wherever appropriate, intentions within the Town's Plan of Conservation and Development, the Transportation Plan (2003), the Economic Development Strategic Plan (2004), and the draft Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment (2005, described below). In doing so, the report seeks to identify options that the Town can improve upon in order to promote sensible growth that improves the environment, the quality of life, and community character.

In several sections of the Growth Management Plan, the concept of subtracting floodplains from buildable areas is discussed. Elsewhere, the potential for zoning overlays over riverine systems is mentioned. These are potentially important concepts for hazard mitigation because they would result in restriction of control or development in areas subject to hazards.

Plan for Economic Development (2004)

In recognition of the increasing tax burden on Guilford's residential community and the lack of a balanced commercial tax base, the Economic Development Commission prepared a new Plan of Economic Development in 2004. This plan recognizes that Guilford's 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development states that "Developing and maintaining a strong local economy is essential to enhance the community's resources,

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-33

foster its way of life, provide employment opportunities, and support the provision of the broad amenities and services desired by Guilford's growing population." However, the Plan of Conservation and Development is not explicit in recognizing the importance of economic development. At best, economic development is alluded to within the context of providing opportunities for a population from different income strata. In order for Guilford to have economic development success in the future, the following factors are critical:

Guilford must provide adequate sites on which businesses or other capital investment can locate that will generate net tax revenue to the Town.

These sites must have reasonable zoning and necessary infrastructure.

Guilford's permit and approval process must be reasonable, fair, uniformly applied, and rapid.

These needs may be viewed as in conflict with some aspects of the foregoing preservation- and conservation-oriented plans. Regardless, the Plan for hazard mitigation must consider the need for economic development and revenues as it develops actions that may affect development plans in certain areas or are required for mitigation of hazards.

Natural Resources Inventory and Assessment (2005)

Produced by the Natural Resource Inventory Committee, the Natural Resources Inventory and Assessment establishes an information baseline toward enhancing the Town's ability to formulate sound land use decisions in regard to development, conservation, and natural resource management issues. In doing so, the report describes the natural resources within the Town, both qualitatively and quantitatively, to the extent possible with the resources available. The document locates resources geographically, describes their importance to the community, lists any threats, and describes various approaches to protect these resources. The committee itself consisted of members of the

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-34

Conservation Commission and various volunteers representing the Town's interest in the document.

As an inventory and assessment of natural resources, the Natural Resource Inventory describes many resources that are germane to hazard mitigation: inland and coastal waters and their floodplains, forests that are subject to wildfires, and trees that are vulnerable to wind damage, etc. The plan does not, however, directly address hazard mitigation.

Emergency Operations Plan (2007)

The Town EOP was most recently updated in 2007. Sections I and II of the EOP provide its purpose and assumptions. The EOP explains that residents are warned of disasters by Reverse 911, local media such as the public access television station, and drive-by announcements. Emergency medical response is provided by the Guilford Fire Department. The EOP notes that resources for evacuation, sheltering, and emergency medical services are sufficient to cope with only "moderate" level situations.

Section III of the EOP describes mitigation, increased readiness, emergency phase operations, and recovery phase operations. The EOP lists snowfall, ice storms, blizzards, hazardous material incidents, aircraft accidents, hurricanes, electrical storms, fires, fuel shortages, water contamination, and highway accidents as hazards covered by the EOP. Specific mitigation measures include the following:

1. Carry out hazard mitigation activities appropriate to the functions of departments, agencies, and offices 2. Restrict development in hazardous areas consistent with the degree of risk 3. Promote fire prevention 4. Work with commerce and industry to improve hazardous materials storage, use, transport, and disposal

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-35

5. Encourage public safety at all levels 6. Maintain a stock of sandbags 7. Develop and maintain all-hazard shelter/mass care and evacuation reference guides with predesignated evacuation and shelter facilities 8. Maintain mutual aid agreements with neighboring communities 9. Maintain a radiological protection reference guide 10. Promote professional development for emergency management and public safety personnel

Section IV of the EOP sets and describes roles and responsibilities. The Emergency Management Director coordinates with the ARC and other agencies, the Superintendent of Schools, and the Parks and Recreation Director to commence shelter operations. Roles of the Fire Department, Police Department, Health Director, Public Works Department, and Communications Director are also described.

Section V of the EOP describes administration and logistics. The Fire Department is specified to provide incident management. This section also describes the duties of the ARC and Salvation Army such as provision of food, clothing, and various types of assistance.

Section VI of the EOP describes plan maintenance. Section VII of the EOP provides various attachments, such as templates for declaring an emergency.

Land Acquisition Commission Report (2007)

The Plan for Open Space and Municipal Land Needs, developed by the Land Acquisition Commission in consultation with numerous residents of the Town, is intended to assist the Planning and Zoning Commission with future planning goals. Additionally, the report seeks to assist the Town in identifying suitable properties for acquisition if and when those properties are put up for sale. The plan lists a number of strategies for open

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-36

space conservation that are potentially applicable as hazard mitigation through protection of natural resources, especially where inland and coastal floodplains are discussed.

Town Center South Plan (2007)

Developed by the Town Center South Planning Committee, the Town Center South Plan seeks to create a mixed-use, transit-oriented, higher density neighborhood with the train station as its focal point. Most of this neighborhood lies within the coastal management area and is therefore potentially affected by coastal hazards. The draft plan seeks to effectively enhance, preserve, protect, and maintain the cultural and environmental aspects that the neighborhood currently holds. The use of public transit is both promoted and encouraged by the committee as a means of effectively balancing all public issues at hand.

The draft plan recognizes sea level rise and recommends deeper wetland and shoreline setbacks, adherence to environmentally sensitive building codes, reduction in impervious surfaces, elimination of industrial activities in the area, and allowance for coastal flooding. The draft plan recommends that new development and redevelopment in a Town Center South overlay zone be built at least one foot above FEMA flood elevations (except in the V zone, where it would be two feet).

Relocation of the Public Works facility is another important theme of the draft plan. While the draft plan recognizes that the location of this facility in a flood zone is problematic, its recommendation for mixed-use development in its place should be evaluated against the recommendations of this HMP.

Municipal Coastal Program (2008)

Guilford's Municipal Coastal Program was initially adopted in 1982 to serve as a guide to development within the coastal boundary. The program established objectives for coastal

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-37

zone use and development, articulated Town policies relative to the Connecticut Coastal Management Act, and formed the basis of the Planning and Zoning Commission's coastal site plan reviews. The Coastal Program was updated and revised in 2008. The updated Coastal Program includes a review of relevant federal, state, and local regulations and policies; a review of related state and local planning studies and documents; an overview of coastal management issues; discussions of existing land use and specific coastal issues in various coastal regions; and a presentation of recommendations.

While many of the issues and resulting recommendations were geographic in nature, it was recognized that many were broad and could affect the entire coastal management area. As a result, nine broad coastal management issues were selected to address within the coastal program update:

Tidal Wetlands

Zoning Map and Regulations

Property Taxes and Teardowns

Density, Views, and Zoning Requirements

Buffers and Setbacks

Low Impact Development

Public Access

Coastal Hazard Mitigation and Sea Level Planning

Coastal Land Acquisitions

Recommendations associated with the nine issues were likewise grouped into eight "themes" of common recommendations. Each theme has one or more policy recommendations as well as several specific recommendations in some cases. Note that one of the nine issues was "coastal hazard mitigation and sea level rise planning." Recognizing the importance of coastal hazard mitigation in Guilford, one of the recommendations of the Coastal Program was to pursue a planning grant via the PDM program to develop the subject hazard mitigation plan.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-38

Harbor Management Plan (2011)

The Harbor Management Plan was developed as enabled by Connecticut General Statutes 22a-113m and is the Harbor Management Commission's summary of issues and recommendations to the increasing and competing demands for the use and development of Guilford Harbor and the associated shoreline. The plan identifies seven types of goals for the entire Town shoreline to focus its resources upon in an attempt to effectively manage the future of the harbor's landscape. These include shoreline erosion, harbor and shoreline usage growth, speed limits, shellfisheries, moorings, increased public access, and dock facilities. Various recommendations are presented for addressing erosion, increasing public access, managing docks, and managing navigation.

The Harbor Management Plan dovetails with the goals and objectives for coastal hazard mitigation in Guilford. The goals of the Harbor Management Plan include the following:

Preserving, protecting, and enhancing the scenic and historic vistas through minimizing or eliminating the visual impacts caused by docks and other shoreline structures.

Managing uses within the coastal boundary through planning, zoning, and other local regulatory authority, giving highest priority and preference to water-dependent uses and facilities in shoreline areas.

Promoting appropriate facilities for all types of recreational boating including marinas, rack storage, moorings for local and transient vessels, and trails and launch sites for small watercraft.

Balancing the rights of private riparian/littoral property owners with public trust rights, assuring reasonable water access to riparian property owners while maximizing the use of public trust waters to the public.

Preserving, protecting, and enhancing public access to the shoreline area including access by small watercraft including kayaks, canoes, and dinghies.

Preserving, protecting, and enhancing historic and scenic vistas and viewsheds.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-39

Preserving, protecting, and enhancing shellfish resources and habitat wherever possible.

Improving coastal water quality.

Establishing reasonable access standards in sensitive resource areas including exposed headlands, beaches, and marshes. Reasonable access may include allowing launching of small watercraft in lieu of the construction of structural facilities.

Preserving, protecting, and enhancing mooring opportunities accessible from small watercraft in order to avoid the construction of additional structural encroachments.

Preserving, protecting, and encouraging the restoration of large intact expanses of tidal marshes by minimizing or eliminating fragmentation by docks and walkways, which traverse these resources.

Minimizing or eliminating the encroachment of structures into public trust waters in order to avoid adverse impacts to critical resources and navigation.

Shoreline flood potential is discussed in Section 2.3 of the Harbor Management Plan, shoreline change is discussed in Section 5.1.2, and docks in high hazard areas are discussed in Section 5.6.2. Specific recommendations for constructing docks in high hazard areas are presented in Section 6.7.3 of the Harbor Management Plan. These recommendations are incorporated into the subject hazard mitigation plan in Section 4.0.

Section 6.1 of the Harbor Management Plan states the following: "Every reasonable, environmentally acceptable, and cost effective effort, consistent with the applicable policies and standards of the Connecticut Coastal Management Act and the CT DEEP- OLISP, should be made to reduce shoreline erosion within the boundaries of the entire Guilford shoreline." Specific recommendations for combating shoreline erosion are provided in Section 7.1 of the Harbor Management Plan. These recommendations are incorporated into the subject hazard mitigation plan in Section 4.0.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-40

2.10 Review of Existing Regulations

The Town has a number of codes and regulations on the books that fall within the categories of natural hazard mitigation known as property protection, natural resource protection, emergency services, and prevention. These regulations are incorporated into the Zoning Regulations, the Inland Wetlands Regulations, and the Subdivision regulations. Flood damage prevention is included in the Town Code. These sets of codes and regulations are presented below.

Flood Damage Prevention

Flood damage prevention is covered by Chapter 174 of the Code of the Town of Guilford. The Flood Damage Prevention Code requires the following for areas of special flood hazards:

A. New construction and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure. B. New construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. C. New construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage. D. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air-conditioning equipment, and other service facilities shall be designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. E. New and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system. F. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharges from the system into floodwaters.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-41

G. On-site waste disposal systems shall be located and constructed to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. H. Manufactured homes. (1) All manufactured homes (including recreational vehicles placed on a site for 180 consecutive days or longer) to be placed or substantially improved shall be elevated so that the lowest floor is above the base flood elevation. (2) The manufactured home shall be placed on a permanent foundation which itself is securely anchored and to which the structure is securely anchored so that it will resist flotation, lateral movement, and hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressures. Anchoring may include but not be limited to the use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. (3) The manufactured home shall be installed using methods and practices which minimize flood damage. (a) Adequate access and drainage should be provided. (b) Elevation construction standards shall include piling foundations placed no more than 10 feet apart, and reinforcement shall be provided for piers more than six feet above ground level. I. In any portion of a watercourse which is altered or relocated, the flood-carrying capacity shall be maintained. J. A structure already in compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall not be made noncompliant by any alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement to the structure.

In all areas of special flood hazard (Zones A1-30, AE, and AH) where base flood elevation data has been provided, the following provisions are required:

(1) New construction or substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated above the base flood elevation. (2) Nonresidential structures located in all A Zones may be floodproofed in lieu of being elevated, provided that, together with all attendant utilities and sanitary facilities, the

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-42

areas of the structure below the required elevation are watertight, with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, and use structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effect of buoyancy. A registered professional engineer or architect shall review and/or develop the structural design, specifications, and plans for the construction and shall certify that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with acceptable standards of practice for meeting the provisions of this subsection.

New construction or substantial improvement of elevated buildings that include fully enclosed areas formed by foundation and other exterior walls 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 in areas other than a basement:

(1) Designs for complying with this requirement must either be certified by a professional engineer or architect or meet the following minimum criteria: (a) 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 flooding shall be provided. (b) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. (c) 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. (2) Electrical, plumbing, and other utility connections are prohibited below the base flood elevation. (3) Access to the enclosed area shall be the minimum necessary to allow for parking of vehicles (garage door) or limited storage of maintenance equipment used in connection with the premises (standard exterior door) or entry to the living area (stairway or elevator).

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-43

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.

Located within areas of special flood hazard are certain areas designated as floodways. The floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of floodwaters that carry debris and potential projectiles and have erosion potential. Encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other developments, shall be prohibited unless certification by a registered professional engineer is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during occurrence of the base flood discharge. When utilizing data other than that provided by FEMA, the following standard applies: Select and adopt a regulatory floodway based on the principle that the area chosen for the regulatory floodway must be designed to carry the waters of the base flood without increasing the water surface elevation of that flood more than one foot at any one point.

Relative to coastal high hazard areas (Zones V1-30 and VE), the following provisions shall apply:

A. All new construction or substantial improvement shall be located 25 feet landward of the reach of the mean high tide. B. All new construction or substantial improvement shall be elevated so that the bottom of the lowest supporting horizontal member (excluding pilings or columns) is located no lower than the base flood elevation level, with all space below the lowest supporting member open so as not to impede the flow of water. C. All new construction or substantial improvement shall be securely anchored on pilings or columns.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-44

D. All pilings and columns and the attached structures shall be anchored to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement due to the effect of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building components. The anchoring and support system shall be designed with wind and water loading values which equal or exceed the one- hundred-year mean recurrence interval (one-percent-annual-chance floods and winds). E. A registered professional engineer or architect shall review and/or develop structural design specifications and plans for the construction and shall certify that the design, specifications, and plans for construction are in accordance with acceptable standards and are in compliance with the provisions contained in Subsections B through D. F. There shall be no fill used as structural support. Noncompacted fill may be used around the perimeter of a building for landscaping/aesthetic purposes provided that the fill will wash out from storm surge (thereby rendering the building free of obstruction) prior to generating excessive loading forces, ramping effects, or wave deflection. The Town Engineer shall approve design plans for landscaping/aesthetic fill only after the applicant has provided an analysis by an engineer, architect, and/or soil scientist which demonstrates that the following factors have been fully considered: (1) The particle composition of the fill material does not have a tendency for excessive natural compaction. (2) The volume and distribution of fill will not cause wave deflection to adjacent properties. (3) The slope of fill will not cause wave run-up or ramping. G. There shall be no alteration of sand dunes which would increase potential flood damage. H. A nonsupporting breakaway wall, latticework, or mesh screening shall be allowed below the base flood elevation provided that it is not part of the structural support of the building and is designed so as to break away, under abnormally high tides or wave action, without damage to the structural integrity of the building on which it is to be used and provided that the following design specifications are met:

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-45

(1) Design safe loading resistance of each wall shall not be less than 10 nor more than 20 pounds per square foot; or (2) If more than 20 pounds per square foot, a registered professional engineer or architect shall certify that the design wall collapse would result from a water load less than that which would occur during the base flood event, and the elevated portion of the building and supporting foundation system shall not be subject to collapse, displacement, or other structural damage due to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building components during the base flood event. Maximum wind and water loading values to be used in this determination shall each have a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (one-hundred-year mean recurrence interval). I. If breakaway walls, latticework, or screening is utilized, the resulting enclosed space shall not be designed to be used for human habitation but shall be designed to be used only for parking of vehicles, building access, or limited storage of maintenance equipment used in connection with the premises. J. Prior to construction, plans for any structures that will have breakaway walls, latticework, or screening must be submitted to the Town Engineer for approval. K. Any alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement to a structure shall not enclose the space below the lowest floor except with breakaway walls, latticework, or screening as provided for in Subsections H and I.

Relative to subdivisions in special flood hazard areas, the following requirements shall apply:

A. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage. B. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems, located and constructed to minimize flood damage. C. All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-46

D. In Zone A, base flood elevation data shall be provided for subdivision proposals and other proposed development (including manufactured home parks and subdivisions) which are five acres or 50 lots, whichever occurs first.

Zoning Regulations

In Guilford, the Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with administering the Zoning Regulations. Note that zoning is covered by Chapter 273 of the Code of the Town of Guilford.

Floodplain District

The Floodplain District is described in Section 273-6 of the Zoning Regulations. The district is an overlay zone. Regulations for this district are provided in Section 273-89. The regulations are relatively brief and essentially articulate a permitting process for new or substantially improved structures in accordance with the standards provided in Chapter 174 (the Flood Damage Prevention code, described above).

Stormwater Regulations

Stormwater requirements were strengthened in the Zoning Regulations per amendment and became effective on September 30, 2005. The amendments (found in Section 273- 75) provide required design practices and technical standards, generally following the state's Stormwater Quality Manual.

Coastal Area Overlay District

The Coastal Area Overlay District is coincident with the Coastal Area Management Boundary. Revisions to Section 273-91 of the Zoning Regulations, the Coastal Site Plan Review, and the Coastal Area Overlay District were approved on December 16, 2009 and

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-47

became effective on December 25, 2009. These revisions were promulgated as a result of the adoption of the Municipal Coastal Program in 2009. One of the objectives of revising the section of the regulations was to strengthen resiliency from coastal hazards.

In determining the acceptability of potential adverse impacts of the proposed activity described in the Coastal Site Plan on both coastal resources and future water-dependent development opportunities, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall "consider the characteristics of the site, including the location and condition of any of the coastal resources defined in Connecticut General Statutes Section 22a-93" and "consider the potential effects, both beneficial and adverse, of the proposed activity on coastal resources and future water-dependent development opportunities."

The following uses wholly or partially within the Coastal Area Overlay District, if permitted in the underlying district, shall require a Special Permit: (1) all nonresidential uses, including the expansion of existing nonresidential uses, except retail stores, offices, financial institutions, personal service establishments, and restaurants located more than 250 feet from a critical coastal resource; and (2) multifamily uses greater than two-family dwellings.

Because certain uses are found by the commission to pose an unacceptable risk of negative impacts on coastal resources, the following uses shall not be permitted within the Coastal Area Overlay District regardless of whether such uses may otherwise be permitted in the underlying district:

Foundries. Painting shops except when accessory to boat repair or to other permitted uses and when constructed in accordance with applicable state and federal requirements. Blacksmiths. Machine shops except as accessory to a permitted principal use. Sheet metal shops except as accessory to a permitted principal use.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-48

Welding shops except as accessory to a permitted principal use. Tire recapping shops. Bulky waste transfer or processing operations. Mining, deposit and/or processing of sand, gravel, rock, or other material except when subject to Connecticut DEEP regulation of processing or disposal of dredged material. Motor vehicle washing establishments. Oil storage and propane filling stations except as accessory to a water-dependent principal use, except that any legally existing oil and propane filling stations in existence as of 12/25/2009 may be continued, and may if approved by special permit, be extended and expanded provided such use does not expand outside of the lot(s) upon which it existed as of 12/25/2009.

In addition to all required front, side, and rear yard setbacks, the following minimum setbacks between a proposed structure or impervious surface and any critical coastal resources shall be required for all uses within the Coastal Area Overlay District:

TABLE 2-5 Minimum Setbacks from Coastal Resources

Development Depth1 <50 feet 50-100 feet 100-200 feet >200 feet Minimum Setback2 From: Tidal Wetland and 25 feet 35 feet 50 feet 100 feet Intertidal Flats Coastal Bluffs and 25 feet 35 feet 50 feet 50 feet Escarpments Beaches or Dunes 25 feet 35 feet 50 feet 50 feet Rocky Shorefronts 25 feet 25 feet 35 feet 50 feet

1. Development Depth – Distance between the critical coastal resource and an existing structure or impervious surface or, if the lot is unimproved, the front building line of the lot. 2. Minimum Setback – Required minimum distance between a proposed structure or impervious surface and the critical coastal resource.

Setbacks from critical coastal resources may be increased when the commission finds that the rate of erosion of the critical coastal resource or the rate of encroachment of coastal waters is likely to require a larger setback in order to protect the critical coastal resource.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-49

The commission may require the provision or protection of a vegetated buffer in order to protect and preserve coastal resources. A vegetated buffer, which is an undisturbed area of land covered with permanent stable vegetation adjacent to the resource area, is an effective method for protecting such a resource. The size of the buffer should be appropriate to the quality of the coastal resource and the extent and type of development proposed. Plantings should be salt-tolerant native species suited to the coastal resource buffer environment. Mowed lawns are not considered to be vegetated buffers. Buffer plans should be prepared by an appropriate environmental professional.

Applicants shall demonstrate that the use of low impact development ("LID") practices, as recommended in Chapter 4 of the 2004 Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual have been incorporated into the proposed project. These practices shall be required except to the extent the commission determines that strict adherence to LID practices is not practical. New and redevelopment shall minimize the creation of impervious surfaces.

Subdivision Regulations

Subdivision of land is defined in Chapter 272 of the Town of Guilford Code. In Guilford, the Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with administering Subdivision Regulations. Components of the regulations that directly or indirectly address hazard mitigation (flooding, public safety, etc.) are listed below:

Section 272-13, Part H, Flood Hazard Assurances: When the subdivision includes land within a special flood hazard area, written assurances with attendant drainage maps and calculations shall be presented as follows… that the flood-carrying capacity of any altered or relocated watercourse in the special flood hazard area will be maintained; and that any encroachment on the regulated floodway by construction of improvements or excavation, grading, or depositing of materials will not result in any

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-50

increase in flood levels in the Town during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.

Section 272-14, Part D(3), Additional Evidence: That proper provision will be made for protective flood-control measures in areas contiguous to brooks, rivers, or other bodies of water subject to flooding.

Section 272-32, Part B, Street Planning: Proposed streets and rights-of-way shall be planned in such a manner as to provide safe and convenient access….(additional design standards are provided)

Section 272-33, Part A, Pipes and Ditches: Sufficient pipes and ditches will be installed to carry existing watercourses… and to drain the proposed streets….

Section 272-33, Part C, Water Channel Lines: Building lines may be required along any stream or river for the purpose of preventing encroachment upon and constriction of the natural water channel by buildings….

Section 272-44, Fire Protection Water Supply Plans. For all subdivision applications, a fire protection water supply plan shall be submitted. Said plan shall conform to the following standards: (A) For areas served by public water, fire hydrants shall be installed at strategic locations…. Water main sizing and spacing shall be scheduled per the National Fire Protection Association standards. (B) For areas not served by public water, the following standards shall apply:

o For subdivisions of seven or more houses, at least one 30,000-gallon underground water storage tank shall be required…. o For subdivisions of fewer than seven lots, underground storage tanks are encouraged. o If any lot is more than 2,000 feet from an underground tank, additional tanks will be required to provide 2,000 feet operational length.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-51

Section 272-49, Special Flood Hazard Areas and Floodways: When the subdivision includes land in a special flood hazard area or regulated floodway, the lots, streets, drainage, and other improvements shall be reasonably safe from flood damage and shall conform to the following: (A) The lots shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within the special flood hazard area and shall be capable of use without danger from flooding or flood-related damages; (B) All utilities and facilities such as sanitary sewer systems, water supply systems, and electric and gas systems shall be located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; (C) the storm drainage required under Section 272-33 shall be designed to reduce exposure to flood hazards; and (D) Streets shall be of such elevation or shall be suitably protected as to allow reasonable emergency access during flood conditions.

Inland Wetland and Watercourses Regulations

In Guilford, the Inland Wetlands Commission is charged with administering the Inland Wetland and Watercourses Regulations. In Connecticut, wetlands are identified as related to flood hazard mitigation within the state enabling regulations, and this is often stated as such in the title section of local regulations. The same is true in the Guilford Inland Wetland and Watercourses Regulations (with underlines added for emphasis):

"The wetlands and watercourses are an interrelated web of nature essential to an adequate supply of surface and underground water; to hydrological stability and control of flooding and erosion; to the recharging and purification of groundwater; and to the existence of many forms of animal, aquatic, and plant life."

Furthermore, a "significant impact activity" is defined as an activity "which substantially diminishes the natural capacity of an inland wetland or watercourse to: support desirable fisheries, wildlife, or other biological life; prevent flooding; supply water; assimilate waste; facilitate drainage; provide recreation or open space; or perform other functions."

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-52

If a proposed activity involves a significant activity as determined by the commission and defined in Section 271-6 of these regulations, additional information based on the nature and anticipated effects of the activity, including but not limited to the following is required… "Management practices and other measures designed to mitigate the impact of the proposed activity. Such measures include, but are not limited to, plans or actions which avoid destruction or diminution of wetland or watercourse functions, recreational uses, and natural habitats or re-vegetation which prevent flooding, degradation of water quality, erosion and sedimentation, and obstruction of drainage, or which otherwise safeguard water resources."

2.11 Critical Facilities, Sheltering Capacity, and Evacuation

The Town considers that several categories of facilities are critical for these are needed to ensure that emergencies are addressed while day-to-day management of the community continues:

Emergency Services – Police and Fire Departments

Municipal Facilities – Town Hall, shelters, Public Works facility

Health Care – assisted living and other facilities

Marine Transportation – The Town marina and other marine facilities

A list of critical facilities is provided in Table 2-6 on the next page. Figure 2-9 depicts locations of critical facilities. A few notable categories of critical facilities are discussed below.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-53

TABLE 2-6 Critical Facilities

In Floodplain or Emergency In Surge Facility Address or Location Shelter? Coastal Flood Power Supply? Zones? Hazard Area? Emergency Services Police Station 390 Church Street Yes No No No Fire Headquarters 390 Church Street Yes No No No Fire Station 10 Graves Avenue Yes No No Cat. 4 Fire Station 120 Whitfield Street Yes No No Cat. 3 Fire Station 51 Water Street Yes No Yes Cat. 3 Fire Station 3087 Durham Road Yes No No No Municipal Facilities Town Hall 31 Park Street Yes No No Cat. 4 DPW Facility 47 Driveway Yes No Yes Cat. 1 Shelter: Community Center 32 Church Street Yes Yes No Cat. 4 Shelter: Guilford High School 605 New England Road No Yes No No Health Care and Senior Living Facilities Guilford House (former West Lake Lodge) 109 West Lake Avenue Yes No No No Apple Rehab. (former Fowler Convalescent) 10 Boston Post Road Yes No Yes Cat. 1-4 The Gables 201 Granite Road Yes No Yes No Yale-New Haven Shoreline Medical Center 111 Goose Lane Yes No No No Boston Terrace (senior living) 41 Boston Terrace Limited No Yes Cat. 3-4 Sachem Hollow (senior living) 310 State Street Limited No No No Guilford Court (senior living) 32 Guilford Court Limited No No No Marina and Marine Facilities Guilford Marina Old Whitfield Street No No Yes Cat. 1 East River State Boat Lunch Neck Road No No Yes Cat. 1 Brown's Boat Yard 348 Chaffinch Island No* No Yes Cat. 1 Road Guilford Boat Yard 230 Water Street No* No Yes Cat. 1

*Gas-powered lift available at these facilities

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-54

Figure 2-9 Critical Facilities

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-55

Fire and Police Department Facilities

The fire headquarters is located at 390 Church Street. Outlying fire stations are located at 10 Graves Avenue, 120 Whitfield Street, 51 Water Street, and 3087 Durham Road. Three of the fire stations are located in hurricane surge zones. The Police Department is located next to the fire headquarters on Church Street. Both buildings are located close to Interstate 95, outside flood or surge zones.

Relocation of fire stations from flood zones or hurricane surge zones is not necessarily the best use of municipal resources as long as other fire stations and critical facilities such as the public works facility (described below) are safe during disasters. However, the fire stations located in flood zones or hurricane surge zones may be upgraded via floodproofing methods to ensure that damage is limited if these facilities should be flooded.

Public Works Facilities

The Public Works facility is located in a coastal flood zone and Category 1 hurricane surge zone associated with the Sluice Creek estuary. As noted above in Section 2.9, the Transportation Plan discusses the exploration of opportunities for creating a satellite Public Works facility north of the I-95 corridor to deploy a portion of the heavy duty equipment closer to the areas of Town that it will serve. The site could be large enough to absorb the entire Public Works facility as a future contingency. Also noted in Section 2.9, the Town Center South Plan discusses the relocation of the Public Works facility to a more appropriate area outside a flood zone.

The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee believes that the Public Works facility is situated in an inappropriate location relative to hazard mitigation and disaster resiliency. A flood or hurricane surge could damage and isolate the facility, making it impossible for the Public Works Department to operate during and after a disaster.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-56

Marinas, Docks, and Boat Ramps

The Town Marina and the state boat launch site on Neck Road are considered critical facilities as they are necessary for pre-disaster operations such as removing watercraft from Long Island Sound and they serve as access points for water-based rescue efforts. The marina is located at the head of Guilford Harbor in a 100-year coastal flood zone with wave velocity hazards and the state boat launch is located on the East River estuary in a 100-year coastal flood zone. As such, limited availability should be expected during disasters.

After disasters, rapid recoveries of the marina and boat launch are imperative. However, as a result of Tropical Storm Irene, the marina and other facilities in the area sustained significant damage. Structural improvements including raising the entire bulkhead and the rip rap shore protection along the East river are critical to avoiding repetitive damage.

Several private facilities are also considered critical facilities as they may be able to support watercraft removal before disasters and then help with recovery after disasters. These include Brown's Boat Yard and Guilford Boat Yard. Both are located in coastal flood hazard areas and hurricane surge zones, but their utility would be prior to storms. The Town may wish to pursue mutual aid agreements with Brown's Boat Yard and Guilford Boat Yard to formalize the expectations for assistance prior to storms.

Shelters

Emergency shelters are considered to be an important subset of critical facilities as they are needed in emergency situations. Town officials have designated the community center as the primary shelter and the high school as the secondary shelter. These are not to be confused with safe rooms or individual storm shelters, such as designated rooms in certain buildings that are meant to provide increased levels of protection from winds.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-57

As explained in the EOP, the Parks and Recreation Director is the Shelter Care Coordinator. He or she surveys buildings to select the safest and best possible uses as shelters; compares shelters with potential hazards and disaster conditions; prepares a resource list required for setup and operation of each shelter care facility; makes provisions to ensure food, water, clothing, bedding, and first aid equipment are available in shelters; prepares agreements to secure access to nonmunicipal-owned facilities that have been designated as shelters; and works with others to make people aware of shelter availability.

The Superintendent of Schools develops a student evacuation plan. He or she coordinates with the Emergency Management Director to use buses for transport of students and/or evacuees and to work out arrangements to use schools as shelters.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared the Connecticut Hurricane Evacuation Study and Technical Data Report in 1994. Refer to Appendix F for sections of the report including the Executive Summary and various tables that provide information for the Town. According to the study report, four shelters were available as of the date of the study: Adams Middle School (capacity 400), Guilford High School (capacity 600), the Community Center (capacity 800), and the North Guilford Firehouse (capacity 100). The ARC had agreed to operate two of the shelters: the middle school and high school.

According to the report, the following populations in Guilford are vulnerable to Category 1 and 2 hurricanes:

Persons in mobile homes: ...... 50 Permanent population in evacuation zones ...... 4,910 Seasonal population in evacuation zones ...... 470 Total ...... 5,430

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-58

The following populations in Guilford are vulnerable to Category 3 and 4 hurricanes:

Persons in mobile homes: ...... 50 Permanent population in evacuation zones ...... 6,720 Seasonal population in evacuation zones ...... 600 Total ...... 7,370

The estimated shelter capacity as of the date of the study (1994) was 1,900. The estimated shelter demand for a Category 1 or 2 storm was 710 whereas the estimated demand for a Category 3 or 4 storm was 1,080. Therefore, capacities were adequate for the estimated evacuees.

As noted above, the community center is currently the primary shelter and the high school is the secondary shelter for residents of the Town. However, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee has identified several limitations associated with the community center, including a roof that may not withstand hurricane winds, inadequate capacity, and limited sanitary and bathing facilities. The committee notes that the high school lacks a hurricane-resilient roof, emergency power, and air conditioning but has significantly greater capacity in the gymnasium, cafeteria, and auditorium.

The Town recently approved a bond issue to build a new high school on the existing site adjacent to the current facility that includes provisions for emergency power, air conditioning, and a hurricane-proof roof in critical areas. Since this will be a new facility, the design should include all of the features listed in the Red Cross and FEMA documents listed below. In addition, there should be provision for the storage of pre- positioned supplies and charging electric wheel chairs, defibrillators and other essential appliances.

The ARC has published a guidebook entitled Standards for Hurricane Evacuation Shelter Selection (American Red Cross Publication #4496). The publication provides

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-59

guidelines for selecting shelters relative to resilience from storm surges, flooding, and hurricane winds. While the publication recognizes that not all communities are able to identify an ideal shelter, it urges communities to consider as many of the criteria as possible. The ARC also had formal standards for shelters regarding space and internal facilities, but these standards are unrelated to structural resilience.

Several FEMA publications provide design criteria for shelters, including Design and Construction Guidance for Community Shelters (FEMA Publication #361). A reference by the International Code Council (ICC) and the National Storm Shelter Association, Standard on the Design and Construction of Storm Shelters (ICC-500), also provides design criteria. In general, recommended design wind speeds range from 160 to 250 miles per hour (mph) in these publications. In contrast, Connecticut's building code for shoreline municipalities requires a resistance to wind speeds up to 110 mph. Thus, a critical facility may be code compliant but unable to withstand the highest hurricane wind speeds, making it an inferior choice as primary shelter if another option can withstand higher wind speeds.

The FEMA PDM program is the current FEMA mitigation grant program best suited to funding wind mitigation projects. The PDM program recognizes four categories of projects for wind damage mitigation in critical facilities as follows:

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-60

"Roof projects" involve retrofitting a building's roof by improving and upgrading the roof deck and roof coverings to secure the building envelope and integrity during a wind event. "Code plus" projects are those designed to exceed the local building codes and standards to achieve a greater level of protection.

The availability of these potential mitigation projects through FEMA's PDM grant program is of interest to the Town as there may be an opportunity to obtain incremental funding for the new proposed Guilford High School to withstand hurricane force winds. This will enhance the facility's ability to become a primary shelter because it is located distant from mapped hurricane storm surge zones and outside mapped floodplains.

Aside from structural issues, a primary shelter should have the ability to operate with a standby source of power such as an emergency generator. While FEMA's mitigation programs are not able to fund generators, other funding programs are available for purchase of generators. The most notable example is the "Emergency Operations Center and Emergency Shelter Generator Grant Program" administered by Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS). This program specifically targets emergency operations centers and shelters, and awards can only be made for municipal facilities.

The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Committee plans to continue working with other municipal departments and officials to provide upgrades to the two designated shelters and possible reclassification of the high school as the primary shelter.

It has long been recognized that several coastal areas of Guilford may become isolated from the mainland during coastal storms such as nor'easters and hurricanes. These areas include Sachems Head, Vineyard Point, Leetes Island, Tuttles Point, Indian Cove, and Mulberry Point as well as smaller unnamed areas adjacent to these. Residents choosing to evacuate after a storm has caused flooding will not be able to reach the community

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-61

center or the high school. Establishment of satellite shelters for these areas may be advisable in Guilford. However, recognizing that there may be a practical limit to how many satellite shelters can be managed, the Town should prioritize establishment of satellite shelters. In addition, these shelters will likely need to be "staffed" by volunteer residents from nearby.

Health Care Facilities

The 1994 hurricane study report notes four medical and institutional facilities in Guilford: Fowler Convalescent Care (now known as Apple Rehabilitation), West Lake Lodge Health Care (now known as Guilford House), Marotta Manor, and The Gables of Guilford. Apple Rehabilitation, Guilford House, and The Gables of Guilford are still open. A new medical center, Yale-New Haven Shoreline Medical Center and Surgical Care, is an additional critical facility. Apple Rehabilitation is located in a coastal flood zone and hurricane surge zone. The Gables structure is not in a floodplain, but the access road is within an inland floodplain. Guilford House and Yale-New Haven Shoreline Medical Center are not in flood hazard areas.

In addition to the above health care and assisted living facilities, three senior living facilities are considered by the Town to be critical facilities. These are Boston Terrace, Sachem Hollow, and Guilford Court. Boston Terrace is located in a coastal flood zone and hurricane surge zone whereas the others are not in flood hazard areas.

Health care, assisted living, and senior living facilities that are located in flood zones should be considered for floodproofing. In addition, the facilities in flood zones and those that may be cut off from flooding should develop site-specific evacuation plans that are understood by Guilford's Emergency Management Agency and upgrade their modes of egress as necessary.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-62

Evacuation Routes

The Town has developed a map entitled "Guilford Flood Zones & Emergency Evacuation Routes to Shelters." The map highlights the evacuation routes out of Guilford, the route to the Community Center as the primary shelter, the route to Guilford High School as the secondary shelter, and an alternative route if the designated route to the high school is closed. Refer to Appendix G for a copy of the map.

The evacuation map is tied to the concept of the community center as the primary shelter and the high school as the secondary shelter, and evacuation routes include roads that can become submerged during coastal storms (such as Route 146) and riverine flooding such as Spinning Mill Brook at Long Hill Road. Any changes in shelter status or shelter locations will necessarily require modifications to the evacuation map. In addition, any changes in routing will necessarily require modifications to the evacuation map.

The Town desires a number of evacuation signs to install in strategic locations that would direct residents to the shelters. These signs would be primarily installed in coastal floodprone areas although some may be installed in areas of inland flooding.

FEMA and CitizenCorps have published disaster planning guides known as the "Are You Ready?" series (www.ready.gov/america/publications/index.html). These are considered among the best of the planning guides that are available from disaster-related planning and response organizations. Key publications from the series should be available to all Guilford residents.

Recommendations for Critical Facilities, Emergency Operations, and Evacuation

The following recommendations are suggested; these will be revisited in subsequent sections of this plan that address inland and coastal flooding as well as other hazards:

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-63

Install a multidirectional emergency horn at Town Hall to replace the current fixed horn. Review and update the evacuation route map at least once annually and post it to the Town's website. Encourage the public to register their mobile phones with the reverse 911 system. Acquire and install evacuation signs. Continue to review and update EOP at least once annually. Obtain copies of the disaster planning guides and manuals from the "Are You Ready?" series (http://www.ready.gov/america/publications/index.html) and make them available at the Town Hall and Community Center. Relocate the Public Works Facility outside a flood zone and hurricane surge zone. Upgrade the existing Guilford High School for use as one of two primary shelters. Upgrade the Community Center to improve its viability as one of two primary shelters. Work with residents to develop a satellite shelter for residents that may become isolated in Sachems Head and Indian Cove during coastal flooding. Work with residents to develop a satellite shelter for residents that may become isolated in Mulberry and Tuttles Points during coastal flooding. Work with residents to develop a satellite shelter for residents that may become isolated in Leetes Island during coastal flooding. Consider floodproofing measures for the fire station at 51 Water Street. Consider floodproofing measures for the fire station at 120 Whitfield Street. Consider floodproofing measures for the fire station at 10 Graves Avenue. Consider floodproofing measures for Apple Rehabilitation at 10 Boston Post Road and/or elevate the structure. Improve the driveway for Apple Rehabilitation as needed to ensure dry egress. Develop a site-specific evacuation plan for Apple Rehabilitation. Consider floodproofing measures for The Gables at 201 Granite Road. Elevate Granite Road as needed to ensure dry egress for The Gables. Develop a site-specific evacuation plan for The Gables.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-64

Consider floodproofing measures for Boston Terrace senior living at 41 Boston Terrace and/or elevate the structure. Elevate Boston Terrace (the road) as needed to ensure dry egress for Boston Terrace senior living. Develop a site-specific evacuation plan for Boston Terrace. Develop an emergency evacuation plan for Seaside Avenue residents. Work with residents and the Town of Madison to develop an evacuation protocol for Guilford residents on Neck Road. Ensure that the Town Marina has procedures and equipment to assist with watercraft removal before disasters. Develop mutual aid agreements with Guilford Boat Yard and Brown's Boat Yard to enable assistance prior to disasters.

Refer to Appendix A for STAPLEE scores associated with these recommendations.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 2-65

3.0 INLAND FLOODING

3.1 Setting

According to FEMA, most municipalities in the United States have at least one clearly recognizable floodprone area around a river, stream, or large body of water. These areas are outlined as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) and delineated as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Floodprone 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. These floods tend to be shallower and chronically reoccur in the same area due to a combination of factors. Such factors can include ponding, poor drainage, inadequate storm sewers, clogged culverts or catch basins, sheet flow, obstructed drainageways, sewer backup, or overbank flooding from minor streams.

In general, the potential for flooding is widespread across Guilford, with the majority of major flooding occurring along established SFHAs. The areas impacted by overflow of river systems are generally limited to river corridors and floodplains. Indirect flooding that occurs outside floodplains and localized nuisance flooding along tributaries is also a common problem in different inland areas in Guilford. The frequency of inland flooding in Guilford is considered likely for any given year, with flood damage potentially having significant effects during extreme events (refer to Tables 1-2 and 1-3).

This section addresses true inland flooding as well as nuisance flooding. Coastal flooding is discussed in Section 4.0. Refer to Figure 3-1 for the areas of Guilford susceptible to inland flooding based on FEMA flood zones.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-1

Figure 3-1

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-2

3.2 Hazard Assessment

Flooding is the most common and costly natural hazard in Connecticut. 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, and winter storms. Flooding can also occur as a result of ice jams or dam failure and may also cause landslides and slumps in affected areas. According to FEMA, there are several different types of inland flooding:

Riverine Flooding: Also known as overbank flooding, it occurs when channels receive more rain or snowmelt from their watershed than normal, or the channel becomes blocked by an ice jam or debris. Excess water spills out of the channel and into the channel's floodplain area.

Flash Flooding: A rapid rise of water along a water channel or low-lying urban area, usually a result of an unusually large amount of rain and/or high velocity of water flow (particularly in hilly areas) within a very short period of time. Flash floods can occur with limited warning.

Shallow Flooding: Occurs in flat areas where a lack of a water channel results in water being unable to drain away easily. The three types of shallow flooding include: o Sheet Flow: Water spreads over a large area at uniform depth o Ponding: Runoff collects in depressions with no drainage ability o Urban Flooding: Occurs when man-made drainage systems are overloaded by a larger amount of water than the system was designed to accommodate

Flooding presents several safety hazards to people and property and can cause extensive damage and potential injury or loss of life. Floodwaters cause massive damage to the

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-3

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, 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, poorly treated sewage, and other aqueous pollutants can be carried into areas and buildings by floodwaters and soak into soil, building components, and furniture.

In order to provide a national Floodplains are lands along watercourses standard without regional that are subject to periodic flooding; floodways are those areas within the discrimination, the 100-year flood floodplains that convey the majority of flood has been adopted by FEMA as the discharge. Floodways are subject to water being conveyed at relatively high velocity and base flood for purposes of floodplain force. The floodway fringe contains those management and to determine the areas of the 100-year floodplain that are outside the floodway and are subject to need for insurance. This flood has a inundation but do not convey the floodwaters 1% chance of being equaled or at a high velocity. 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 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.

The Town has consistently participated in the NFIP since 1978. SFHAs in Guilford are delineated on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The FIRM delineates areas within Guilford that are vulnerable to flooding and was most

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-4

recently published on December 17, 2010 combined with the remainder of New Haven County. The current Town of Guilford FIS was also published on December 17, 2010 along with the remainder of New Haven County. The original FIS and FIRMs for flooding sources in the Town are based on work completed on August 2, 1974 (publication of the initial flood hazard boundary) and published on May 1, 1978 (the date of the initial FIRM), with revisions in August 1986.

The majority of the inland watercourses and waterbodies in Guilford are mapped as Zone A while much of the Neck, East, and West Rivers are mapped as Zone AE. Refer to Figure 3-1 for the areas of Guilford susceptible to flooding based on FEMA flood zones. Table 3-1 describes the various zones depicted on the FIRM panel for Guilford, which includes both inland flooding and coastal flooding (Section 4.0).

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. This area may include a mapped floodway. X An area that is determined to be outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains. VE A coastal area with a 1% or greater chance of flooding and an additional hazard associated with some waves. BFEs are shown at selected intervals within these zones.

Flooding can occur in some areas with a higher frequency than those mapped by FEMA. This nuisance flooding occurs during 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 conditions may cause flashy, localized flooding; and where poor maintenance may exacerbate drainage problems.

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

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-5

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 throughout large watersheds during storms 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.

The recurrence interval level of a precipitation 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 Beacon Falls, Connecticut. 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 shallow water table, as can be seen in the following historic record.

3.3 Historic Record

The Town has experienced various degrees of inland flooding in every season of the year throughout its recorded history. Similar to other municipalities in the northeast, melting snow combined with early spring rains has 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 or periods of rainfall on frozen ground. Other flood events have been caused by excessive rainfalls upon saturated soils, yielding greater than normal runoff.

According to the 2010 FEMA FIS, at least 26 major storms occurred in Connecticut since 1693. The notable historical floods in the early 20th century occurred in March 1936, September 1938, January 1949, August 1955, October 1955, and September 1960. In terms of damage to the Town, the most severe of these was damage associated with the

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-6

flood of October 1955, which had a return period of 80 years. This flood was the result of high intensity rainfall falling on saturated ground.

The year 1955 was a devastating year for flooding in Connecticut. Connie was a declining tropical storm (described in Section 5.0) when it hit Connecticut in August 1955, producing heavy rainfall of four to six inches across the state. The saturated soil conditions exacerbated the flooding caused by Tropical Storm Diane five days later, the wettest tropical cyclone on record for the northeast. The storm 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 and the Naugatuck River, the Farmington River, and the Quinebaug River in northeastern Connecticut caused the most damage.

When heavy rains caused the floods of October 1955, damage was generally lower since there was limited time to rebuild following the August storms. A magnitude F2 tornado was also reported on October 24, 1955. The August and October floodwaters resulted in over 100 deaths, left 86,000 unemployed, and caused an estimated $500 million in damages (1955 United States Dollars, or USD) in Connecticut. To put this damage value in perspective, consider that the total property taxes levied by all Connecticut municipalities in 1954 amounted to $194.1 million.

In general, inland flooding problems are widespread throughout Guilford. Extreme events along defined floodplains often result in damage to insured structures. The most extreme damage associated with inland flooding occurs to homes and businesses along the East and West River corridors resulting from extreme rainfall events.

The following are descriptions of more recent examples of floods in and around Guilford as described in the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Storm Events Database and based on correspondence with municipal officials. Note that inland flooding was not

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-7

necessarily limited to the described areas. Information on disaster declarations was taken from articles within FEMA's Connecticut Disaster History database.

June 30, 1998: Two waves of thunderstorms produced frequent lightening and heavy rain, which forced the Quinnipiac River in Wallingford to rise 0.60 feet above flood stage.

August 17, 1998: Thunderstorms moved over southeast New Haven County causing widespread flooding of streets and low-lying and poor drainage areas. Rain fell at the rate of up to 3 and 1/2 inches per hour across the region. Guilford received 4.21 inches of rainfall.

September 16, 1999: Torrential record rainfall preceding the remnants of Tropical Storm Floyd caused widespread urban, small stream, and river flooding in Connecticut. Fairfield, Litchfield, and Hartford Counties were declared disaster areas (FEMA-1302-DR-CT). Serious widespread 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. At the Tweed-New Haven Airport, rainfall was recorded as 4.92 inches.

October 2005: Consistent rainfall of October 7-15, 2005 caused flooding and dam failures across most of Connecticut, with the most severe conditions occurring in northern Connecticut. A total of 3.41 inches of rain was reported at Tweed-New Haven Airport in New Haven while 5.07 inches were reported in Meriden. Urban flooding of low-lying and poor drainage areas occurred throughout the region while the Quinnipiac River rose 1.03 feet above its flood stage. Other small rivers and streams experienced a significant rise in water level.

March 31, 2010: As a result of rainfall amounts of four to six inches, Long Hill Road in Guilford had to be closed due to moderate flooding. This was the result of a

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-8

nor'easter that produced heavy rainfall as it tracked slowly to the northeast along the eastern seaboard. Refer to Section 6.0 for more information about winter storms.

3.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures

The Town has in place a number of measures to mitigate for flood damage. These include regulations, codes, and ordinances preventing encroachment and development near floodways; and monitoring efforts and emergency services.

Regulations, Codes, and Ordinances

The Town's Code, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, and Inland Wetland and Watercourses Regulations were described in detail in Section 2.10. Vast sections of these codes and regulations are dedicated to flood damage prevention. In particular, Chapter 174 of the Guilford Town Code is entitled "Flood Damage Prevention," and the Zoning Regulations provide for the permitting process connected to flood damage prevention. The Planning and Zoning Commission, Inland Wetlands Commission, and the Building and Engineering Department are all charged with reviewing projects and developments in SFHAs as well as projects not located in SFHAs that will alter hydrology and runoff.

Drainage and Maintenance

The Public Works Department 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 department and recorded. The Town uses these reports to identify potential problems and plan for maintenance and upgrades.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-9

Flood Watches and Warnings

The National Weather Service issues a flood The Emergency Management Agency watch or a flash flood watch for an area when and the Fire Department are responsible for monitoring local flood conditions in or near the area are favorable for warnings. The Town can access the National Weather Service website at a flood or flash flood, respectively. A flash http://www.weather.gov/ to obtain the flood watch or flood watch does not latest flood watches and warnings before and during precipitation events. 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.

The Town receives regular weather updates through DEMHS Region 2 email alerts and can also access the Automated Flood Warning System (a portion of which is installed along the Farm River system in neighboring North Branford) to monitor precipitation totals and river stage changes. The Connecticut DEEP installed the Automated Flood Warning System in 1982 to monitor rainfall totals as a mitigation effort for flooding throughout the state.

Flood Control

One difference between the Town and many other Connecticut municipalities is that structural flood control projects such as flood control dams, levees, berms, diversion channels, and river channelization are largely absent in Guilford. The Town recognizes that small flood control structures such as walls and berms on private properties may exist throughout the community. Coastal flood control and dams are discussed in subsequent sections of this plan.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-10

In summary, the Town primarily attempts to mitigate flood damage and flood hazards by restricting activities in floodprone areas. This process is primarily carried out through the Planning and Zoning Commission working with the Building and Engineering Department. 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.

3.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment

This section discusses specific areas at risk to flooding within the Town. As shown in the historic record, inland flooding can impact a variety of river corridors and cause severe damages in the Town. Inland flooding due to poor drainage and other factors is also a persistent hazard in the Town and can cause minor infrastructure damage, expedite maintenance, and create nuisance flooding of yards and basements.

3.5.1 Vulnerability Analysis of Private Properties

The software platform ArcGIS was utilized along with 2008-2009 aerial photography to determine the number of properties located within the various floodplains within the Town as discussed below. A total of 644 structures in Guilford are located within or near the 100-year floodplain or the 100-year floodway delineated by FEMA with 197 structures (31%) associated with inland floodplains. According to the 2010 FEMA FIRM GIS data layers, a total of 4,716 acres of land in Guilford is located within the 100-year flood boundary, and a total of 334 acres of land is located within the 500-year flood boundary.

Based on correspondence with the State of Connecticut NFIP Coordinator, a total of 11 repetitive loss properties (RLPs) are located in the Guilford. Although 12 were included in the State of Connecticut's list, one road does not exist in Guilford but is believed to be

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-11

located nearby in the town of Madison. The RLPs related to inland flooding are listed in Table 3-2.

TABLE 3-2 Inland Flooding Repetitive Loss Properties

Type Street Flooding Source Current Assessment West River and Spinning Commercial Mill Road (1) Mill Brook Single Family Home Lakeside Drive Guilford Lakes $256,550 Single Family Home Shore Road West Lake $186,080 Single Family Home Highwoods Drive West River $415,610 Single Family Home Durham Road Branch Brook $218,140 Single Family Home Race Hill Road West River $299,340 Single Family Home Little Meadow Road Unknown (2) Single Family Home Joan Drive Spinning Mill Brook $235,250 Total of eight properties: $1,610,970+

(1) No assessment or sales value is listed in the online Assessor's database. (2) This property is not listed in the online Assessor's database.

These properties are located along or near Branch Brook, West River, West Lake, Guilford Lakes, and Spinning Mill Brook. Each of the structures is located within the 100-year floodplain except for the structure on Highwoods Drive, which is mapped in the 500-year floodplain, and the structure on Little Meadow Road, which is not located in a SFHA. Several of the structures appear to have walk-out basements or garages that may be damaged by flooding whereas the living areas appear to be higher. However, the exact nature of flood damage at each property is not reported.

The Town recognizes that many private properties may suffer flood damage that is not reported because the structures are not insured under the NFIP. These residents and business owners are likely repairing structures on their own. Flood mitigation as recommended in this plan will likely help many of these properties owners.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-12

3.5.2 Vulnerability Analysis of Critical Facilities

The list of critical facilities provided by the Town (Section 2.9) was used with Microsoft Virtual Earth aerial photography to locate each critical facility throughout the Town. Excluding the coastal floodplains discussed in Section 4.5, only one critical facility was found to be associated with either a 100-year or 500-year inland floodplain. Table 3-3 lists this critical facility.

TABLE 3-3 Critical Facilities Located Within or Adjacent to Floodplains

Name or Type Address Flooding Source The Gables Granite Road Hoadley Creek

The Gables facility is not believed to have flooded significantly in recent years, although the potential exists for the facility to be cut off from any modes of egress because the access road crosses a SFHA.

3.5.3 Vulnerability Analysis of Areas Along Watercourses

Flooding is known to occur along several watercourses in the Town. These areas are described below, grouped by drainage basin.

West River

The West River corridor is the primary area of vulnerability from inland flooding in Guilford. Many of the problems occur along Route 77, resulting in hazardous conditions on the main north-south route through Guilford and connecting with the town of Durham to the north. Upstream of Lake Quonnipaug, chronic flooding occurs in two areas:

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-13

At the head of the lake where Route 77 separates a small open water area from the lake, beaver activity causes water to cross Route 77. The result is a hazardous condition on Route 77. Flooding occurs each year along Sucker Brook, which is a tributary to Lake Quonnipaug. Refer to Figure 3-2. Private culverts under driveways and culverts beneath Lake Drive are either undersized or repeatedly clogged with debris, causing water to flow overbank. Washouts reportedly occur, damaging private property and roads.

Although flooding at the margins of Lake Quonnipaug is not an issue, unstable slopes have become problematic along Route 77 where the road is immediately adjacent to the west side of the lake. There is a need to stabilize slopes and the lake edge to prevent further erosion of the road and ultimately its collapse.

Downstream of Lake Quonnipaug, chronic flooding occurs in many areas. Refer to Figure 3-3 for a depiction of floodprone areas. Within the last few years, the Town conducted a study to evaluate dredging the southern end of the lake, which supports major recreational activity. It was determined that dredging would increase the capacity of the lake to mitigate flooding downstream. In addition, it was determined that relocating the dam northward, relocating the local roads immediately below the dam, and improving drainage would alleviate much of the local flooding in that area.

Flooding is believed possible at the first bridge downstream of the lake, at Lake Drive and Hoop Hill Road. Just downstream, flooding associated with the outlet stream from the Menuckatuck Reservoir (Branch Brook, one of the main tributaries of West River) occurs at Route 77. Only a few hundred yards further downstream, culverts along and under Route 77 southwest of the North Guilford Fire Station have caused flooding and washouts along another tributary of the West River. Because the flooding may affect the mobilization of emergency responders from the fire station, it is important that it be addressed.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-14

Insert Figure 3-2

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-15

Figure 3-3

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-16

Less than a mile downstream near County Road, runoff from a hillside along Route 77 has caused flooding and washouts along the road. Culverts are needed in this area to convey water and reduce flooding.

The next area of chronic flooding is further downstream near Bittner Park. Refer to Figure 3-4. The river lies between the park and Route 77, and flooding of the park and the road occurs. While flooding of the park may not be an inappropriate occurrence in a floodplain, flooding of Route 77 is unacceptable as this portion of the road is a critical arterial. A RLP on Highwoods Drive is located slightly downstream.

Flooding is problematic in the area upstream of the confluence of Spinning Mill Brook with the West River, and it can be exacerbated by backwater effects from the tidal estuary of the river. Refer to Figures 3-5 and 3-6. Two RLPs are located in this area (structures on Mill Road and Joan Drive), and chronic flooding reportedly occurs in the area of Martin Bishop Field and Long Hill Road. Long Hill Road is the principal evacuation route to the secondary shelter at the high school to the north. Some Guilford officials believe that the Route 1 bridge may be undersized. If this is the case, then it may help contribute to the flooding of Spinning Mill Brook, Long Hill Road, and Mill Road.

Ultimately, the best way to address the West River corridor may be to develop a hydrologic and hydraulic model of the West River watershed. The model would demonstrate how the different areas of flooding are related to one another, which is important in prioritizing methods of mitigation.

East River

Flooding along the East River corridor is less problematic due to a lower population density and the lack of critical roadways affected by the river. Nuisance flooding along Race Hill Road may be associated with Hall Lot Brook, which is a tributary of Little Meadow Road. A new bridge over Little Meadow Brook at Little Meadow Road is believed to have mitigated for flooding that used to occur at that location.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-17

Figure 3-4

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-18

Figure 3-5

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-19

Figure 3-6

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-20

Flooding downstream of the Guilford Lakes (Figure 3-7) is reportedly common and is a cause for concern for Emergency Management officials in Guilford. While some of the flooding is believed to be related to improper spillage from the lakes (i.e., water that is not contained in the spillways), many homes are located near the stream flowing between and from the lakes, and one RLP (on Lakeside Drive) is located in the area.

Other Areas

The area along Munger Brook between County Road and Route 80 is reportedly a chronic floodprone area. This area drains to the town of North Branford to the west. Finally, there is evidence of flooding along the shore of West Lake. One RLP (on Shore Drive) is located in this area (refer to Figure 3-8).

3.5.4 HAZUS-MH Vulnerability Analysis

HAZUS-MH is FEMA's loss estimation methodology software for flood, wind, and earthquake hazards. The software utilizes year 2000 U.S. Census data and a variety of engineering information to calculate potential damages (specified in year 2006 USD) to a user-defined region. The software was utilized to perform a basic analysis to generate potential damages in Guilford from a 100-year riverine flood event simultaneously occurring along all watercourses in the Town during a 100-year coastal flood event. Results were broken out between inland and coastal flooding damages based on the percentage of structures at risk to inland flooding (31%) as calculated in Section 3.5.1.

Hydrology and hydraulics for the streams and rivers were generated utilizing the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) 10-meter National Elevation Dataset. The summary report is included in Appendix H. The following paragraphs discuss the results of the HAZUS-MH analysis.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-21

Figure 3-7

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-22

Figure 3-8

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-23

The FEMA default values were used for each of the Town's five census tracts in the HAZUS simulation. A summary of the default building counts and values is shown in Table 3-4. Approximately 2,273 million dollars of building value were estimated to exist within the Town.

TABLE 3-4 HAZUS-MH Flood Scenario – Basic Information

Dollar Exposure (x 1,000) Occupancy (2006 USD) Residential $1,733,284 Commercial $347,906 Other $191,784 Total $2,272,974

The HAZUS-MH simulation estimates that during a 100-year flood event 31 residential buildings will be at least moderately damaged in the Town from inland flooding. A total of two of these buildings will be substantially damaged and uninhabitable. Table 3-5 presents the expected damages based on building type.

TABLE 3-5 HAZUS-MH Flood Scenario – Building Stock Damages

1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% Substantially Occupancy Damaged Damaged Damaged Damaged Damaged Damaged Residential 0 2 5 13 9 2 Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 2 5 13 9 2

HAZUS-MH utilizes a subset of critical facilities known as "essential facilities" that are important following natural hazard events. These include fire stations, hospitals, police stations, and schools. The software noted that under the 100-year flood event no essential facilities will incur moderate or greater damage, with no loss of use being reported. This

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-24

would be true for the Fire and Police Department headquarters and the schools although not for some of the smaller fire stations. Hospitals are not located in Guilford.

The HAZUS-MH simulation estimated that a total of 1,610 tons of debris would be generated by flood damage for the 100-year flood scenario. It is estimated that 64 truckloads (at approximately 25 tons per truck) will be required to remove the debris. The breakdown of debris is as follows:

Finishes (drywall, insulation, etc.) comprise 42% of this total. Structural material (wood, brick, etc.) comprise 35% of the total. Foundation material (concrete slab, concrete block, rebar, etc.) comprise 23% of the total.

HAZUS-MH calculated the potential sheltering requirement for the 100-year flood event. The model estimates that 96 households will be displaced due to flooding. Displacement includes households evacuated from within or very near to the inundated areas. Of these households, a total of 124 people will seek temporary shelter in public shelters. The predicted sheltering requirements for inland flood damage are relatively small and would be accommodated by either the Community Center or the high school.

HAZUS-MH also calculated the predicted economic losses due to the 100-year flood event. Economic losses are categorized between building-related losses and business interruption losses. Building-related losses (damages to building, content, and inventory) are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. Business interruption losses are those associated with the inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the flood and include lost income, relocation expenses, lost rental income, lost wages, and temporary living expenses for displaced people.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-25

A total of 17.99 million dollars of building-related losses are expected. Residential losses total 12.16 million dollars, commercial losses total 3.86 million dollars, industrial losses total 1.92 million dollars, and other (municipal) losses total 0.05 million dollars.

A total of 0.02 million dollars of business interruption losses is expected. Municipal interruption losses are 37% of this total, and commercial interruption losses are 50% of this total, with industrial and residential losses being the remainder.

In summary, flooding is the most persistent hazard to affect the Town. Based on the historic record, information from municipal officials, and HAZUS-MH simulations of the 100-year flood events, areas within SFHAs and other areas adjacent to SFHAs are vulnerable to flooding damages. These can include direct structural damages, interruptions to business and commerce, emotional impacts, and injury or death.

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. 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 takes the form of floodplain regulations and redevelopment policies that restrict the building of new structures within defined areas. These are usually administered by building, zoning, planning, and/or code enforcement

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-26

offices through capital improvement programs and through zoning, subdivision, floodplain, and wetland ordinances. It also occurs when land is prevented from being developed through the use of conservation easements or conversion of land into open space.

Open Space Preservation: Municipal departments should identify areas for acquisition to remove the potential for flood damage. Open space acquisition is indeed a high priority in Guilford. Acquisition of heavily damaged structures (particularly RLPs) after a flood may be an economical and practical means to accomplish this.

Planning and Zoning: Zoning and It is important to promote coordination Subdivision ordinances should regulate among the various departments that are responsible for different aspects of flood development in flood hazard areas. Flood mitigation. Coordination and cooperation hazard areas should reflect a balance of among departments should be reviewed every few years as specific responsibilities development and natural areas although and staff change. ideally they will be free from development. Policies can also require the design and location of utilities to areas outside of flood hazard areas and the placement of utilities underground. In Guilford, the Planning and Zoning Commission has an active role in prevention of flood damage.

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 drainageways A requirement that developers dedicate open space and flood flow, drainage, and maintenance easements

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-27

Building codes should ensure that the foundations of structures will withstand flood forces and that all portions of buildings subject to damage are above or otherwise protected from flooding. Floodplain ordinances should at minimum follow the requirements of the NFIP for subdivision and building codes. These could be included in the ordinances for subdivisions and building codes or could be addressed in a separate ordinance. All of the above are largely enforced in Guilford by various land use commissions and the Building and Engineering Department.

One recommendation that municipalities could consider is using more detailed town topographic maps (if available) to develop a more accurate regulatory flood hazard map using the published FEMA flood elevations. FEMA encourages communities to use more accurate topographic maps to expand upon the FIRMs published by FEMA. This is because many FIRMs were originally created using USGS quadrangle maps with 10-foot contour intervals, but many municipalities today have contour maps of one- or two-foot intervals that show more recently constructed roads, bridges, and other anthropologic features. Even in New Haven County where map modernization has occurred, there is room for improvement. An alternate 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. 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.

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).

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-28

Stormwater Management Policies: Development and redevelopment policies to address the prevention of flood damage 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 filter strips, and permeable paving blocks. Generally, postdevelopment stormwater should not leave a site at a rate higher than under predevelopment conditions. The 2005 amendments to the Zoning Regulations have strengthened stormwater management in Guilford, along with the more recent LID regulations.

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 to the stream in the lower reaches 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 to the peak discharge during any given storm event. Developers should be required to demonstrate whether detention or retention will be the best management practice for stormwater at specific sites regarding 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 functionality. Maintenance should include programs to clean out blockages caused by overgrowth and debris. Culverts should be monitored, repaired, and improved when necessary. The use of GIS technology can greatly aid the identification and location of problem areas. The Connecticut Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for maintenance along state roadways.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-29

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.

Wetlands: The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission administers the Wetland Regulations. The regulations simultaneously restrict development in floodplains, wetlands, and other floodprone areas.

Because a variety of regulations are related to flood damage prevention, the Town should develop a checklist that cross references the regulations and codes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to a proposed project and make this list available to potential applicants. Such a checklist has already been prepared to help land development applicants with the LID regulations. A hazard mitigation checklist could be modeled from the LID checklist.

3.6.2 Property Protection

Steps should be taken to protect existing public and private properties from flood damage. Measures for public property protection include relocation of structures at risk for flooding (either to a higher location on the same lot or to a different lot outside of the floodplain), purchase of flood insurance, and relocating valuable belongings above flood levels to reduce the amount of damage caused during a flood event.

FEMA offers suggestions to homeowners regarding potential home improvements that can mitigate flooding:

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-30

Relocate or elevate water heaters, heating systems, washers, and dryers to a higher floor or to at least 12 inches above the high water mark (if the ceiling permits). A wooden platform of pressure-treated wood can serve as the base. Anchor the fuel tank to the wall or floor with noncorrosive metal strapping and lag bolts. Install a septic backflow valve to prevent sewer backup into the home. Install a floating floor drain plug at the lowest point of the lowest finished floor. Elevate the electrical box or relocate it to a higher floor and elevate electric outlets to at least 12 inches above the high water mark.

The standard flood protection techniques applicable to property protection include home elevation, construction of barriers, dry floodproofing, and wet floodproofing techniques.

Home elevation involves the removal of the building structure from the basement and elevating it on piers to a height such that the first floor is located above the 100-year flood level. The basement area is abandoned and filled to be no higher than the existing grade. All utilities and appliances located within the basement must be relocated to the first floor level.

Barriers include levees, floodwalls, and berms that are useful in protecting areas subject to shallow flooding. Such structural projects are discussed in Section 3.6.6.

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 extend only two to three feet above the top of the concrete foundation because building walls and floors cannot withstand the pressure of deeper water.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-31

Wet floodproofing should only be Dry floodproofing refers to the act of making areas below the flood level watertight. used as a last resort. If considered, furniture and electrical appliances Wet floodproofing refers to intentionally letting floodwater into a building to equalize interior should be moved away or elevated and exterior water pressures. above the 100-year flood elevation.

All of the above property protection mitigation measures may be useful for Guilford residents to prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding. The Building Official should consider outreach and education in these areas where appropriate.

The eight RLPs located in the areas subject to inland flooding in Guilford may wish to consider any or all of the possible methods of property protection. For some of the structures, elevation may be cost prohibitive, such that floodproofing may be more advisable. For some, the best option may be to move important equipment from walk-out basements and garages to higher levels of the structures. In cases such as raised ranches, it may not be possible to floodproof the lower level or move equipment, given the type of home. For such properties, frequent and repeated flood events may prove too costly, and property acquisition by the Town may be the best option.

3.6.3 Emergency Services

A natural hazard mitigation plan addresses actions that can be taken before a disaster event. In this context, emergency services 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

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-32

Emergency protective measures, such as an EOP outlining procedures for the mobilization and position of staff, equipment, and resources to facilitate evacuations and emergency floodwater 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

Each of these mitigation measures are already in place in the Town. Additional proposals common to all hazards in this Plan for improving emergency services are recommended 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 occur, 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 11.1.

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

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-33

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 nonpoint 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 reestablish an environment in which the functions and values of these resources are again optimized. Acquisitions of floodprone property with conversion to open space are the most common of these types of projects. Administrative measures that assist such projects include the development of land reuse policies Measures for preserving floodplain functions and resources typically include: focused on resource restoration and review Adoption of floodplain regulations to of community programs to identify control or prohibit development that opportunities for floodplain restoration. will alter natural resources Development and redevelopment policies focused on resource protection Based on the above guidelines, the Information and education for both community and individual decision following specific natural resource makers Review of community programs to protection mitigation measures are identify opportunities for floodplain recommended to help prevent damage preservation from inland and nuisance flooding:

Pursue additional open space properties in floodplains by purchasing RLPs and other floodprone structures and converting the parcels to open space Pursue the acquisition of additional municipal open space properties as discussed in the Plan of Conservation and Development Selectively pursue conservation objectives listed in the Plan of Conservation and Development and other more recent planning studies and documents Continue to regulate development in protected and sensitive areas, including steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-34

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 culvert resizing should be employed to lessen floodwater runoff. On-site detention can provide temporary storage of stormwater runoff. Barriers such as levees, floodwalls, and dikes physically 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.

Given the many culverts and bridges in the Town and the increasing rainfall rates in Connecticut, a long-term recommendation of this Plan is for the Town to evaluate the most floodprone river system (West River) using modeling techniques to compare various types of mitigation such as upgrades of bridges and culverts; use of diversions, detention, and retention; and property acquisitions and structure elevations. Other river systems could be similarly analyzed subsequent to the West River system.

Channelization of rivers, construction of flood control dams, and other large-scale projects for inland flood mitigation would be inappropriate in Guilford and are not recommended. However, a number of areas would benefit from improved drainage and flood conveyance, including the many areas discussed in Section 3.5.

3.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives

While many potential mitigation activities are addressed above in Section 3.6, the recommended mitigation strategies for addressing inland flooding problems in the Town are listed below.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-35

Prevention Continue to regulate activities within SFHAs to the greatest extent possible with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations Consider requiring new buildings in floodprone areas to be protected to the highest recorded flood level regardless of SFHA status Ensure that new buildings be designed and graded to shunt drainage away from the building Require developers to demonstrate whether detention or retention of stormwater is the best option for reducing peak flows downstream

Property Protection Provide technical assistance to RLP owners (and other owners of structures that suffer flood damage) regarding floodproofing measures, or pursue elevation or acquisition/demolition of these properties for open space

Public Education Consider enrolling in the Community Rating System Provide outreach regarding home elevation, flood barriers, dry and wet floodproofing, and other home improvement techniques

Natural Resource Protection Pursue the acquisition of additional municipal open space in SFHAs 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

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-36

Structural Projects Develop a hydrologic and hydraulic model of the West River watershed as a way to prioritize mitigation activities such as culvert and bridge upgrades, property acquisitions and elevations, and retention/detention Upgrade bridges and culverts along West River south of Lake Quonnipaug Upgrade the Route 1 bridge at West River Stabilize slopes and the lake edge along Route 77 to prevent further erosion of the road Upgrade culverts along and under Route 77 southwest of the fire station to prevent flooding and washout along a tributary of West River Conduct culvert maintenance along Sucker Brook near Lake Drive; work with private property owners as needed Work with the DEEP to control beaver activity at the north end of Lake Quonnipaug and prevent flooding of Route 77 Install culverts to reduce flooding from a hillside near County Road and Route 77 Upgrade culverts to reduce flooding associated with the outlet stream from Menuckatuck Reservoir near 3300 Route 77 Upgrade culverts to reduce flooding along Race Hill Road associated with Hall Lot Brook or a West River tributary Improve drainage and West River flood conveyance near Bittner Park Improve drainage and Spinning Hill Brook flood conveyance in the area that floods near Martin Bishop Field and Long Hill Road Determine whether flooding still occurs at the new bridge over Little Meadow Brook at Little Meadow Road Improve drainage and Munger Brook flood conveyance in the area that floods between County Road and Route 80

Recommendations for critical facilities, emergency operations, and evacuation were previously listed in Section 2.11. In addition, mitigation strategies important to all hazards are included in Section 11.1.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 3-37

4.0 COASTAL FLOODING AND SHORELINE CHANGE

4.1 Setting

Coastal flooding is a well-documented natural hazard that threatens the Town far more frequently and in many more locations than inland flooding. A review of the flood zone map (Figure 3-1) reveals that the shoreline of Guilford consists of A (100-year) and V (100-year flood zones with wave velocity hazards) zones. The FEMA mapping implies some level of flooding for vast areas south of Route 146 during 100-year coastal flood events. Flooding at tidal creeks can occur where the 100-year coastal flood zones extending far inland from the shoreline and merge with inland flood zones, cutting off access via critical roadways in the process.

Sea level rise is a phenomenon that affects coastal and tidal areas and land areas with elevations close to sea level. As such, the entire shoreline of Guilford is vulnerable to sea level rise, extending inland in low-lying areas. The timing of the impacts from this phenomenon will vary with distance from the shoreline.

Coastal erosion and shoreline change are generally possible anywhere along the shoreline although they have been exacerbated by increased rates of sea level rise and are occurring far more rapidly in the low-lying areas between rocky shorefronts where tidal marshes tend to be present. The areas of Guilford that currently or have recently suffered from severe erosion and shoreline change include the marsh fronts on either side of the mouth of the West River, Grass Island, and a few areas west of Sachems Head.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-1

4.2 Hazard Assessment

Coastal Flooding

Refer to Figure 3-1 in the previous section and Figure 4-1 on the next page for an overview and close-up of the areas of Guilford susceptible to coastal flooding, respectively, based on FEMA mapping. The FEMA flood zones are based on the 100- and 500-year flood events. As explained in Section 3.2, a 100-year flood event has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year while a 500-year flood has a 0.2% chance of occurring in any given year.

Significant coastal flooding is typically associated with hurricanes and tropical storms, nor'easters, or other storm events that are discussed in subsequent sections of this Plan. Figure 4-2 is a fold-out map of the hurricane surge zones for Category 1, 2, 3, and 4 hurricanes. In many locations, the Category 1 and 2 surge zones are coincident with the coastal flood zones mapped by FEMA. However, Category 3 and 4 storms are believed to have the potential to drive surges further inland. Hurricanes will be discussed in detail in Section 5.0 of this Plan.

Recently Tropical Storm Irene caused serious damage to facilities in the marina area. Three was direct wave impact on the riprapped area along the East river north of the entrance channel and on the bulkhead at the north end of the Marina channel. The Moorings Restaurant had direct wave damage and it is estimated that restoration may take over six months. The Stonehouse was flooded to a depth of 18 inches requiring gutting the interior and restoration is expected to take four months. Because of the overtopping and failure of the riprap, the blacktop on marina parking lot was buckled and extensive repaving was necessary. Overall damage and business losses in the Harbor Sector have been estimated at four million dollars.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-2

Figure 4-1

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-3

Figure 4-2

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-4

In other shoreline area, such as Vineyard Point and Sachems Head, several sea walls were overtopped. As a result there was heavy damage to local roads and the adjacent property including the loss of several septic fields and the first floors of homes.

Even without the occurrence of hurricanes and tropical storms, nor'easters, or other storm events, astronomically high tides will cause shallow flooding of different parts of coastal Guilford every single year. Meanwhile, sea level rise will exacerbate coastal flooding, and erosion of the shoreline will allow it to affect populations and structures that previously enjoyed a higher degree of protection.

In summary, coastal flooding can occur as a result of astronomical high tides acting alone or concurrent with storms; as a result of nor'easters, hurricanes and tropical storms; or simply as a result of persistent strong winds. In addition, it is believed that coastal flooding will increase in frequency and magnitude as sea level rises.

Sea Level Rise

Although erosion and shoreline change have long been recognized as coastal hazards nationwide, it is only recently that the chronic problem of sea level rise has been projected to be closely connected to the acute threats of erosion and shoreline change. Indeed, continued increases in the rate of sea level rise will increase the incidence, severity, and adverse effects of erosion and shoreline change as well as flooding.

Sea levels are currently rising along the Atlantic coast. Many believe that this is a result of climate change, which may be attributable to greenhouse gases or may be at least partly related to natural warming and cooling cycles that the Earth experiences. Regardless, a continued increase in the rate of rising sea levels will inundate low areas, increase erosion of beaches and tidal marshes, increase the incidence of flooding from storm surges, and enable saltwater to advance upstream and intrude further into estuaries and aquifers.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-5

Rising sea level affects both the natural and the human-made environments. Future sea level rise could result in the disappearance of a large percentage of Guilford's tidal wetlands unless they can advance as quickly as the rising level. Saltwater advancing upstream along estuaries can alter the point at which flocculation leads to sedimentation and the creation of shoals.

As sea level rises, storm surges from hurricanes and nor'easters will reach further inland as they are starting from a higher base level. It has been projected that by the end of the 21st century, it is possible that a Category 1 hurricane storm surge will be similar to what is now mapped as a Category 3 hurricane storm surge.

Similarly, FEMA coastal base flood elevations would progressively rise along with sea level. This means that the 100-year and 500-year flood levels will affect lands that are currently at unaffected elevations. This would exacerbate the problem of coastal and near-coastal inland flooding within Guilford.

As sea level rises, drainage systems become less effective. Rainstorms will have the potential to cause greater flooding. Guilford reportedly experiences increased problems with inadequate storm drainage south of the Town center and along Whitfield Street and several coastal areas. As sea level rises, these areas will likely experience decreased drainage capacity and increased flooding.

Erosion and Shoreline Change

The Connecticut shoreline continues along the path that started 12,000 years ago after the last glaciation, slowly giving way to the advancing Atlantic Ocean. This net loss of land is due partly to active erosion of beaches and tidal marshes and partly to passive submergence caused by natural component of relative sea level rise. The erosion and submergence together cause a net loss of land resulting in shoreline change.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-6

While erosion itself is natural, it has the potential to damage coastal property and infrastructure. Coastal erosion and shoreline change can result in significant economic loss through the destruction of buildings, roads, infrastructure, natural resources, and wildlife habitats. In addition, erosion can expose septic systems and sewer pipes, contaminating shellfish beds and other resources; release oil, gasoline, and other toxins to the marine environment; and sweep construction materials and other debris out to sea. Public safety is jeopardized when buildings collapse or water supplies are contaminated.

According to the USGS, four possible erosional outcomes can occur during a storm and storm surge event:

"Swash" occurs when the maximum elevation of wave runup is higher than the beach but still lower than the base of the dune or bluff, if one is present. This results in the erosion of the beach. "Collision" occurs when the maximum elevation of wave runup is higher than the base of the dune or bluff but lower than the top of the dune or bluff. Collision results in severe erosion of the dune or bluff. "Overwash" occurs when the maximum elevation of wave runup is higher than the top of the dune or bluff. Overwash can result in damage to structures behind the dune or bluff. Finally, "inundation" occurs when the base tide and surge level is higher than the beach and dune. This is the most dangerous of the four outcomes with regard to flood damage.

These outcomes are limited in their applicability in Guilford as they are not possible at rocky shorefronts, which are common in Guilford. They would be expected at sandy beaches, which are limited in extent in Guilford. Processes are somewhat different at the marsh fronts. As noted during the development of the Municipal Coastal Program in 2007-2008, few topics elicit such strong emotions in Guilford as the state of the tidal

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-7

marshes. These marshes, more broadly known as tidal wetlands, are undergoing a transformation as sea level rise, erosion, altered tidal flushing, invasive species, and "sudden marsh dieback" collectively work toward degrading the marshes from all sides. These issues are often interrelated.

Some of the notable tidal wetland systems in Guilford include Leete's marsh, Great Harbor salt marsh, Long Cove, the Chaffinch Island marshes, the West River complex, Sluice Creek, Grass Island, the East River complex, and the Sanctuary in the upper East River area. Numerous pockets of marshes are located throughout Little Harbor, Sachems Head, Vineyard Point, Tuttles Point, Mulberry Point, and near the marina.

Erosion of the salt marshes is a major concern for many of the citizens of Guilford. Significant erosion is occurring around Grass Island, east and west of the mouth of the West River, and near Trolley Road and Great Harbor. Additionally, the marshes are sinking/collapsing in many locations, most notably the Leete's marsh north of Shell Beach Road.

Erosion events in a coastal setting are dependent upon many factors including sea level rise, surrounding conditions, storm events, and human alteration of drainage and currents. "Natural erosion" appears to be occurring at the Grass Island salt marsh and is likely at play along most marsh fronts. However, the footpaths that have developed at Trolley Road, Chittenden Beach, and Chaffinch Island are reportedly contributing to erosion of the salt marshes.

As noted above, it has been documented that sea level rise has occurred at an accelerated rate over the last 100 years. Some coastal states have reported subsidence or drowning of tidal wetlands because they can no longer accumulate peat fast enough to stay above sea level. In Connecticut, the effect depends on location. Sea level rise appears to be altering the zonation of plant communities in southeastern Connecticut, where the tidal range averages 0.75 meters. Studies have documented that at least two marsh systems are

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-8

currently not keeping up with sea level rise. On Connecticut's western shore, with a tidal range of up to two meters, extensive areas of low marsh vegetation have been drowned (e.g., Five-Mile River, Norwalk).

Another ramification of the projected sea level rise is the tendency for marsh systems to migrate landward. As sea level rises, marshes that are able to stay above the rising water level will tend to move inland. For developed areas where seawalls, lawns, and other structures are at the very edge of the marsh, landward movement is limited.

Complicating matters, the salt marshes of the entire eastern seaboard have been faced with a dilemma that is currently being termed by some scientists as "sudden wetland dieback." Although there is dispute between scientists surrounding what exactly is occurring, it is known that the health of salt marshes and the zonation of the vegetation that resides within the marshes are threatened. Results of salt marsh dieback include the development of tidal flats and pockets of holes in the absence of the various salt marsh grasses.

The contributing factors that bring about these results are not fully known and include many possibilities. For example, it is believed that the loss of peat has caused the subsidence in Leete's marsh, but this is not the cause of dieback in other locations. Regardless of the causes, the effects are becoming increasingly apparent with time. With reports of similar symptoms given by scientists from Canada to Texas, Guilford is not alone in this problem.

Overall, the erosion, sinking, and collapse of marshes in Guilford could be caused by a number of factors including sea level rise, altered tidal flow, and those causes implicated in salt marsh dieback. In some areas, it may be impossible to restore or even save marshes in the long term. Site-specific recommendations may be appropriate where sufficient information exists or can be found and compiled. Long Cove is a good

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-9

example. Long Cove was subject to restoration in the 1980s and 1990s after tidal flows were re-established, and phragmites were replaced by salt marsh vegetation.

In summary, erosion and shoreline change can result in significant economic and emotional loss in the current land use system of fixed property lines and ownership. However, attempting to halt the natural process of erosion with seawalls and other hard structures can shift the problem, subjecting other property owners to similar losses. The challenges are to (1) slow erosion where possible without adversely affecting nearby resources, and (2) site coastal development in a manner that allows natural physical coastal processes such as erosion to continue.

The use of shoreline flood and erosion control structures is discouraged by the DEEP. However, as noted in the state's Coastal Management Manual, a structural solution may be permitted when (1) it is demonstrated that it would protect a water-dependent use, infrastructural facilities, or an inhabited structure; (2) there is a clear demonstration of the need for protection; and (3) the use of the proposed structure is unavoidable because it is demonstrated that there is no feasible less environmentally damaging nonstructural alternative.

4.3 Historic Record

Coastal Flooding

Most of the more frequent and widespread flooding in Guilford is caused by astronomical high tides and coastal storms such as nor'easters, tropical storms, and hurricanes. Low pressures and strong winds that cause tidal flooding frequently accompany these weather events. Detailed discussions of hurricanes and nor'easters are provided in Sections 5.0 and 7.0 of this Plan, respectively. Many of these hurricanes and nor'easters have caused coastal flooding in Guilford. For examples, the hurricanes of 1938 and 1954 (Carol)

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-10

caused surges of 18 and 15 feet, respectively. By comparison, the coastal base flood elevation in Guilford is approximately 10 feet.

Even during lesser storm events and high tides, coastal flooding occurs in Guilford. The following locations have been identified by Guilford residents and Town officials as sites of chronic coastal flooding, where inundation occurs at least once every year and sometimes more frequently:

Several sections of Route 146 Sachems Head Road at Route 146 End of Whitfield Street near marina Chimney Corner Chaffinch Island Road Shell Beach Road Old Quarry Road Vineyard Point Road Indian Cove Road Soundview Road Seaside Avenue River Street Tuttles Point Road

The residents of many of these neighborhoods have become accustomed to the chronic flooding but remain very concerned nevertheless. Appendix I contains a compilation of photos collected by the Town for various flooding events.

Sea Level Rise

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes based on available data that there has been a global mean rise in sea level between 10 and 25 centimeters

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-11

(cm) (approximately four to 10 inches) over the last 100 years (Neumann et al., 2000). Relative sea level rise at Boston and Woods Hole gauges over the same time period is estimated at 26 cm (10 inches) according to the USGS.

In its landmark 2001 report, the IPCC projected that global sea level may rise nine to 88 centimeters during the 21st century. According to the much-publicized February 2007 report by the IPCC, these predictions have been somewhat refined using six models to predict a more narrow range of sea level rise of 28 to 43 cm (11 to 16.9 inches) in the 21st century. It is expected that the rate of sea level rise in Connecticut will remain slightly higher than the global projections due to the effects of regional subsidence.

The basis for evaluating sea level rise in this Plan is the historic sea level rise for the Connecticut shoreline over the last 100 years as adjusted by local observations. Water level data from tide gauges demonstrate that in the late 19th century and early 1900s sea level was rising at a rate of one millimeter (mm) each year. Throughout most of the 20th century, the rate has been rising at two mm per year. More recently, tide gauge data was augmented by satellite altimeter readings, which indicate that between 1990 and 2008 the rate increased to three mm per year. In addition, subsidence along the Connecticut coast may have effectively caused an additional rise of three inches on a localized basis.

Several examples of the effects of sea level rise may already exist in Guilford, including observations at the Fisher stone pier at Sachems Head and the breaching of the riprap jetty at the end of Trolley Road.

Scientific studies have resulted in a wide range in the projected long-term sea level rise to the year 2100. A conservative approach to determine likely "short-term" rise from the present time to 2040 can be developed by using the historic rise over the last century and assuming that the threefold acceleration rate will continue in the short term projected into the future. As noted above, the observed rate over the last century is one to three mm/year resulting in a conservative estimate of an additional rise of five inches to seven

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-12

inches by 2040. Land subsidence at some local shoreline areas is 0.01 inch per year, which increases the estimated rise to eight inches to 10 inches by 2040.

The wide range of governmental and scientific projections reflects the fact that sea level rise and climate change in general will be affected by a wide number of factors, and their combined effect and timing of impact can have a variety of possible outcomes. These averages are global averages and must be further adjusted by local conditions and factors as they become understood.

Erosion and Shoreline Change

Significant erosion of tidal marshes is occurring around Grass Island, east and west of the mouth of the West River at Chittenden Beach and Chaffinch Island, and near Trolley Road and Great Harbor. Additionally, the marshes are sinking/collapsing in many locations, most notably the Leete's marsh north of Shell Beach Road. A review of historical aerial photographs from the last 50 years reveals significant retreat of the marshes in the area of Chittenden Beach and east of the West River.

The limited beach areas in Guilford are also subject to erosion. Loss of sand has been noted at Jacob's Beach, Shell Beach, and Indian Cove.

4.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures

Coastal Flooding

Many of the existing programs, policies, and mitigation measures utilized in the Town for inland flood mitigation are also applicable to coastal flood mitigation. The Town's Code, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, and Inland Wetland and Watercourses Regulations were described in detail in Section 2.10. Sections of these codes and regulations are dedicated to flood damage prevention. In particular, Chapter 174 of the

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-13

Guilford Town Code is entitled "Flood Damage Prevention," and the Zoning Regulations provide for the permitting process connected to flood damage prevention. The Planning and Zoning Commission, Inland Wetlands Commission, and the Building and Engineering Department are all charged with reviewing projects and developments in coastal SFHAs.

The Public Works Department is in charge of the maintenance of the Town's drainage systems, including those in coastal neighborhoods that frequently have difficulty due to backwater, and performs clearing of bridges and culverts and other maintenance as needed.

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.

Although Guilford lacks inland flood control structures such as dams and channelized sections of rivers, the shoreline of Guilford contains many coastal flood control structures. Seawalls and bulkheads can be found in any of the residentially developed coastal neighborhoods from Old Quarry to Chittenden Beach and continuing further east to the marina where bulkheads are present.

The numerous elevated structures along the Guilford shoreline comprise another subset of existing mitigation measures. Numerous homes along Shell Beach Road and at least one on Seaside Avenue have been elevated in the past, and living areas are evidently located over garages, storage areas, or spaces that are free to flood. Because many beachfront dwellings are located on rocky bluffs, they do not need to be elevated.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-14

In summary, the Town primarily attempts to mitigate coastal flood damage and flood hazards by controlling and restricting activities in floodprone areas. This process is primarily carried out through the Planning and Zoning Commission working with the Building and Engineering Department.

Erosion and Shoreline Change

With regard to preexisting structures that were constructed to reduce coastal erosion, examples include the handful of groins and jetties along the Guilford shoreline and the seawalls and bulkheads described above.

Sea Level Rise

Like many communities, the Town lacks existing policies and mitigation measures that are specifically designed to address sea level rise. Although Guilford does not currently have a comprehensive plan to address sea level rise, important pieces are in place in the form of the codes and regulations cited in Section 2.9 that have been enacted to minimize storm, erosion, and flood damage.

4.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment

Coastal Flooding

This section discusses specific areas at risk to coastal flooding within the Town. As shown by the historic record, coastal flooding can impact a variety of roads and neighborhoods, cause severe damage, and impede transportation in the Town. As noted in Section 3.5, a total of 11 RLPs are located in Guilford. The coastal RLPs are listed in Table 4-1.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-15

TABLE 4-1 Coastal Flooding Repetitive Loss Properties

Name or Type Street Flooding Source Current Assessment Business Whitfield Street Sluice Creek/Guilford Harbor $685,800 Single-Family Home Rock Point Lane Long Island Sound $1,444,230 Single-Family Home Whitfield Street Tidal marshes $289,430 Total of three properties: $2,419,460

The structure on Whitfield Street appears to have a walk-out basement that may be damaged by flooding whereas the living areas appear to be higher. However, the exact nature of flood damage at each residential property is not reported. The flooding that occurs at the business on Whitfield Street is frequent. Floodwaters enter the first floor, and the business requires a thorough cleanup after each occurrence according to the Pre- Disaster Mitigation Committee.

The Town recognizes that many private properties may suffer coastal flood damage that is not reported because the structures are not insured under the NFIP. These residents and business owners are likely repairing structures on their own. Coastal flood mitigation as recommended in this Plan will likely help many of these property owners.

Several critical facilities lie within the coastal SFHA. Table 4-2 lists these facilities.

TABLE 4-2 Critical Facilities Located Within or Adjacent to Flood Zones

Name or Type Address Flooding Source Public Works Facility Driveway Sluice Creek1 F.C. Spencer Hook & Ladder Co. 1 51 Water Street West River estuary1 Boston Terrace Elderly Housing 41 Boston Terrace Alder Brook2 Apple Rehabilitation 10 Boston Post Road East River estuary1 Guilford Marina Whitfield Street Guilford Harbor1 East River State Boat Launch Neck Road Long Island Sound1 Brown's Boat Yard Chaffinch Island Rd West River estuary1 Guilford Boat Yard Water Street West River estuary1 1500-year FEMA SFHA flood zone 2100-year FEMA SFHA flood zone

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-16

Excluding the four marine facilities, none of these critical facilities are believed to have flooded significantly in recent years although the potential exists.

HAZUS-MH was utilized to determine the potential impacts of a 100-year coastal flood. A basic analysis was performed to generate potential damages to Guilford from a 100- year riverine flood event simultaneously occurring along all watercourses in the Town during a 100-year coastal flood event. Results were broken out between inland and coastal flooding damages based on the percentage of structures at risk to coastal flooding (69%) as calculated in Section 3.5.1.

Hydrology and hydraulics for the streams and rivers were generated utilizing the USGS's 10-meter National Elevation Dataset. The summary report is included in Appendix H. The following paragraphs discuss the results of the HAZUS-MH analysis.

The FEMA default values were used for each of the town's five census tracts in the HAZUS simulation. A summary of the default building counts and values is shown in Table 4-3. Approximately 2,273 million dollars of building value were estimated to exist within the Town.

TABLE 4-3 HAZUS-MH Flood Scenario – Basic Information

Dollar Exposure (x 1,000) Occupancy (2006 USD) Residential $1,733,284 Commercial $347,906 Other $191,784 Total $2,272,974

The HAZUS-MH simulation estimates that during a 100-year flood event, 69 residential buildings will be at least moderately damaged in the Town from coastal flooding. A total

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-17

of six of these buildings will be substantially damaged and uninhabitable. Table 4-4 presents the expected damages based on building type.

TABLE 4-4 HAZUS-MH Flood Scenario – Building Stock Damages

1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% Substantially Occupancy Damaged Damaged Damaged Damaged Damaged Damaged Residential 0 5 11 28 19 6 Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 5 11 28 19 6

HAZUS-MH utilizes a subset of critical facilities known as "essential facilities" that are important following natural hazard events. These include fire stations, hospitals, police stations, and schools. The software noted that under the 100-year coastal flood event no essential facilities will incur moderate or greater damage, with no loss of use being reported.

The HAZUS-MH simulation estimated that a total of 3,582 tons of debris would be generated by flood damage for the 100-year coastal flood scenario. It is estimated that 144 truckloads (at approximately 25 tons per truck) will be required to remove the debris. The breakdown of debris is as follows:

HAZUS-MH calculated the potential sheltering requirement for the 100-year flood event. The model estimates that 215 households will be displaced due to flooding. Displacement includes households evacuated from within or very near to the inundated areas. Of these households, a total of 275 people will seek temporary shelter in public

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-18

shelters. The predicted sheltering requirements for coastal flood damage are relatively large but should be accommodated by the existing shelters.

A total of 40.04 million dollars of building-related losses is expected. Residential losses total 27.06 million dollars, commercial losses total 8.60 million dollars, industrial losses total 4.27 million dollars, and other (municipal) losses total 0.12 million dollars.

A total of 0.06 million dollars of business interruption losses is expected. Municipal interruption losses are 37% of this total, and commercial interruption losses are 50% of this total, with industrial and residential losses being the remainder.

In summary, based on the historic record and HAZUS-MH simulations of the 100-year coastal flood events, coastal flooding is a significant hazard that can affect the Town.

Sea Level Rise

The areas of Guilford that are vulnerable to sea level rise are similar to those vulnerable to coastal hazards. Specifically, the developed areas of Guilford that are most vulnerable to sea level rise include those at low elevations and those characterized by a lack of near- surface competent bedrock. Thus, a home situated 10 feet above sea level on bedrock is

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-19

not necessarily vulnerable, but the road leading to the home could be vulnerable. In general, a quick view of the coastal floodplain maps reveals the areas that are most vulnerable to sea level rise. These include at-grade roads, certain neighborhoods, and larger areas adjacent to marshes.

In general, the homes in the near-shore densely populated areas such as Old Quarry, Little Harbor, Leete's Island, Sachems Head, Vineyard Point, Indian Cove, Mulberry Point, Tuttles Point, and Rock Point are not at risk to inundation due to sea level rise, but they are at risk to coastal hazards such as waves and winds, increased damage from storms as sea level rises, and increased frequency of isolation as roads are flooded.

On the other hand, homes located along Shell Beach Road, Trolley Road, Seaside Avenue, Meadow Street, South Fair Street, High Street, Halleck Street, Norton Street, Rosemary Lane, Chimney Corner/Prospect Avenue, and Summer Street may need to address the actual encroachment of sea water under nonstorm conditions. Likewise, industries along Soundview Road may need to address encroachment of sea water under nonstorm conditions.

With regard to undeveloped areas, all of the tidal marshes are vulnerable to sea level rise. They will continue to erode as marshes spend more time inundated and as other contributors to marsh die-off continue. The "collapse" of the Leete's marsh and the die- off of eel grass and other species leaves only mud flats in many areas that previously were marshes including Hidden Lake above the railroad bridge at the head of Great Harbor. The marshes will continue to be "squeezed" where they cannot migrate inland and, even where sufficient land is available for migration (such as within and along the East River corridor), sea level rise could be too fast for migration to occur.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has noted in recent years that "despite a growing awareness of sea level rise and coastal storm risks, communities and local decision makers still have limited access to the full suite of information needed to protect natural

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-20

and human coastal communities from these conditions." TNC's Coastal Resilience project was born from this need to provide tools for planning. The Coastal Resilience tool for Long Island Sound has recently been completed, and the casual web user can generate images of future marsh advancement and coastal flooding. These maps were generated within the web tool to help inform the subject hazard mitigation plan.

Marsh Advancement – The coastal resilience tool maps potential marsh advancement areas for the years 2020, 2050, and 2080. The three planning horizons were viewed within the web tool, and the areas of marsh advancement were noted as follows:

2020 Along Old Quarry Road End of Shell Beach Road between Birch Grove and Pump Lane (Leetes Island) On both sides of Pump Lane (Leetes Island) North side of 146 near Great Harbor Along Sachems Head Road south of 146 North of 146 along the Indian Cove valley East of West Lane near Vineyard Point Road Between Prospect Avenue and Chimney Corner Circle West of Frances Road and Rosemary Lane Along Meadow Street Along Sluice Creek Along Field Road Both sides of Seaside Avenue East of East Creek Circle Along Soundview Road Between Mill Road and Long Hill Road

2050 More land along Old Quarry Road More land along Shell Beach Road End of Shell Beach Road between Birch Grove and Pump Lane (Leetes Island) On both sides of Pump Lane (Leetes Island) North side of 146 near Great Harbor Along Sachems Head Road south of 146 North of 146 along the Indian Cove valley East of West Lane near Vineyard Point Road Areas along Trolley Road

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-21

Between Prospect Avenue and Chimney Corner Circle, but extending further east and west Along Daniel Avenue West of Frances Road and Rosemary Lane Overtaking Meadow Street Additional land along Sluice Creek, affecting Stone House Road Along Field Road, overtaking portions of the road Both sides of Seaside Avenue, overtaking portions of the road East of East Creek Circle Along Soundview Road, overtaking portions of the road Between Mill Road and Long Hill Road, and extending west of Long Hill Road Along eastern portion of Mulberry Farms Road, overtaking portions of the road Along Pinewood Road near Mulberry Farms Road Along Jacobs Lane Along River Street Extending upstream (northwest) of Three Mile Course Intersection of Norton Avenue and Halleck Street Jacob's Beach Large area south of the end of Soundview Road, from the road to the railroad tracks Past the end of Lucy Lane Northern end of East Avenue

2080 More land along Old Quarry Road Along Harrison Point Road Along Andrews Road and Little Harbor Road More land along Shell Beach Road End of Shell Beach Road between Birch Grove and Pump Lane Along Joshua Point Road On both sides of Pump Lane North side of 146 near Great Harbor Along Sachems Head Road south of 146, overtaking portions of the road North of 146 along the Indian Cove valley Overtaking portions of West Lane near Vineyard Point Road Overtaking Trolley Road Overtaking portions of Prospect Avenue and Chimney Corner Circle Crossing West Uncas Point Road Along Colonial Road Overtaking Vineyard Place Along Sachems Avenue Along Falcon Road Along Daniel Avenue Southern part of Rock Lane Along parts of Tuttles Point Road

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-22

Along Deepwood Drive Along Chaffinch Island Road Overtaking portions of Frances Road and Rosemary Lane Overtaking Meadow Street Additional land along Sluice Creek, affecting Stone House Road and extending to Wheaton Avenue Overtaking Field Road Overtaking Seaside Avenue East of East Creek Circle Overtaking Soundview Road Entire area between Mill Road and Long Hill Road, and extending west of Long Hill Road Overtaking the eastern portion of Mulberry Farms Road Overtaking Pinewood Road near Mulberry Farms Road Overtaking Jacobs Lane Overtaking River Street and crossing toward Fair Street Extending upstream (northwest) of Three Mile Course Overtaking the intersection of Norton Avenue and Halleck Street Overtaking Summer Street Up to Whitfield Street Overtaking Jacob's Beach Large area south of the end of Soundview Road, from the road to the railroad tracks A larger area past the end of Lucy Lane Overtaking East Avenue Overtaking parts of East River Road

Future Flood Scenarios – The coastal resilience tool can also map potential flood scenarios for the decades of the 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s under three sets of conditions: no storm (in other words, only the impacts of sea level rise), Category 2 hurricane, and Category 3 hurricane. These three sets of conditions are further broken down into three sets of estimates: "high" sea level rise, "medium" sea level rise, and "conservative" sea level rise corresponding to three different IPCC emissions scenarios. The result is a set of 27 different maps as listed in Table 4-5. The scenarios are clarified in Table 4-6.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-23

TABLE 4-5 Future Flood Scenarios Mapped by the Coastal Resilience Tool

Sea Level Rise Decade Condition Estimates* 2020s No Storm High Medium Conservative Category 2 High Medium Conservative Category 3 High Medium Conservative 2050s No Storm High Medium Conservative Category 2 High Medium Conservative Category 3 High Medium Conservative 2080s No Storm High Medium Conservative Category 2 High Medium Conservative Category 3 High Medium Conservative

*High = emissions scenario A2 + 3.28 feet (1 meter) Medium = emissions scenario A2 Conservative = emissions scenario A1B

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-24

TABLE 4-6 Downscaled Sea Level Rise Projections for Long Island Sound Across Several Emission Scenarios

IPCC Emissions Scenarios 2020 2050 2080 A1B 3.5 inches 10 inches 18.5 inches A2 3.5 inches 10 inches 20 inches A2 + 3.28 feet (1 meter) 9 inches 26 inches 52 inches

Source: Columbia University Earth Institute/NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies/The Nature Conservancy 2011

Because the web tool does not support map generation for high-quality printing, TNC was contacted to provide copies of key projected inundation maps. Refer to Appendix J. The maps include three scenarios for 2020 (no storm/conservative, no storm/high, and Category 2 storm/high) and the same three scenarios for the year 2080. In general, the mapping supports ongoing assertions by the scientific community regarding sea level rise: inundated areas will expand, and the Category 2 hurricane in 2080 may produce a surge that is similar to the mapped surge for a Category 4 storm at the present time.

Based on the above discussions, the following roads, sections of roads, and buildings are most vulnerable to sea level rise:

Route 146 at Old Quarry Road Portions of Old Quarry Road Shell Beach Road and the Leete's marsh Route 146 in the Lost Lake/Great Harbor area Trolley Road Prospect Avenue Chimney Corner Circle Vineyard Point Road The intersection of Route 146, Sachems Head Road, and Sam Hill Road Indian Cove Road at the head of the cove Tuttles Point Road

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-25

Chaffinch Island Road and Chaffinch Island Route 146 at West River River Street Meadow Street Route 1 at West River Homes along South Fair, High, Halleck, and Norton Streets Homes along Rosemary Lane and Summer Street Seaside Avenue The Town Marina Homes along Seaview Terrace and East Avenue Guilford municipal building at the Department of Public Works (DPW) Stone House Landing and Sawpit Road Soundview Road A few homes along Horseshoe Road and Cornfield Lane A few homes along Riverview Drive

4.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives

Coastal Flooding

Many potential mitigation strategies for coastal flooding are essentially the same as those for inland flooding and are not restated in this section under the headings for prevention, property protection, structural projects, emergency services, public education, and natural resource protection. Potential strategies that are more applicable to coastal flooding than inland flooding are presented below.

V-Zone Standards and Freeboard Standards – In recognition of increased flood losses in coastal environments, often due to increased development, the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) has adopted a No Adverse Impact (NAI) floodplain management philosophy. These policies focus on individual- or community-level

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-26

responsibility and mitigation of flood risk. NAI should be viewed as a set of principles to follow when designing or evaluating development activities. Implementation of NAI principles can be accomplished through planning initiatives, regulatory programs, individual- or community-based projects, and public education and outreach.

The NFIP and the accompanying locally adopted floodplain management ordinances set forth specific design requirements aimed at minimizing damage to buildings in mapped V zones caused by waves and storm-induced erosion. These requirements state that new, substantially damaged, or substantially improved structures that are built in V zones must, among other requirements, be elevated on piers, piles, or other open foundation type, with the lowest horizontal structural component elevated to or above the flood elevation. The area below the flood elevation is to be kept free of obstructions, used only for building access, parking, or storage. The intent of this requirement is to allow floodwaters and damaging waves to pass beneath a building without transferring any additional loads onto its foundational components.

One of the best mitigation options available, as identified by the ASFPM NAI principles, is to exceed the minimum NFIP requirements by constructing (or retrofitting) buildings located in sections of coastal A-zones to meet V-zone standards. Exceeding minimum regulatory requirements may increase costs for initial construction and maintenance, but these costs could more than be offset by long-term benefits.

Application of freeboard standards to coastal flood zone elevations is typically viewed as more effective than applying freeboard standards to inland flood zones. Freeboard standards require structures to be elevated higher than the level that FEMA requires. When used alone, freeboard standards provide additional certainty that flood levels will not damage a structure. When use in combination with V-zone standards, freeboard standards can provide an additional level of flood damage prevention.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-27

Reform of Evacuation Procedures and/or Establishment of Satellite Shelters – Viable evacuation routes can increase a community's disaster resistance. The Guilford evacuation route map was discussed in Section 2.11, and a copy is included in Appendix G. Note that the primary routes to the Community Center (blue lines) are concentrated in coastal flood and storm surge zones. For example, Route 146 and Whitfield Street are important evacuation routes, but portions of these roads may be completely impassable during a coastal hazard event such as a hurricane or nor'easter.

The concept of an evacuation route being vulnerable to flooding is contradictory to the objectives of hazard mitigation (reducing property damage and the loss of life). Therefore, coastal residents must evacuate as soon as possible after receiving a warning, or risk evacuation during a storm. In addition, the Town may consider establishing satellite shelters in areas that are subject to isolation, such as Sachems Head and Leete's Island. These shelters could then be used when evacuation to the main Town shelters is impossible due to flooding of the evacuation routes.

Sea Level Rise, Shoreline Change, and Erosion

Land use planning in coastal areas must take into account the phenomenon of sea level rise. Three fundamental long-term responses to sea level rise are typically reported in the literature. These are retreat, accommodation, and protection. These three responses are applicable to erosion and shoreline change as well.

Retreat – Retreat refers to the eventual abandonment of the coastal zone, allowing nature to take its course. This allows for existing coastal ecosystems to shift landward. Retreat may be motivated by excessive economic or environmental impacts of hard or soft measures of protection. Retreat may be implemented through anticipatory land use planning, regulation, and building codes or could be motivated through economic incentives. As a general rule, retreat is feasible in some parts of Guilford but is not feasible in the most densely developed areas.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-28

Accommodation – Accommodation allows for the continued use of land at risk but does not prevent the land from flooding. Measures associated with accommodation may take the form of elevating buildings on piles and establishing other means of flood hazard mitigation. Accommodation may evolve without any governmental action but could be assisted by strengthening flood preparation and flood insurance programs. Protective measures are implemented by authorities currently responsible for water resource and coastal protection. Policies should be developed with the ultimate goal to protect coastal property values, or they will be at risk of not being accepted by the community.

Because erosion rates are relatively low where structures are already present, accommodation is feasible in Guilford. As such, it has been used in a number of cases such as the elevated homes along Shell Beach Road and Seaview Avenue.

Protection – Protection is the construction of structures meant to protect land from inundation and flooding. These may be hard structures such as dikes and sea walls or soft solutions including beach nourishment. Of the hard structures, three main structures are utilized to hold back the sea. These are seawalls, bulkheads, and revetments. Seawalls are designed to withstand the full force of waves and are used if significant wave impact at the project site is expected to be greater than three feet. Bulkheads are designed to retain fill and generally are not exposed to severe wave action. Revetments are designed to protect shorelines against erosion by currents and light wave action.

As a general proposition, holding back the sea with structures results in large-scale elimination of wetlands, beaches, mud flats, and other coastal habitat. As shoreline erosion advances toward the structure, if sediment is not replaced at an adequate rate, the coastal fringe will eventually disappear under the water surface. This is why beaches in front of bulkheads and seawalls tend to disappear over time.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-29

Beach Nourishment and Marsh Stabilization – New hard structures are generally discouraged in Connecticut under the current regulatory climate although maintenance of existing hard structures is important. However, as noted previously, a structural solution may be permitted when it is demonstrated that it would protect a water-dependent use, infrastructural facilities, or an inhabited structure; there is a clear demonstration of the need for protection; and the use of the proposed structure is unavoidable because it is demonstrated that there is no feasible less environmentally damaging nonstructural alternative.

Therefore, beach nourishment is the primary means of protection available to Guilford. Beach nourishment is the process of replacing sand on and along eroded beaches. Sand may be obtained from offshore areas or from onshore sources. Because beach nourishment does not stop erosion and shoreline change, it must be repeated as necessary to slow the progress of erosion and shoreline change.

In many parts of the United States where hard solutions are not feasible or prudent, beach nourishment is the only means available for slowing the retreat of the shoreline. A close relative of beach nourishment is the reuse of dredged sediment to protect the marsh fronts. It is believed that beach nourishment and similar projects will increase as retreat, accommodation, and hard solutions become more difficult, costly, or unlawful to use.

Section 7.1 of the Harbor Management Plan provides a reasonable combination of hard and soft methods (variations of protection and beach nourishment) for mitigation of tidal marsh erosion:

"Jacobs Beach to Marina Entrance – Investigate mechanisms to achieve sand accretion on the beach and to maintain the edge of the tidal marsh and the entrance to the Marina, including possible extension of the breakwater further out towards the edge of the channel, elevating its shoreward end. Dredging will continue and sandy

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-30

material, if suitable should be placed behind a stabilizing structure on the eroding face of Grass Island Beach. Any structural control measures to maintain public access to the Town Marina should demonstrate that there are no other erosion control measures available."

"Chittenden Beach – Conduct detailed engineering studies of appropriate methods of sediment impoundment at the western edge of the beach near the mouth of the eastern bank of the West River, to prevent further erosion and simultaneously control this source causing the filling of the West River channel. Possible solutions may include but not be limited to construction of a wave attenuation structure. Install structure offshore to reduce wave erosion on the face of the marsh. Reduction of wave energy may allow the accumulation of sediment in the more quiescent zone behind the attenuation structure. The structure could be constructed of large boulders similar to those left by the last glacial epoch which are found throughout the area. Proper placement of several large natural stone structures would break up the wave pattern and provide enhanced fish and invertebrate habitat. Construct a pile supported 'nature trail.' Restore and replenish the preexisting stone breakwater as a sediment retention structure. Use dredged material from the West River dredging as a beneficial use to replenish eroded material from the face of the marsh."

"Chaffinch Island – Continued investigation of erosion control methods is warranted. Erosion control measures should consider a protective groin from the southern tip of the Chaffinch Island Point. Additionally, coarse sand and gravel fill will continue to be provided to fill in eroded areas along the eastern shore of the island to minimize dredging and to maintain public access to the Island as well as the Marina. Since any work, structures, or fill placed at or below the high tide line would require state authorization, the Harbor Management Commission will continue to coordinate with the Office of Long Island Sound Programs regarding the implementation of any erosion control methods that may be considered. Additional erosion control measures could include: a protective groin from the southern tip of the Chaffinch Island Point, a

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-31

pile supported 'fishing boardwalk' similar to that below the DEEP Offices on the Connecticut River at Old Saybrook, combined with a sediment retention structure."

"Wetlands West of Chaffinch Island – Commission an updated scientific evaluation of available strategies to arrest the deterioration without doing any further environmental damage to the wetlands area. Continued investigation of erosion control methods is warranted. Install a pile supported 'nature trail,' modified to control erosion and minimize dredging, which would not only improve public access to recreational shellfishing across the wetlands area, but mitigate the serious erosion of the wetlands caused by pedestrian traffic through the marsh."

This HMP incorporates the above recommendations from the Harbor Management Plan.

Elevation of Roads and Land – Elevation of land and infrastructure is another form of protection from sea level rise. Elevation has the important advantage that many types of drainage systems will continue to work properly as the same or greater head gradient will exist between the drainage system and sea level. Elevation of road surfaces can be achieved in connection with repaving or regrading of roads. In some communities, continued elevation of roads parallel to water bodies can create a diking effect, protecting areas landward of the road. In these cases, care must be taken that road elevation does not cause excessive runoff and flooding problems in other areas that become diked by the elevated roadways.

Design Standards for Docks – Section 6.7.3 of the Harbor Management Plan proposes a set of recommendations for docks located in coastal high hazard areas because construction of docks (comprised of piers, ramps, and floats) in areas exposed to severe wave energy has been a cause for concern. Not only are docks considered property that should be protected, but the debris may result in hazards to navigation, damage to private property, and eventually cleanup on another property. Accordingly, new docking

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-32

facilities proposed in V zones shall conform to the design standards outlined in 6.7.3(a) of the Harbor Management Plan as follows:

Residential dock access shall be by pier only in V zones.

Piers shall be designed such that decking can be removed and stored on the upland outside of tidal wetlands during the nonboating season. For the purposes of this section, the boating season shall extend from May 15 date to September 15.

Traditional pier, ramp, and float configurations in V zones may be constructed if unique site conditions/characteristics provide shelter or protection that significantly reduces exposure to direct wave energy.

Docks allowed per the standards in the Harbor Management Plan shall be permitted with the following additional conditions: 1) The longest side of the float must be oriented parallel to the largest predicted wave path if such a path can be determined; and 2) The ramp and float must be removed and stored at a marina, an approved in- water site, or on the upland landward of the high tide line and outside of tidal wetlands during the nonboating season.

4.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives

The proposed mitigation strategies for addressing coastal flooding, sea level rise, and shoreline change mitigation are listed below. Some of these are similar to recommendations from Section 3.7 given their applicability to general flood mitigation.

Prevention Continue to regulate activities within SFHAs to the greatest extent possible with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations

Property Protection - General Apply freeboard standards of one foot when requiring structure elevations for renovations and new construction in coastal A zones and V zones

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-33

Ensure that docks proposed in V zones conform to the design standards in 6.7.3(a) of the Harbor Management Plan Ensure that transit-oriented development around the railroad station is flood disaster resistant and practical under sea level rise scenarios

Property Protection Provide technical assistance to RLP owners (and other owners of structures that suffer flood damage) regarding floodproofing measures or pursue elevation or acquisition/demolition of these properties for open space Implement a comprehensive review of all shore protection features in the Harbor Sector to mitigate repeated loss of the damage that was typical of Tropical Storm Irene

Public Education Maximize the Town's participation in TNC's Coastal Resilience Program Develop and implement a program of data collection at key locations along the shoreline to document sea level rise and characterize the rate of sea level rise Work with associations and neighborhood groups to facilitate their education of new property owners regarding coastal hazards and sea level rise

Natural Resource Protection Pursue the acquisition of additional municipal open space in coastal flood areas and hurricane surge zones 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 tidal wetlands and floodplains

Structural Projects Elevate Route 146 at West River; upgrade bridge

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-34

Elevate Route 146 at Long Cove, provided that clearance below the railroad bridge is not jeopardized; upgrade culverts Elevate Route 146 at Great Harbor/Hidden Lake; upgrade culverts Elevate Route 146 at Leetes Island; upgrade culverts Elevate Whitfield Street from Seaview Terrace to the entrance of the marina to minimize flooding and improve drainage Elevate Daniel Avenue or West Lane to provide multiple modes of egress for Indian Cove residents Elevate Tuttles Point Road to provide egress for Tuttles Point residents Elevate selected locations along Old Quarry Road Elevate low spots on Chimney Corner Road Elevate Chaffinch Island Road as needed as long as Brown's Boat Yard remains a critical facility Elevate selected locations along Seaside Avenue Upgrade stormwater collection and discharge systems along Whitfield Street and in Guilford Center to keep up with rising sea level Raise the entire bulkhead and seawall in the marina area

Erosion Control Conduct beach nourishment at Jacob's Beach Consider extension of the breakwater near Jacob's Beach Conduct a study of alternatives for erosion control at Jacobs Beach, Chittenden Beach, Grass Island, and near Chaffinch Island and implement feasible and prudent alternatives Consider construction of a new groin at Grass Island Consider replacing the old submerged groin at the east side of the mouth of the West River Consider the use of wave attenuation structures offshore Consider the use of dredged sediment for stabilizing marsh fronts such as those near Grass Island, Chittenden, and Chaffinch Island

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-35

Consider the construction of a groin at Chaffinch Island point Construct pile-supported walkways where foot traffic is exacerbating erosion Maintain existing hard structures in good condition Set aside sufficient land for landward migration of tidal wetlands

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 4-36

5.0 HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS

5.1 Setting

Several types of hazards may be associated with tropical storms and hurricanes including heavy or tornado winds, heavy rains, and flooding. As explained in Section 4.1 in the context of coastal flooding, Guilford is a shoreline community with significant coastal resources. While the coastline is susceptible to hurricane damage such as storm surge and flooding, wind damage can occur throughout the community. Hurricanes therefore have the potential to affect any portion of Guilford. A hurricane striking Guilford is considered a possible event each year and could cause critical damage to the Town and its infrastructure (refer to Tables 1-2 and 1-3).

5.2 Hazard Assessment

Hurricanes are a class of tropical cyclones that are defined by the National Weather Service as warm-core, nonfrontal, 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 (one-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 includes 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 each year although occasionally hurricanes occur outside this period.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-1

Inland Impacts

Inland Connecticut is vulnerable to hurricanes 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, far inland areas are relatively less susceptible to hurricane wind damages than coastal areas in Connecticut. However, the heaviest rainfall often occurs inland. A recent example is Hurricane Irene (described in Section 5.3). Hurricane Irene caused extensive precipitation within inland Connecticut.

Guilford is a large community that reaches nearly 13 miles inland (to the north) from the shoreline. As such, it includes areas typical of both coastal and inland areas. However, all areas within Guilford are near enough to the coast to experience strong winds. Inland areas in Guilford are vulnerable to riverine flooding during a hurricane and are as vulnerable as coastal areas to hurricane wind damage.

Of particular concern are the blockage of roads and the damage to the electrical power supply from falling trees and tree limbs. Many of the inland roads are narrow and bordered by private forest land, which is not cleared back from the right-of-way to prevent serious problems resulting from high winds.

Storm Surge

Abnormal rise of water generated by a storm over and above the predicated astronomical tides is commonly referred to as storm surge. In short, it is the difference between the observed water level and the normal astronomical tide. Storm surge is not the same as storm tide, which is the water level rise due to the combination of storm surge and the astronomical tide. Extratropical storms such as nor'easters have produced some of the highest storm surges and resultant damages on record. However, hurricanes have the potential to produce much higher storm surges because of the vast amount of energy released by these storm systems over a relatively short duration. Hurricane Katrina in

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-2

2005 is one of the nation's most infamous examples of damage and devastation caused by storm surge.

Most recently, Hurricane Irene struck at high tide during a perigee (full moon) tide resulting in an abnormally high storm surge causing serious coastal damage in Connecticut. Although the storm surge from Irene did not destroy structures in Guilford like it did in Fairfield, East Haven, and other shoreline communities of Connecticut, the surge damaged the marina, roads, seawalls, bulkheads, and beaches in Guilford. Refer to Appendix K for photographs of the damage.

A number of factors contribute to the generation of storm surge, but the fundamental forcing mechanism is wind and the resultant frictional stress it imposes on the water surface as it forces water to move inland. The magnitude of storm surge within a coastal basin is governed by both the meteorological parameters of the hurricane and the physical characteristics of the basin. The meteorological aspects include the hurricane's size, measured by the radius of maximum winds; the intensity, measured by sea level pressure and maximum surface wind speeds at the storm center; the path, or forward track of the storm; and the storm's forward speed.

The Saffir/Simpson Scale

The "Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale" was used prior to 2009 to categorize hurricanes based upon wind speed, central pressure, and storm surge, relating these components to damage potential. In 2009, the scale was revised and is now called the "Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale." The modified scale is more scientifically defensible and is predicated only on surface wind speeds. Storm surge is no longer part of the scale. The National Hurricane Center is considering offering specific warnings regarding storm surge based on Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) mapping for areas that could be impacted by a hurricane.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-3

The following descriptions are from the 2010 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.

Category One Hurricane: Sustained winds 74-95 mph (64-82 kt or 119-153 km/hr). Damaging winds are expected. Some damage to building structures could occur, primarily to unanchored mobile homes (mainly pre-1994 construction). Some damage is likely due to poorly constructed signs. Loose outdoor items will become projectiles, causing additional damage. Persons struck by windborne debris risk injury and possibly death. Numerous large branches of healthy trees will snap. Some trees will be uprooted, especially where the ground is saturated. Many areas will experience power outages with some downed power poles.

Category Two Hurricane: Sustained winds 96-110 mph (83-95 kt or 154-177 km/hr). Very strong winds will produce widespread damage. Some roofing material, door, and window damage of buildings will occur. Considerable damage to mobile homes (mainly pre-1994 construction) and poorly constructed signs is likely. A number of glass windows in high-rise buildings will be dislodged and become airborne. Loose outdoor items will become projectiles, causing additional damage. Persons struck by windborne debris risk injury and possibly death. Numerous large branches will break. Many trees will be uprooted or snapped. Extensive damage to power lines and poles will likely result in widespread power outages that could last a few to several days.

Category Three Hurricane: Sustained winds 111-130 mph (96-113 kt or 178-209 km/hr). Dangerous winds will cause extensive damage. Some structural damage to houses and buildings will occur with a minor amount of wall failures. Mobile homes (mainly pre-1994 construction) and poorly constructed signs are destroyed. Many windows in high-rise buildings will be dislodged and become airborne. Persons struck by windborne debris risk injury and possibly death. Many trees will be

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-4

snapped or uprooted and block numerous roads. Near total power loss is expected with outages that could last from several days to weeks.

Category Four Hurricane: Sustained winds 131-155 mph (114-135 kt or 210-249 km/hr). Extremely dangerous winds causing devastating damage are expected. Some wall failures with some complete roof structure failures on houses will occur. All signs are blown down. Complete destruction of mobile homes (primarily pre- 1994 construction). Extensive damage to doors and windows likely. Numerous windows in high-rise buildings will be dislodged and become airborne. Windborne debris will cause extensive damage and persons struck by the wind-blown debris will be injured or killed. Most trees will be snapped or uprooted. Fallen trees could cut off residential areas for days to weeks. Electricity will be unavailable for weeks after the hurricane passes.

Category Five Hurricane: Sustained winds greater than 155 mph (135 kt or 249 km/hr). Catastrophic damage is expected. Complete roof failure on many residences and industrial buildings will occur. Some complete building failures with small buildings blown over or away are likely. All signs blow down. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Severe and extensive window and door damage will occur. Nearly all windows in high-rise buildings will be dislodged and become airborne. Severe injury or death is likely for persons struck by wind-blown debris. Nearly all trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last for weeks to possibly months.

5.3 Historic Record

Through research efforts by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 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

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-5

database (HURDAT), which contains historical data recently reanalyzed to current scientific standards as well as the most current hurricane data.

During HURDAT's period of record (1851-2011), two Category Three Hurricanes, 11 Category Two Hurricanes, 10 Category One Hurricanes, and 37 tropical storms have tracked within a 150 nautical mile radius of Guilford. The representative storm strengths were measured as the peak intensities for each individual storm passing within the 150- mile radius. The 23 hurricanes noted above occurred in July through October as noted in Table 5-1.

TABLE 5-1 Tropical Cyclones by Month Within 150 Miles of Guilford, 1851-2011

Category July August September October Tropical Storm1 4 11 14 5 One 1 3 4 2 Two 0 4 6 1 Three 0 0 2 0 Total 5 18 26 8

1One tropical storm occurred in May, one occurred in June, and one occurred in November. Hurricane Irene is counted as a Tropical Storm in this table although it had characteristics of a Category One storm upon landfall.

A description of the historic record of tropical cyclones near Guilford follows:

1. An unnamed hurricane in September 1858 was a Category One Hurricane when its center made landfall in southeastern Connecticut.

2. An unnamed hurricane in September 1859 strengthened to a Category One Hurricane when its center passed southeast of Long Island, New York.

3. An unnamed hurricane in September 1869 was a Category Three Hurricane when its center made landfall in Rhode Island.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-6

4. An unnamed hurricane in October 1869 was a Category Two Hurricane when its center passed over western Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

5. An unnamed hurricane in October 1878 was a Category One Hurricane when its center passed over eastern Pennsylvania toward Albany, New York.

6. An unnamed hurricane in August 1879 was a Category One Hurricane when its center made landfall in East Falmouth, Massachusetts.

7. An unnamed hurricane in September 1888 was a Category One Hurricane when its center made landfall in Nantucket, Massachusetts.

8. An unnamed hurricane in August1893 was a Category One Hurricane when its center made landfall near New York City and traveled north over western Connecticut.

9. An unnamed hurricane in October 1894 was a Category One Hurricane when its center made landfall near Clinton, Connecticut.

10. An unnamed hurricane in September 1896 was a Category One Hurricane when its center passed over southeastern Massachusetts.

11. An unnamed hurricane in July 1916 was a Category One Hurricane when its center passed near Block Island, Rhode Island.

12. An unnamed hurricane in August 1924 was a Category Two Hurricane when its center passed southeast of Nantucket, Massachusetts.

13. An unnamed hurricane in September 1936 was a Category Two Hurricane when its center passed southeast of Long Island, New York.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-7

14. The most devastating hurricane to strike Connecticut, and believed to be the strongest hurricane to hit New England in recorded history, is believed to have been a Category Three Hurricane at its peak. 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). As a Category Two Hurricane, the center of the storm passed over Long Island, made landfall near Milford, Connecticut, and moved quickly northward into northern New England.

The majority of damage was caused from storm surge and wind damage. Surges up to 18 feet were recorded along portions of the Connecticut coast, and 130 mile per hour gusts flattened forests, destroyed nearly 5,000 cottages, farms, and homes, and damaged an estimated 15,000 more throughout New York and southern New England. The storm resulted in catastrophic fires in New London and Mystic, Connecticut. Fourteen to 17 inches of rain were reported in central Connecticut, causing severe flooding. Overall, the storm left an estimated 564 dead, 1,700 injured, and caused physical damages in excess of $38 million (1938 USD).

15. The "Great Atlantic Hurricane" hit the Connecticut coast in September 1944. This storm was a Category Four Hurricane at its peak intensity but was a Category One Hurricane when its center passed over eastern Long Island and made landfall in Connecticut near New London. The storm brought rainfall in excess of six inches to most of the state and rainfall in excess of eight to 10 inches in Fairfield County. Most of the wind damage from this storm occurred in southeastern Connecticut although wind gusts of 109 mph were reported in Hartford, 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.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-8

16. Hurricane Barbara (naming of hurricanes began in 1950) was a Category One Hurricane when its center passed southeast of Long Island, New York in August 1953.

17. Hurricane Carol was a Category Two Hurricane when it made landfall in Connecticut near Clinton in late August 1954. The storm arrived 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 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 in the northeast were estimated at one billion dollars (1954 USD), and 48 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.

18. A second Category Two Hurricane, Hurricane Edna, passed over southeastern Massachusetts in September 1954. It was a Category Three Hurricane at peak intensity.

19. As explained in Section 3.3, the year 1955 was a devastating year for flooding in Connecticut. Connie was a declining tropical storm over the Midwest when its effects hit Connecticut in August 1955, producing heavy rainfall of four to six inches across the state. The saturated soil conditions exacerbated the flooding caused by Tropical Storm Diane five days later, the wettest tropical cyclone on record for the northeast. The storm produced 14 inches of rain in a 30-hour period, causing destructive flooding conditions along nearly every major river system in the state.

20. Hurricane Donna of 1960 was a Category Four Hurricane when it made landfall in southwestern Florida and weakened to a Category Two hurricane when it made landfall in September near Old Lyme, Connecticut.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-9

21. Hurricane Esther was a Category Three Hurricane when its center passed south of Nantucket, Massachusetts in September 1960.

22. Hurricane Belle of August 1976 was a Category One Hurricane as it passed over Long Island but was downgraded to a tropical storm before its center made landfall near Stratford, Connecticut. Belle caused five fatalities and minor shoreline damage.

23. Hurricane Gloria of September 1985 was a Category Three Hurricane when it made landfall in North Carolina and weakened to a Category Two Hurricane before its center passed over Long Island, New York, making landfall in Connecticut near Bridgeport. 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 in some areas and heavy winds that damaged structures and uprooted thousands of trees. The volume and spread of debris and loss of power were the major impacts from this storm, with over 500,000 people suffering significant power outages.

24. Hurricane Bob was a Category Two Hurricane when its center made landfall in Rhode Island in August 1991. The hurricane 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 and light to moderate tree damage. The storm was responsible for six deaths in the state. Total damage in southern New England was approximately $680 million (1991 USD).

25. Prior to Hurricane Irene in 2011, the most recent tropical cyclone to seriously impact Connecticut was Tropical Storm Floyd in 1999. Floyd is the storm of record in the Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan due to heavy rainfall that caused widespread flood damage throughout the state. The winds associated with Tropical Storm Floyd also caused power outages throughout New England and at least one death in Connecticut.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-10

26. Hurricane Earl of early September 2010 was a long-lived, powerful tropical cyclone that became the first major hurricane to threaten New England since Hurricane Bob. Hurricane Earl was a Category One Hurricane when it passed within 90 miles of New England. Prior to this, many forecasts predicted that a New England landfall was possible, and the storm provided an exercise in emergency preparations for the Town and many other Connecticut communities.

Only one year after Hurricane Earl, Hurricane Irene provided another exercise in emergency management for the Town, as well as the entire east coast of the United States. The hurricane peaked as a Category Three storm before it made landfall in North Carolina and tracked northward along the Delmarva Peninsula and New Jersey before the remnants of the eye crossed over New York City on Sunday, August 28, 2011. Anticipating storm surges along the Atlantic coastline, many states and municipalities issued mandatory evacuations on August 26 and 27, 2011. The Town ordered all residents south (seaward) of the Amtrak railroad line to evacuate ahead of the hurricane on Saturday, August 27, 2011.

Although the storm surge from Storm Irene did not destroy structures like it did in Fairfield, East Haven, and other shoreline communities of Connecticut, the surge damaged the marina, roads, seawalls, bulkheads, and beaches in Guilford. The wind from the storm caused extensive damage in Guilford. Similar to Hurricane Gloria in 1985, the passing of the eye of the storm to the west of Guilford caused strong southeast winds to occur in the town. Refer to Appendix K for photographs of the Irene damage.

5.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures

Existing mitigation measures appropriate for flooding have been discussed in Sections 3.0 and 4.0. These include the ordinances, codes, and regulations that have been enacted to minimize flood damage. In addition, various structures exist to protect certain coastal areas, including bulkheads, seawalls, jetties, groins, and riprap.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-11

Wind loading requirements are addressed through the state building code. The 2005 Connecticut State Building Code was amended in 2009 and adopted with an effective date of August 1, 2009. The code specifies the design wind speed for construction 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 Guilford is 110 miles per hour. Guilford has adopted the Connecticut Building Code as its building code.

Connecticut is located in FEMA Zone II regarding maximum expected wind speed. The maximum expected wind speed for a three-second gust is 160 miles per hour. This wind speed could occur as a result of either a hurricane or a tornado in south-central and southeastern Connecticut. The American Society of Civil Engineers recommends that new buildings be designed to withstand this peak three-second gust.

Parts of trees (limbs) or entire tall and older trees may fall during heavy wind events, potentially damaging structures, utility lines, and vehicles. Connecticut Light & Power, the local electric utility, provides tree maintenance near its power lines. The Town has a Tree Warden that:

Enforces all provisions of law for the preservation of trees and shrubs and of roadside beauty. Removes or initiates removal of all illegally erected signs or advertisements placed upon trees and/or shrubs within any public road or placed within his/her jurisdiction. Posts notice of removal on trees or shrubs located within the Town's right-of-way that must be removed at least 10 days prior to removal except when the subject tree or shrub poses immediate danger. A special public hearing is then held regarding the removal of the subject tree or shrub. The meeting date is set by the Tree Advisory Board.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-12

Issues permits for removal of any trees or shrubs within the Town's right-of-way in accordance with the standards and practices described in the National Arborist Association, Inc.'s Arboricultural Specifications Manual.

The Tree Warden operates from within Guilford's Department of Public Works and employees and/or persons within the Recreation and Parks Commission are responsible to assist the Tree Warden with his/her duties. Those problematic trees and shrubs located outside of Town rights-of-way fall under the responsibility of private owners and community associations for conducting tree maintenance on private property. In addition, all utilities in new subdivisions must be located underground whenever possible in order to mitigate storm-related damages.

During emergencies, the Town utilizes its Community Center as its primary shelter and the high school as its secondary shelter as described in Section 2.11. Additional locations that could be used as shelters, if needed, within the Town include the fire headquarters and the police station, which are located beside one another and are outfitted with generators. Although hurricanes that have impacted Guilford have historically passed in a day's time, additional shelters could be outfitted following a storm on an as-need basis for long-term evacuees.

The Town relies on Reverse 911, radio, cable television, area newspapers, and the internet to spread information on the location and availability of shelters. It is understood that several of these information sources can be cut off due to power failure, so emergency personnel can also pass this information on manually. Prior to severe storm events, the Town ensures that warning/notification systems and communication equipment are working properly and prepares for the possible evacuation of impacted areas. For example, the Emergency Management Agency met several times prior to the anticipated landfall of Hurricane Earl in September 2010.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-13

5.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment

NOAA issues an annual hurricane outlook to provide a general guide to each upcoming hurricane season based on various climatic factors. However, it is impossible to predict exactly when and where a hurricane will occur. NOAA believes that "hurricane landfalls are largely determined by the weather patterns in places the hurricane approaches, which are only predictable within several days of the storm making landfall."

NOAA has utilized the National Hurricane Center Risk Analysis Program (HURISK) to determine return periods for various hurricane categories at locations throughout the United States. As noted on the NOAA website, hurricane return periods are the frequency at which a certain intensity or category of hurricane can be expected within 75 nautical miles of a given location. For example, a return period of 20 years for a particular category storm means that on average during the previous 100 years a storm of that category passed within 75 nautical miles of that location five times. Thus, it is expected that similar category storms would pass within that radius an additional five times during the next 100 years.

Table 4-2 presents return periods for various category hurricanes to impact Connecticut. The nearest two HURISK analysis points were New York City and Block Island, Rhode Island. For this analysis, these data are assumed to represent western Connecticut and eastern Connecticut, respectively.

TABLE 5-2 Return Period in Years for Hurricanes to Strike Connecticut

Category New York City Block Island, RI (Western Connecticut) (Eastern Connecticut) One 17 17 Two 39 39 Three 68 70 Four 150 160 Five 370 430

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-14

According to the 2010 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, hurricanes have the greatest destructive potential of all natural disasters in Connecticut due to the potential combination of high winds, storm surge and coastal erosion, heavy rain, and flooding that can accompany the hazard. It is generally believed that New England is long overdue for another major hurricane strike. As shown in Table 5-2, NOAA estimates that the return period for a Category Two or Category Three storm to strike eastern New Haven County to be 39 years and 70 years, respectively. The last major hurricane to impact Connecticut was Hurricane Bob in 1991. Category One Hurricane Earl in 2010 was a reminder that hurricanes do track close to Connecticut.

The 2010 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update also notes that some researchers have suggested that the intensity of tropical cyclones has increased over the last 35 years, with some believing that there is a connection between this increase in intensity and climate change. While most climate simulations agree that greenhouse warming enhances the frequency and intensity of tropical storms, models of the climate system are still limited by resolution and computational ability. However, given the past history of major storms and the possibility of increased frequency and intensity of tropical storms due to climate change, it is prudent to expect that there will be hurricanes impacting Connecticut in the near future that may be of greater frequency and intensity than in the past.

In general, 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 several weeks, rendering electronic devices and those that rely on utility towers and lines inoperative.

Debris such as signs, roofing material, and small items left outside become flying missiles in hurricanes. Extensive damage to trees, towers, aboveground and underground

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-15

utility lines (from uprooted trees or failed infrastructure), and fallen poles causes 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 during hurricanes with limited rainfall.

The Town is highly vulnerable to hurricane damage from wind and flooding and from any tornadoes accompanying the storm. All of the damage to the Town from historical tropical cyclones has been due to the effects of winds and flooding. In addition, similar to other coastal towns in Connecticut, Guilford must deal with the effects of storm surge. Factors that influence vulnerability to tropical cyclones in the Town include building codes currently in place, local zoning and development patterns, and the age and number of structures located in highly vulnerable areas of the community.

Based on the population projections in Section 2.6, the population of the Town is estimated to increase only moderately through 2020. All areas of growth and development increase the Town's vulnerability to natural hazards such as hurricanes although new development is expected to mitigate potential damage by meeting the standards of the most recent building code. As noted in Section 5.1, wind damage from hurricanes and tropical storms has the ability to affect all areas of Guilford while areas susceptible to flooding are even more vulnerable. Areas of known and potential flooding problems are discussed in Sections 3.0 and 4.0, and tornadoes (which sometimes develop during tropical cyclones) will be discussed in Section 7.0.

Trees and Tree Limbs

As noted above in Section 5.4, parts or all of tall and older trees may fall during heavy wind events, potentially damaging structures, utility lines, and vehicles. According to the Tree Warden, the entire Town is vulnerable to falling of the older sugar maple trees, many of which are reaching the ends of their life expectancies.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-16

Aside from the Townwide tree vulnerability, some of the densely populated coastal neighborhoods are extremely vulnerable to downed trees and tree limbs. Mulberry Point, Tuttles Point, Indian Cove, and others have reported significant problems with power outages and debris left in roadways after wind storms.

Direct Wind Damage to Structures

Guilford's housing stock consists of many historic buildings and homes greater than 50 and sometimes 100 years old, relatively younger buildings built before 1990 when the building code changed to mitigate for wind damage, and relatively recent buildings that utilize the new code changes. Since most of the existing housing stock in the Town predates the recent code changes, many structures are highly susceptible to roof and window damage from high winds. In addition, homes located within SFHAs are at risk from flooding as a result of the heavy rainfall that typically occurs during tropical storms and hurricanes.

According to Town officials, Town- Some critical facilities are more susceptible owned critical facilities do not have than others to flooding damage associated with wind-mitigation measures installed to hurricane rainfall. Such facilities susceptible to flooding were discussed in Section 3.5. specifically reduce the effects of wind. Thus, it is possible that nearly all of the critical facilities in Guilford are as likely to be damaged by hurricane-force winds as any other structures.

Newer critical facilities, such as the police station and fire department headquarters, meet current building code requirements and are therefore considered to be the most resistant to wind damage even if they are not specifically wind resistant for hurricane gusts. Note that the high school is not specifically designed to withstand hurricane force winds, and this is something the Town is concerned with if used as a shelter in its current design during a high-wind weather event.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-17

Sheltering Needs

As calculated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the hurricane study completed in 1994, hurricane sheltering needs are the Adams Middle School, Guilford High School, the Community Center, and the North Guilford Firehouse. The total shelter capacity of the four public shelter facilities was 1,900. As of the date of the hurricane study, the ARC had agreed to operate Adams Middle School and Guilford High School as a Mass Care Facility but not the remaining two facilities. As noted in Section 2.11 of this plan, the Community Center and the high school are the two current shelter facilities.

The Town currently determines sheltering need based upon areas damaged or needing to be evacuated within 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 Town will relocate while most will stay in their homes until power is restored. In the case of a major (Category Three or above) hurricane, it is likely that the Town will depend on state and federal aid to assist in sheltering displaced populations until normalcy is restored.

HAZUS-MH Analysis

In order to quantify potential hurricane damage, HAZUS-MH simulations were run for historical and probabilistic storms that could theoretically affect the Town. For the historical simulations, the results estimate the potential maximum damage that would occur in the present day (based on year 2006 dollar values using year 2000 census data) given the same storm track and characteristics of each event. The probabilistic storms estimate the potential maximum damage that would occur based on wind speeds of varying return periods.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-18

Note that the simulations calculate damage for wind effects alone and not damages due to flooding or other nonwind effects. Furthermore, tropical systems tracking to the west of Guilford (like Gloria in 1985 and Irene in 2011) cause damaging forward southeast winds that may exceed the typical winds of the storm. Thus, the damage and displacement estimates presented below are likely lower than would occur during a hurricane associated with severe rainfall and storm surge. Results are presented in Appendix H and summarized below.

Figure 5-1 depicts the spatial relationship between the five historical storm tracks used for the HAZUS simulations (the September 1938 hurricane, the September 1944 hurricane, Hurricane Carol in 1954, Hurricane Donna in 1960, and Hurricane Gloria in 1985) and the Town. These five storm tracks produced the highest winds to affect Guilford out of all the hurricanes in the HAZUS-MH software.

Figure 5-1: Historical Hurricane Storm Tracks

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-19

The FEMA default values were used for each census tract in the HAZUS simulations. A summary of the default building counts and values is shown in Table 5-3. Approximately 2.3 billion dollars of building value was estimated to exist in the Town.

TABLE 5-3 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Basic Information

Occupancy Building Count Dollar Exposure (x 1,000) Residential 8,420 $1,733,284 Commercial 569 $347,906 Other 329 $191,784 Total 9,318 $2,272,974

The FEMA Hurricane Model HAZUS-MH Technical Manual outlines various damage thresholds to classify buildings damaged during hurricanes. The five classifications are summarized below:

No Damage or Very Minor Damage: Little or no visible damage from the outside. No broken windows or failed roof deck. Minimal loss of roof cover, with no or very limited water penetration. Minor Damage: Maximum of one broken window, door, or garage door. Moderate roof cover loss that can be covered to prevent additional water entering the building. Marks or dents on walls requiring painting or patching for repair. Moderate Damage: Major roof cover damage, moderate window breakage. Minor roof sheathing failure. Some resulting damage to interior of building from water. Severe Damage: Major window damage or roof sheathing loss. Major roof cover loss. Extensive damage to interior from water. Limited, local joist failures. Failure of one wall. Destruction: Essentially complete roof failure and/or more than 25% of roof sheathing. Significant amount of the wall envelope opened through window failure and/or failure of more than one wall. Extensive damage to interior.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-20

Table 5-4 presents the peak wind speeds during each wind event simulated by HAZUS for the Town. The number of expected residential buildings to experience various classifications of damage is presented in Table 5-4, and the total number of buildings expected to experience various classifications of damage is presented in Table 5-5. Minimal damage is expected to buildings for wind speeds less than 65 mph, with overall damages increasing with increasing wind speed.

TABLE 5-4 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Number of Residential Buildings Damaged

Return Period or Peak Wind Minor Moderate Severe Total Total Storm Gust (mph) Damage Damage Damage Destruction 10 Years 46-48 0 0 0 0 0 20 Years 63-65 6 0 0 0 6 50 Years 83-86 274 15 0 0 289 Unnamed (1944) 92 485 36 0 1 522 Carol (1954) 98 845 84 2 2 933 100 Years 96-98 1,087 127 4 4 1,222 Donna (1960) 100 1,140 137 5 4 1,286 200 Years 106-109 2,240 503 48 42 2,833 Gloria (1985) 111 2,389 568 59 50 3,066 Unnamed (1938) 113 2,704 771 104 88 3,667 500 Years 120-122 3,191 1,404 338 284 5,217 1,000 Years 128-130 3,070 2,031 767 700 6,568

TABLE 5-5 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Total Number of Buildings Damaged

Return Period or Minor Moderate Severe Total Total Storm Damage Damage Damage Destruction 10 Years 0 0 0 0 0 20 Years 9 0 0 0 9 50 Years 297 17 0 0 314 Unnamed (1944) 524 41 1 1 567 Carol (1954) 915 97 4 2 1,018 100 Years 1,176 146 7 4 1,333 Donna (1960) 1,233 158 8 4 1,403 200 Years 2,424 590 65 42 3,121 Gloria (1985) 2,584 666 78 51 3,379 Unnamed (1938) 2,919 901 137 89 4,046 500 Years 3,432 1,619 435 287 5,773 1,000 Years 3,289 2,305 967 707 7,268

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-21

The HAZUS simulations consider a subset of critical facilities termed "essential facilities" that are important during emergency situations. Note that the essential facilities in HAZUS-MH may not necessarily be the same today as they were in 2000. Nevertheless, the information is useful from a planning standpoint. As shown in Table 5-6, minimal damage to essential facilities is expected for wind speeds less than 95 mph. Minor damage to the remaining essential facilities is likely to occur for all greater wind events, with more than one day of lost use to each facility for wind speeds greater than 100 mph. The 1,000-year probabilistic event (wind speeds of 128-130 mph) has a greater than 50% potential to cause at least moderate damage to each essential facility.

TABLE 5-6 HAZUS-MH Hurricane Scenarios – Essential Facility Damage

Return Period or Emergency Fire Station (1) Police Station (1) Schools (8) Storm Operations Center (1) None or minor None or minor None or minor None or minor 10 Years damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use None or minor None or minor None or minor None or minor 20 Years damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use None or minor None or minor None or minor None or minor 50 Years damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use None or minor None or minor None or minor None or minor Unnamed (1944) damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use None or minor None or minor None or minor None or minor Carol (1954) damage, loss of use > damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use 1 day at 5 schools None or minor None or minor None or minor None or minor 100 Years damage, loss of use > damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use damage, no loss of use 1 day at 7 schools Minor damage, loss of Minor damage, loss of Minor damage, loss of Minor damage, loss of Donna (1960) use > 1 day use > 1 day use > 1 day at each use > 1 day Minor damage, loss of Minor damage, loss of Minor damage, loss of Minor damage, loss of 200 Years use > 1 day use > 1 day use > 1 day at each use > 1 day Minor damage, loss of Minor damage, loss of Minor damage, loss of Minor damage, loss of Gloria (1985) use > 1 day use > 1 day use > 1 day at each use > 1 day Minor damage, loss of Minor damage, loss of Minor damage, loss of Minor damage, loss of Unnamed (1938) use > 1 day use > 1 day use > 1 day at each use > 1 day Minor damage, loss of Minor damage, loss of Minor damage, loss of Minor damage, loss of 500 Years use > 1 day use > 1 day use > 1 day at each use > 1 day Chance of moderate Chance of moderate Chance of moderate Chance of moderate 1,000 Years damage >50%, loss of damage >50%, loss of damage >50%, loss of damage >50%, loss of use > 1 day use > 1 day use > 1 day at each use > 1 day

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-22

Table 5-7 presents the estimated tonnage of debris that would be generated by wind damage during each HAZUS hurricane scenario. As shown in Table 5-7, minimal debris is expected for wind speeds less than the 50-year event, and reinforced concrete and steel buildings are not expected to generate debris for any of the wind events simulated. Much of the debris that is generated is tree related.

TABLE 5-7 HAZUS-MH Hurricane Scenarios – Debris Generation (Tons)

Return Period or Reinforced Estimated Truckloads Brick / Wood Tree Debris Total Storm Concrete / Steel (25 Tons per Truck) 10 Years None None None None None 20 Years 20 None None 20 1 50 Years 747 None 9,918 10,665 31 Unnamed (1944) 1,214 None 12,278 13,492 51 Carol (1954) 2,152 None 15,780 17,932 87 100 Years 2,812 None 17,277 20,089 112 Donna (1960) 3,038 None 17,218 20,256 119 200 Years 8,209 None 32,835 41,044 325 Gloria (1985) 9,219 None 39,300 48,519 361 Unnamed (1938) 11,875 None 54,099 65,974 491 500 Years 25,335 None 95,307 120,642 1,050 1,000 Years 50,468 None 129,775 180,243 2,027

Table 5-8 presents the potential sheltering requirements based on the various wind events simulated by HAZUS. The predicted sheltering requirements for wind damage are relatively minimal except for the two largest wind events and can be met through the use of the existing two shelters. However, it is likely that hurricanes will also produce heavy rain, inland flooding, and coastal flooding due to storm surge that will increase the overall sheltering need in the Town.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-23

TABLE 5-8 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Shelter Requirements

Return Period or Number of Displaced Short-Term Sheltering Storm Households Need (Number of People) 10 Years None None 20 Years None None 50 Years None None Unnamed (1944) None None Carol (1954) None None 100 Years 1 None Donna (1960) 1 None 200 Years 10 2 Gloria (1985) 13 2 Unnamed (1938) 33 3 500 Years 257 44 1,000 Years 972 182

Table 5-9 presents the predicted economic losses due to the various simulated wind events. Property damage loss estimates include the subcategories of building, contents, and inventory damages. The direct property damage losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building or its contents.

TABLE 5-9 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Economic Losses (x $1,000)

Residential Business Return Period Total Property Property Damage Interruption or Storm Damage Losses Losses (Income) Losses 10 Years None None None 20 Years 584 630 6 50 Years 6,437 6,931 457 Unnamed (1944) 9,273 10,351 764 Carol (1954) 14,163 16,464 1,812 100 Years 18,118 21,130 2,436 Donna (1960) 19,018 22,256 2,540 200 Years 56,358 69,621 9,323 Gloria (1985) 63,827 78,503 10,482 Unnamed (1938) 92,849 113,852 15,017 500 Years 222,700 274,085 38,406 1,000 Years 454,654 559,545 78,103

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-24

Business interruption loss estimates in Table 5-9 include the subcategories of lost income, relocation expenses, and lost wages. The business interruption losses are associated with the inability to operate a business due to the damage sustained during a hurricane and also include temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the storm.

Losses are minimal for storms with return periods of less than 20 years (65 mph) but increase rapidly as larger storms are considered. For example, a reenactment of the 1938 hurricane would cause approximately $128.9 million in wind damages to the Town. As these damage values are based on 2006 dollars, it is likely that these estimated damages will be higher today due to inflation.

In summary, hurricanes are a very real and potentially costly hazard to the Town. Based on the historic record and HAZUS-MH simulations of various wind events, the entire Town is vulnerable to wind damage from hurricanes. These damages can include direct structural damages, interruptions to business and commerce, emotional impacts, and injury and possibly death.

5.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives

Many potential mitigation measures for hurricanes include those appropriate for inland and coastal flooding. These were presented in Sections 3.0 and 4.0. 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.

5.6.1 Prevention

Although wind from hurricanes and tropical storms cannot be prevented, a number of methods are available to prevent damage from the storms.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-25

To prevent wind damage, the Town should expand the current program of placing utilities underground and look for opportunities to relocate utilities underground. According to the Guilford Transportation Plan (approved May 2003), the "Town Planner and Town Engineer should jointly develop formal communication protocols with the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation and with the various utilities (telephone, cable, gas and water) to coordinate long range planning for modifications, upgrades or replacements of infrastructure within Guilford. The Board of Selectmen should consider coordination with utilities to place communication and power lines below ground in central areas of Route 1, the Green, Boson and Whitfield Streets…."

As explained in Section 5.5, other densely populated coastal neighborhoods are extremely vulnerable to downed trees and tree limbs. Mulberry Point, Tuttles Point, Indian Cove, and others have reported significant problems with power outages and debris left in roadways after wind storms and should be considered for replacement of utilities underground.

Although the Tree Warden actively enforces the tree ordinance, time and budgetary constraints reportedly hamper his ability to be as effective as needed to help prevent wind problems. Pruning tree limbs should be considered in addition to removal of older or dying trees. Additional funding could allow for increased tree maintenance and pruning.

To prevent damage to watercraft and the potential resulting damage to nearby property, the Town should remain well positioned to aid in the removal of watercraft from Long Island Sound prior to hurricanes and tropical storms. This can be accomplished at the Town marina; at private facilities like Brown's Boat Yard and Guilford Boat Yard; and at outlying boat launches such as the state boat launch east of Grass Island.

To prevent damage to docks and the potential resulting damage to nearby property, the Town must enforce the design standards provided in the Harbor Management Plan as

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-26

described in Section 4.0 of this Plan including removal of ramps and floats ahead of a major storm.

5.6.2 Property Protection

Potential mitigation measures for property protection during hurricanes 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 and transfer loads to foundations. In addition, living and working areas can be elevated to allow a storm surge to pass safely underneath.

As noted in Section 2.11, the ARC has published a guidebook entitled Standards for Hurricane Evacuation Shelter Selection (American Red Cross Publication #4496). The publication provides guidelines for selecting shelters relative to resilience from storm surges, flooding, and hurricane winds.

The PDM program is the current FEMA mitigation grant program best suited to funding hurricane wind mitigation projects. The PDM program recognizes four categories of property protection projects for wind damage mitigation as follows:

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-27

"Shutter mitigation" projects protect all windows and doors of a structure with shutters or other systems that meet debris impact and wind pressure design requirements. All openings of a building are to be protected. "Load path" projects improve and upgrade the structural system of a building to transfer loads from the roof to the foundation. This retrofit provides positive connection from the roof framing to the walls, better connections within the wall framing, and connections from the wall framing to the foundation system. "Roof projects" involve retrofitting a building's roof by improving and upgrading the roof deck and roof coverings to secure the building envelope and integrity during a wind event. "Code plus" projects are those designed to exceed the local building codes and standards to achieve a greater level of protection.

The Building and Engineering Department should make literature available to developers during the permitting process regarding various design standards.

5.6.3 Public Education and Awareness

The public, especially those individuals living within hurricane storm surge evacuation zones, should be made aware of evacuation routes and available shelters should a hurricane or summer storm be forecast to impact Guilford. The Town should continue to use various forms of media to notify the public on any and all updates to natural disaster preparedness and damage prevention. Recommendations regarding public education and awareness are common to all hazards in this Plan, and are listed in Section 11.1.

5.6.4 Emergency Services

A natural hazard mitigation plan addresses actions that can be taken before a disaster event. In this context, emergency services that would be appropriate mitigation measures for hurricanes include diligent use of forecasting, implementation of Reverse 911 to

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-28

provide information on the time of occurrence and magnitude of a storm, and early evacuation of neighborhoods and localities. Guilford has implemented Reverse 911 for over a decade. Although evacuation of Guilford as a whole may not be feasible, coordination between the three arms of the Emergency Management Agency (Fire, Police, and Health Department) representatives and early and frequent broadcasts regarding weather and Town updates are crucial.

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.

5.6.5 Structural Projects

Structural mitigation for hurricane storm surges is generally focused on hard or soft shoreline protection such as seawalls or coconut rolls. Previous recommendations for coastal flood mitigation provided in Section 4.0 will provide mitigation for coastal flooding caused by hurricanes. However, where seawalls and other structural solutions are permitted, it is important that breaches and damage be repaired promptly to mitigate against damage from future storm events.

Structural projects for wind damage mitigation are not possible. Note that structural mitigation methods used for buildings are classified as property protection and were described above.

5.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives

Recommendations for mitigation of hurricane and tropical storm winds include the following:

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-29

Continue tree limb inspections and maintenance and outreach to private property owners regarding branches above power lines Increase funding for the Tree Warden to address a wider range of tree limb hazards than the current budget allows Develop a plan for addressing dead or dying trees near structures and roads Expand programs to bury power lines where feasible Provide for the Building Department to make literature available during the permitting process regarding appropriate design standards for wind Encourage the use of wind-mitigation structural techniques in new structures to protect new buildings to a greater level than the required standard

In addition, many of the recommendations in Sections 4.7 for mitigating coastal flooding are suitable for mitigation of storm surges. Finally, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 11.1.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 5-30

6.0 SUMMER STORMS AND TORNADOES

6.1 Setting

Like hurricanes and winter storms, summer storms and tornadoes have the potential to affect any area within the Town. 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 is therefore susceptible to summer storms (including heavy rain, flash flooding, wind, hail, and lightning) and tornadoes.

Based on the historic record, it is considered highly likely that a summer storm that includes lightning will occur each year although lightning strikes have a limited effect. Strong winds and hail are considered likely to occur during such storms but also generally have limited effects. A tornado is considered a possible event in New Haven County each year and could cause significant damage to a small area (refer to Tables 1-2 and 1-3).

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 here.

Tornadoes

NOAA defines a tornado as "a violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to the ground." The two types of tornadoes include those that develop from supercell thunderstorms and those that do not. While the physics of tornado development are fairly well understood, there are many unknowns still being studied regarding the

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-1

exact conditions in a storm event required to trigger a tornado, the factors affecting the dissipation of a tornado, and the effect of cloud seeding on tornado development.

Supercell thunderstorms are long-lived (greater than one hour) and highly organized storms feeding off an updraft that is tilted and rotating. This rotation is referred to as a "mesocyclone" when detected by Doppler radar. The figure below is a diagram of the anatomy of a supercell that has spawned a supercell tornado. Tornadoes that form from a supercell thunderstorm are a very small extension of the larger rotation; they are the most common and the most dangerous type of tornado as most large and violent tornadoes are spawned from supercells.

Figure 6-1: Anatomy of a Tornado. Image from NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory.

Non-supercell tornadoes are defined by NOAA as circulations that form without a rotating updraft. Damage from these types of tornadoes tends to be F2 or less (see Fujita Scale, below). The two types of non-supercell tornadoes are gustnadoes and landspouts:

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-2

A gustnado is a whirl of dust or debris at or near the ground with no condensation tunnel that forms along the gust front of a storm. A landspout is a narrow, ropelike condensation funnel that forms when the thunderstorm cloud is still growing and there is no rotating updraft. Thus, the spinning motion originates near the ground. Waterspouts are similar to landspouts but occur over water.

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 F5, increasing with wind speed and intensity. A description of the scale follows in Table 6-1.

TABLE 6-1 Fujita Scale

F-Scale Wind Intensity Type of Damage Done Number Speed 40-72 Some damage to chimneys; branches broken off trees; F0 Gale tornado mph shallow-rooted trees knocked over; damage to sign boards. Peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off 73-112 F1 Moderate tornado foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off the mph roads; attached garages may be destroyed. Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile 113-157 F2 Significant tornado homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees mph snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated. 158-206 Roof and some walls torn off well-constructed houses; F3 Severe tornado mph trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted. Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak 207-260 F4 Devastating tornado foundations blown off for some distance; cars thrown and mph large missiles generated. Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile-sized 261-318 F5 Incredible tornado missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees mph debarked; steel-reinforced concrete structures badly damaged.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-3

According to NOAA, weak tornadoes (F0 and F1) account for approximately 69% of all tornadoes. These tornadoes last an average of five to 10 minutes and account for approximately 3% of tornado-related deaths. Strong tornadoes (F2 and F3) account for approximately 29% of all tornadoes and approximately 27% of all tornado deaths. These storms may last for 20 minutes or more.

Violent supercell tornadoes (F4 and above) are extremely destructive but rare and account for only 2% of Fujita Tornado Scale. Image courtesy of FEMA. all tornadoes. These storms sometimes last over an hour and result in approximately 70% of all tornado- related deaths. Unfortunately, violent and long-lasting tornadoes have caused severe destruction to the Midwest and southern United States in spring 2011.

The Enhanced Fujita Scale was released by NOAA for implementation on February 1, 2007. According to the NOAA website, 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 construction depending on location within the United States, and an overestimation of wind speeds for F3 and greater.

Similar to the Fujita Scale, the Enhanced F-scale is also 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 6-2 relates the Fujita and Enhanced Fujita Scales.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-4

TABLE 6-2 Enhanced Fujita Scale

Fujita Scale Derived EF Scale Operational EF Scale Fastest 1/4- 3-Second 3-Second 3-Second F Number EF Number EF Number mile (mph) Gust (mph) Gust (mph) 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

Official records of tornado activity date back to 1950. According to NOAA, an average of 1,000 tornadoes is reported each year in the United States. The historic record of tornadoes near Guilford is discussed in Section 6.3. Tornadoes are most likely to occur in Connecticut in June, July, and August of each year.

Lightning

Lightning is a discharge of electricity that occurs between the positive and negative charges within the atmosphere or between the atmosphere and the ground. According to NOAA, the creation of lightning during a storm is a complicated process that is not fully understood. 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 Image courtesy of NOAA. discharge of electricity (lightning) occurs.

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

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-5

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, there is an average of 100,000 thunderstorms per year in the United States. An average of 41 people per year died, and an average of 262 people were injured from lightning strikes in the United States from 2000 to 2009. 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. The historic record of lightning strikes both in Connecticut and near Guilford is presented in Section 5.3.

Downbursts

A downburst is a severe localized wind blasting down from a thunderstorm. They are more common than tornadoes in Connecticut. Depending on the size and location of downburst events, the destruction to property may be significant.

Downburst activity is, on Downbursts fall into two categories: occasion, mistaken for tornado Microbursts affect an area less than 2.5 miles in activity. Both storms have very diameter, last five to 15 minutes, and can cause damaging winds up to 168 mph. damaging winds (downburst Macrobursts affect an area at least 2.5 miles in wind speeds can exceed 165 diameter, last five to 30 minutes, and can cause damaging winds up to 134 mph. miles per hour) and are very loud. These "straight line" winds are distinguishable from tornadic activity by the pattern of destruction and debris such that the best way to determine the damage source is to fly over the area.

It is difficult to find statistical data regarding frequency of downburst activity. NOAA reports that there are 10 downburst reports for every tornado report in the United States.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-6

This implies that there are approximately 10,000 downbursts reported in the United States each year and further implies that downbursts occur in approximately 10% of all thunderstorms in the United States annually. This value suggests that downbursts are a relatively uncommon yet persistent hazard. A few downbursts have occurred in Guilford as reported in the historic record in Section 6.3.

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 1.5 pounds have been recorded. NOAA has estimates of the velocity of falling hail ranging from nine meters per second (m/s) (20 mph) for a one centimeter (cm) diameter hailstone, to 48 m/s (107 mph) for an eight cm, 0.7 kilogram stone. While crops are the major victims of hail, larger hail is also a hazard to people, vehicles, and property.

According to NOAA's National Weather Service, hail caused four deaths and an average of 47 injuries per year in the United States from 2000 to 2009. Hailstorms typically occur in at least one part of Connecticut each year during a severe thunderstorm. Hail storms have occurred in Guilford as reported in the historic record in Section 6.3.

6.3 Historic Record

An extensively researched list of tornado activity in Connecticut is available on Wikipedia. This list extends back to 1648 although it is noted that the historical data prior to 1950 is incomplete due to lack of official records and gaps in populated areas. Based on available information through July 2010, New Haven County has experienced a total of 21 tornado events with reported damages totaling tens of millions of dollars. Of the 21 total tornado events, the two closest to Guilford were F0 and F1 tornadoes while an F4 tracked through the city of New Haven. Table 6-3 summarizes the tornado events near Guilford from 1950 through February 2011 based on the Wikipedia list.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-7

TABLE 6-3 Tornado Events Near Guilford

Fujita Injuries / Date Location Tornado Deaths Scale Property Damage August 29, 1959 Southeastern New Haven County F0 NR NR Destroyed approximately July 10, 1989 New Haven County F4 Injured 40 400 structures June 30, 1998 Chatfield State Park - Killingworth F1 Treetops twisted NR Intersection of Day Hill Road and Trees twisted off a few June 30, 1998 F1 NR Route 148 - Lyme feet from the ground

NR = None Reported

Thunderstorms occur on 18 to 35 days each year in Connecticut. Only 17 lightning- related fatalities occurred in Connecticut between 1959 and 2009. Most recently, on June 8, 2008, lightning struck a pavilion at Hammonasset Beach in nearby Madison, Connecticut, injuring five and killing one. Hail is often a part of such thunderstorms as seen in the historic record for Guilford (below). A limited selection of summer storm damage in and around Guilford taken from the NCDC Storm Events database is listed below:

June 30, 1998 – Two F1 tornadoes were confirmed by the National Weather Service and touched down in nearby Killingworth and Lyme. Treetops were twisted, trees were twisted off a few feet from the ground, and damage consisted primarily of downed trees and power lines.

June 2, 2000 – Severe thunderstorm lines swept across the southeast Connecticut region. The thunderstorms produced high winds that downed many trees and power lines, causing one death and one injury throughout the affected areas. A funnel cloud was observed in nearby Old Saybrook.

August 28, 2001 – A cold front moved southeast across southern Connecticut pushing a line of strong thunderstorms across the region during the late afternoon and early

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-8

evening hours. Thunderstorms were accompanied by pea- to dime-size hail as well. Strong wind gusts of 60 mph or slightly greater toppled numerous large trees and tree limbs and resulted in many power outages in the area. Guilford saw a wind gust of 53 mph by a storm spotter.

May 31, 2002 – A line of severe thunderstorms moved southeast across the area and produced high winds that downed trees and power lines in Guilford.

August 17, 2003 – A line of thunderstorms moved east across the region and produced high winds that knocked over a tree, which fell onto a car in the adjacent town of Branford.

July 2, 2004 – A strong cold front moved through the region and was accompanied by a strong trough of low pressure aloft. Thunderstorms developed in advance of the front. Temperatures aloft were rather cold, prime for the production of large hail by the thunderstorms.

September 17, 2005 – Trees and wires were downed by strong thunderstorms that developed ahead of an advancing cold front. The thunderstorms caused wind damage, flash flooding, as well as frequent lightening. Connecticut Light & Power reported that approximately 30,000 customers lost power across the state.

August 3, 2006 – A cluster of thunderstorms moved east along southern Connecticut. In doing so, high winds associated with the storms downed trees and power line.

June 16, 2007 – Large tree limbs were downed when severe thunderstorms, producing damaging winds and large hail, moved across the area.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-9

June 8, 2008 – Numerous severe thunderstorms developed as a weak upper level interacted with a hot and humid air mass in the region. As a result, strong downburst winds developed, and large trees and power lines were brought down in turn.

Tornado strikes in Connecticut occurred on June 26, 2009 and July 31, 2009. Both tornadoes were rated as EF-1s. The June 26, 2009 tornado affected Wethersfield, and the July 31, 2009 tornado touched down in the adjacent town of Madison to the east and nearby Shelton to the west, implying that the cell passed directly over Guilford. Also during the July 31, 2009 storm, widespread damage from straight line winds occurred. Numerous trees were reported down in Guilford, including one that fell on a car.

April 22, 2010 – An approaching cold front sparked scattered thunderstorms across New Haven County. In the adjacent town of North Branford, quarter-size hail was reported.

June 25, 2010 – An EF-1 tornado struck Bridgeport in southern Fairfield County causing massive damage throughout parts of the city, only 33 miles from Guilford. The storm caused over seven million dollars in damages to Bridgeport and the surrounding towns, and 23 people were injured.

6.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures

Warning is the most viable and therefore the primary method of existing mitigation for tornadoes and thunderstorm-related hazards in Connecticut. The NOAA National Weather Service issues watches and warnings when severe weather is likely to develop or has developed, respectively. Tables 6-4 and 6-5 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.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-10

TABLE 6-4 NOAA Weather Watches

Weather Condition Meaning Actions Severe thunderstorms are possible in Notify personnel and watch for Severe Thunderstorm your area. severe weather. Notify personnel and be prepared to Tornado Tornadoes are possible in your area. move quickly if a warning is issued. It is possible that rains will cause Notify personnel to watch for street Flash Flood flash flooding in your area. or river flooding.

TABLE 6-5 NOAA Weather Warnings

Weather Condition Meaning Actions Notify personnel and watch for severe conditions or damage (i.e., Severe thunderstorms are occurring Severe Thunderstorm downed power lines and trees). or are imminent in your area. Take appropriate actions listed in municipal emergency plans. Notify personnel, watch for severe Tornadoes are occurring or are weather, and ensure personnel are Tornado imminent in your area. protected. Take appropriate actions listed in emergency plans. Watch local rivers and streams. Be Flash flooding is occurring or prepared to evacuate low-lying Flash Flood imminent in your area. areas. Take appropriate actions listed in emergency plans.

Aside from warnings, several other methods of mitigation for wind A severe thunderstorm watch is issued by the National Weather Service when the weather damage are employed in Guilford as conditions are such that a severe thunderstorm (winds greater than 58 miles per hour, or hail explained in Section 5.4 within the three-fourths of an inch or greater, or can context of hurricanes and tropical produce a tornado) is likely to develop.

storms. In addition, the Connecticut A severe thunderstorm warning is issued when a State Building Code includes severe thunderstorm has been sighted or indicated by weather radar. guidelines for the proper grounding of buildings and electrical boxes.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-11

Municipal responsibilities relative to summer storm and tornado mitigation and preparedness include:

Developing and disseminating emergency public information and instructions concerning tornado, thunderstorm wind, lightning, and hail safety, especially guidance regarding in-home protection and evacuation procedures and locations of public shelters Designating appropriate shelter space in the community that could potentially withstand lightning and tornado impact Periodically test and exercise tornado response plans Putting emergency personnel on standby at tornado "watch" stage

6.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment

According to the 2010 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, Litchfield and Hartford Counties have the highest incidences of tornadoes and therefore may be considered to have a high risk for the occurrence of future tornadoes. The second area of moderate to high risk is in Fairfield and New Haven Counties. By virtue of its location in New Haven County (moderate to high risk), the Town has moderate to high potential to experience tornado damage in the future. In addition, NOAA states that climate change has the potential to increase the frequency and intensity of tornadoes, so it is possible that the pattern of occurrence in Connecticut could change in the future.

Although tornadoes pose a threat to all areas of the state, their occurrence is not considered frequent enough to justify the construction of tornado shelters or safe rooms. Instead, the state has provided NOAA weather radios to all public schools as well as to many local governments for use in public buildings. The general public continues to rely on mass media for knowledge of weather warnings. Warning time for tornadoes is very short due to the nature of these types of events, so pre-disaster response time can be limited. However, the NOAA weather radios provide immediate notification of all types

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-12

of weather warnings in addition to tornadoes, making them very popular with communities.

The central and southern portions of the United States are at higher risk for lightning and thunderstorms than is the northeast. However, FEMA reports that more deaths from lightning occur on the East Coast than elsewhere. Lightning-related fatalities have declined in recent years due to increased education and awareness.

In general, thunderstorms and hailstorms in Connecticut are more frequent in the western and northern parts of Connecticut and slightly less frequent in the southern and eastern parts. Thunderstorms are expected to impact Guilford at least 20 days each year. The majority of these events do not cause any measurable damage. Although lightning is usually associated with thunderstorms, it can occur on almost any day. The likelihood of lightning strikes in the Guilford area is very high during any given thunderstorm although no one area of the Town is at higher risk of lightning strikes. The risk of at least one hailstorm occurring in Guilford is considered moderate in any given year.

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 a downburst from a thunderstorm and have no associated rotation. The risk of downbursts occurring during such storms and damaging the Town is believed to be moderate for any given year. All areas of the Town are susceptible to damage from high winds although more building damage is expected in the Town center and the densely populated coastal neighborhoods.

Secondary damage from falling branches and trees is more common than direct wind damage to structures. Heavy winds can take down trees near power lines, leading to the start and spread of fires. Most downed power lines in Guilford are detected quickly and any associated fires are quickly extinguished. Such fires can be extremely dangerous during the summer months during dry and drought conditions.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-13

There are no critical facilities believed to be more susceptible to summer storm wind damage than any other. However, some critical facilities are more susceptible than others to flash flooding damage due to summer storms. Such facilities susceptible to flooding damage were discussed in Section 3.5.

In summary, the entire Town is at relatively equal risk for experiencing damage from summer storms and tornadoes. Based on the historic record, only a few summer storms or tornadoes have resulted in costly damages to the Town. Most damages are relatively site specific and occur to private property (and therefore are paid for by private insurance). For municipal property, the Town's budget for tree removal and minor repairs is generally limited to handle routine summer storm damage. However, the recent EF1 tornado that struck Bridgeport has raised awareness regarding the potential catastrophic damage such storms can cause.

6.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives

Most of the mitigation activities for summer storm and tornado wind damage are similar to those discussed in Section 5.6 and are not reprinted here. Public education is the best way to mitigate damage from hail, lightning, and tornadoes. In addition to other educational documents, the Building Official should make literature available regarding appropriate design standards for grounding of structures.

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 Construction of safe rooms within homes

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-14

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, as stated earlier their occurrence is considered too infrequent in Connecticut to justify the construction of tornado shelters. Residents should instead be encouraged to purchase a NOAA weather radio containing an alarm feature.

The Town utilizes the Reverse 911 emergency notification system to send geographically specific telephone warnings into areas at risk for hazard damage. This is extremely useful for natural hazard mitigation as 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 by a severe storm that struck Lake County, Florida on February 2, 2007 and the recent storms that struck Alabama in spring 2010. These powerful storms, which included several tornadoes, stuck at night. In the case of the Florida storm, local broadcast stations had difficultly warning residents due to the lack of listeners and viewers and encouraged those awake to telephone warnings into the affected area.

6.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives

Recommendations for mitigation of summer storms and associated winds include the following, repeated from Section 5.7:

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-15

Encourage the use of wind-mitigation structural techniques in new structures to protect new buildings to a greater level than the required standard

In addition, many of the recommendations in Sections 3.7 for mitigating inland flooding are suitable for mitigation of flash flooding caused by summer storms. Finally, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 11.1.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 6-16

7.0 WINTER STORMS AND NOR'EASTERS

7.1 Setting

Similar to summer storms and tornadoes, winter storms have the potential to affect any part of Guilford. However, unlike summer storms, winter events and the hazards that result (wind, snow, and ice) have more widespread geographic extent. The entire Town is therefore susceptible to winter storms and due to its location on the shoreline can have more snowfall totals during ocean-effect snowstorms. 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 Tables 1-2 and 1-3).

7.2 Hazard Assessment

This section focuses on those effects According to the National Weather Service, approximately 70% of winter commonly associated with winter storms, deaths related to snow and ice occur in including those from blizzards, ice storms, automobiles, and approximately 25% of deaths occur from people being caught heavy snow, freezing rain, and extreme in the cold. In relation to deaths from cold. Most deaths from winter storms are exposure to cold, 50% are people over 60 years old, 75% are male, and 20% indirectly related to the storm, such as from occur in the home. 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

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 7-1

northeast winds typically accompanying such storms, and such storms tend to produce a 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. Along the coast, wind driven waves can batter the shore, causing flooding and severe beach erosion. Coupled with a high tide, the low pressure of a nor'easter can have an effect similar to a storm surge from a hurricane.

Connecticut experiences at least one severe winter storm every five years although a variety of small and medium snow and ice storms occur 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 10 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 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 10 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

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 7-2

centers. Table 7-1 presents the NESIS categories, their corresponding NESIS values, and a descriptive adjective.

TABLE 7-1 NESIS Categories

Category NESIS ValueDescription

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

A total of 15 extreme, crippling, and major winter storms have occurred in Connecticut during the past 30 years. One is listed for each of the years 1983, 1987, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007. More alarmingly, four are listed in the calendar year 2010 and two in 2011. Winter Storm Ginger in 1996 caused up to 27 inches of snow in 24 hours and shut down the state of Connecticut for an entire day.

Other storms have been powerful. A 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.

According to the NCDC, there have been 134 snow and ice events in the state of Connecticut between 1993 and April 2010, 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,

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 7-3

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 blizzard was Winter Storm Ginger in January 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 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 2002 that hit Litchfield and western Hartford Counties resulted in $2.5 million in public sector damages.

Additional examples of recent winter storms to affect New Haven County and nearby Middlesex County selected from the NCDC database include:

East Coast Winter Storm, March 13-14, 1993 – A powerful storm carrying with it record low barometric pressure readings hit the state with blizzard conditions. Gale force winds accompanied by snow drifts several feet deep closed businesses, hindered travel, and forced residents to lose power. Federal aid was given to the state for snow removal.

Heavy Snowstorm, January 6-7, 1994 – An extended period of snowfall led to a change to sleet and freezing rain along the coastline, which hindered travel, closed schools, led to a loss of power for many residents in southeastern Connecticut, and resulted in downed tree limbs and power lines.

Major Nor'easter, February 11, 1994 – The large-scale nor'easter dumped a total of eight to 13 inches of snow across the state, which closed schools and businesses and limited travel.

Ocean-Effect Heavy Snow Storm, April 10, 1996 – Heavy, wet snow fell across most of Southeastern Connecticut where numerous trees and power lines fell.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 7-4

Heavy Snow Storm, February 5, 2001 – Wet snow resulted in large-scale power outages because of downed power lines from fallen tree limbs and caused travel in southern Connecticut to become treacherous as numerous traffic accidents occurred.

Winter Storm, March 4-7, 2001 – A slow-moving, large-scale winter storm subjected southern Connecticut to heavy wet snow and numerous power outages as snowfall totals were around 14 inches in the nearby town of Old Saybrook.

February Heavy Snowstorm, February 16-17, 2003 – Heavy snow became widespread and was blown by northeast winds 20 to 30 mph causing near blizzard conditions. Travel almost ceased entirely, and widespread minor tidal flooding occurred along the Connecticut shoreline as nearby Old Saybrook saw a total of almost 16 inches of total snowfall.

Heavy Snow, January 22-23, 2005 – An intense low produced near blizzard conditions, strong and gusty winds, and blowing and drifting snow and caused minor to moderate local tidal flooding along the shoreline.

Winter Storm, February 14, 2007 – A mix of heavy snow, sleet, freezing rain, strong gusty winds, and minor tidal flooding occurred along the coast of the state throughout the day.

The winter storms of January and February 2011 are listed as the 18th and 19th storms in the NESIS ranking. These storms produced snow, sleet, freezing rain, strong gusty winds, severely low temperatures, and coastal flooding. Snowfall totals for winter 2010- 2011 in Connecticut average around 70 inches.

The snowfall, sleet, freezing rain, and rain that has fallen on Connecticut during the 2010-2011 winter season proved to be catastrophic for a number of buildings. With severely low temperatures coupled with the absence of the removal of snow and ice buildup from roofs of buildings in Connecticut, numerous roofs collapsed during the winter season. Using media reports, a list of roof/building collapses and damage due to buildup of frozen precipitation was compiled. The list (Table 7-2) includes 76 locations that span over a month of time from January 12, 2011 to February 17, 2011.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 7-5

TABLE 7-2 Reported Roof Collapse Damage, 2011

Address Municipality Date Description 205 Wakelee Avenue Ansonia 2/2/2011 Catholic Charities Barkhamsted Highway Department Salt Route 44 Barkhamsted 2/4/2011 Shed 8 Railroad Avenue Beacon Falls 2/2/2011 Manufacturing Corporation 20 Sargent Drive Bethany 2/2/2011 Fairfield County Millworks 50 Hunters Trail Bethany 2/2/2011 Sun Gold Stables 74 Griffin Road South Bloomfield 2/14/2011 Home Depot Distribution Center 25 Blue Hill Road Bozrah 1/27/2011 Kofkoff Egg Farm 135 Albany Turnpike Canton 2/3/2011 Ethan Allen Design Center Cheshire Community Pool (Prior to recent 520 South Main Street Cheshire 1/12/2011 ice storm) 1701 Highland Avenue Cheshire 1/23/2011 Cox Communications 174 East Johnson Cheshire 2/2/2011 First Calvary Life Family Worship Center Avenue George Keeler Stove Shop (Historic 166 South Main Street Cheshire 2/3/2011 Building) 1755 Highland Avenue Cheshire 2/7/2011 Nutmeg Utility Products 45 Shunpike Road K Mart (cracks inside and outside - no Cromwell 2/2/2011 (Route 372) official collapse) Cromwell Hills Drive Cromwell 2/4/2011 Cromwell Gardens 98 West Street Danbury 1/28/2011 Garage 142 N. Road (Route Dawn Marie's Restaurant - Bassdale Plaza East Windsor 2/3/2011 140) Shopping Center 3 Craftsman Road East Windsor 2/4/2011 Info Shred 140 Mountain Road Ellington 1/27/2011 Garage Collapse 100 Phoenix Avenue Enfield 2/1/2011 Brooks Brothers South Road Enfield 2/2/2011 Bosco's Auto Garage Parish Court Senior Housing (Ceiling 175 Warde Terrace Fairfield 2/3/2011 damage - 10 apartments) 19 Elm Tree Road Glastonbury 2/6/2011 Residence Wood Hill Farm barn collapse - animals Unknown Hampton 1/28/2011 died Gillette Street Hartford 1/19/2011 Garage West Street Hebron 2/2/2011 Residential Historic church converted to an office Connecticut Route 101 Killingly 2/8/2011 building Silver Moon, The Brandon Gallery, 759 Boston Post Road Madison 2/3/2011 Madison Coffee Shop and Madison Cinemas (awning began to collapse)

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 7-6

TABLE 7-2 (continued) Reported Roof Collapse Damage, 2011

Address Municipality Date Description 478 Center Street Manchester 1/28/2011 Lou's Auto Sales and Upholstery 1388 East Main Street Meriden 1/28/2011 Jacoby's 260 Sherman Avenue Meriden 2/6/2011 Engine 4 Fire Station 275 Research Parkway Meriden 2/17/2011 Four Points by Sheraton Carport 1310 South Main Street Middletown 1/30/2011 Passport Inn Building & Suites Accounting firm, converted, mixed use (3 505 Main Street Middletown 2/2/2011 story) 70 Robin Court Middletown 2/3/2011 Madison at Northwoods Apartment 80 North Main Street Middletown 2/7/2011 Abandoned warehouse Pepe's Farm Road Milford 1/30/2011 Vacant manufacturing building 282 Woodmont Road Milford 2/2/2011 Kip's Tractor Barn Monroe Paint & Hardware (Slumping roof, 150 Main St # 1 Monroe 2/2/2011 weld broke loose from structural beam) Route 63 Naugatuck 1/21/2011 Former Plumbing Supply House 410 Rubber Avenue Naugatuck 2/2/2011 Thurston Oil Company Rainbowland Nursery School (structural 1210 New Haven Road Naugatuck 2/4/2011 damage) 1100 New Haven Road Naugatuck 2/17/2011 Walmart (structural damage) 290 Goffe Street New Haven 2/7/2011 New Haven Armory 201 South Main Street Newtown 2/9/2011 Bluelinx Corp. 80 Comstock Hill Norwalk 1/27/2011 Silvermine Stable Avenue 5 Town Line Road Plainville 1/27/2011 Classic Auto Body 130 West Main Street Plainville 2/2/2011 Congregational Church of Plainville Public Works Garage (Terryville section) - Terryville Section Plymouth 1/12/2011 taking plow trucks out Midstate Recovery Systems, LLC (waste 286 Airline Avenue Portland 1/27/2011 transfer station) Vacant commercial property (next to 680 Portland-Cobalt Portland 1/27/2011 Prehistoric Mini Golf - former True Value Road (Route 66) Hardware building) Tryon Street Portland 1/27/2011 Residential home (sunroof) Main Street Portland 1/28/2011 Middlesex Marina 93 Elm Street Rocky Hill 2/6/2011 Residential garage 99 Bridgeport Avenue Shelton 2/3/2011 Shell Gas Station 100 Maple Street Somers 1/27/2011 Lindy Farms (barn) 68 Green Tree Lane Somers 2/2/2011 Residential 95 John Fitch Boulevard South Windsor 2/3/2011 South Windsor 10 Pin Bowling Alley 595 Nutmeg Road North South Windsor 2/8/2011 Waldo Brothers Company 45 Newell Street Southington 2/2/2011 Yarde Metals Furnace Avenue Stafford Springs 2/2/2011 Abandoned mill building 370 South Main Street Terryville 2/8/2011 Former American Modular 46 Hartford Turnpike Tolland 2/3/2011 Colonial Gardens 364 High Street Tolland 2/9/2011 Horse barn 61 Monroe Turnpike Trumbull 2/1/2011 Trumbull Tennis Center

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 7-7

TABLE 7-2 (continued) Reported Roof Collapse Damage, 2011

Address Municipality Date Description 5065 Main St # L1207 Trumbull Unknown Taco Bell Route 83 Vernon 1/31/2011 Former Clyde Chevrolet 136 Dudley Avenue Wallingford 1/27/2011 Tri State Tires 1074 South Colony Wallingford 1/29/2011 Zandri's Stillwood Inn Road 121 N. Main Street Waterbury 2/2/2011 Former bowling alley (Sena's Lanes) 456 New Park Avenue West Hartford 2/8/2011 Shell gas station Island Lane West Haven 1/27/2011 Commercial building Automotive center roof collapse; 10 cars Unknown Wethersfield 2/2/2011 damaged Windsor High School (auditorium roof 50 Sage Park Road Windsor 2/2/2011 collapse) 1001 Day Hill Road Windsor 2/7/2011 Mototown USA 27 Lawnacre Road Windsor Locks 2/7/2011 Long View RV

As a result of the roof and building collapses, injury to humans, animals, and property took place. The the overall storm impacts and damages resulted in a Presidential Disaster Declaration for Connecticut, leading to the availability of the HMGP program in Connecticut with specific objectives for snow-related mitigation and planning.

7.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures

Existing programs applicable to winter storm winds are the same as those discussed in Sections 5.0 and 6.0. Programs that are specific to winter storms are generally those related to preparing plows and sand and salt trucks; tree trimming and maintenance to protect power lines, roads, and structures; and other associated snow removal and response preparations. As a result of the winter of 2010-2011, it is anticipated that many communities will begin programs for roof snow removal.

As it is almost guaranteed that winter storms will occur annually in Connecticut, it is important for municipalities to budget fiscal resources toward snow management. The Town ensures that all warning/notification and communications systems are ready before

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 7-8

a storm and ensures that appropriate equipment and supplies, especially snow removal equipment, are in place and in good working order.

Collectively, the Connecticut DOT and the Guilford Public Works Department conduct the majority of plowing in the Town. The Connecticut DOT plows Routes 37 and 39 and Interstate 95. Although private communities are responsible for plowing their own roads, some private roads are plowed by the Town while some are not.

The Fire Department has its own plow truck that it uses when responding to emergencies during snowstorms. The Fire Department's truck provides the Town with the ability to dispatch a plow truck ahead of an emergency vehicle during emergencies.

7.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment

As mentioned in Section 5.0, the majority of roadways in Guilford are heavily treed. Many tree limbs on Guilford roadways are not suited to withstand high wind and snow or ice loads. If trees or tree limbs fall on the roadways, the proximity of structures puts them at risk for damage. The Town's Tree Warden issues requests to property owners for tree maintenance. Additionally, Connecticut Light & Power (CL&P) performs tree maintenance on those trees that threaten their power supply infrastructure. In either situation, performing maintenance is the ultimate decision of the property owner or CL&P.

Although snowdrifts do occur in Guilford, they are not a substantial issue. Even without drifts, winter storms present some potentially unique transportation vulnerabilities. There is a high propensity 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 as well as the accessibility to medical and shelter facilities. Stranded motorists, especially senior and/or handicapped citizens, are at a particularly high risk during a blizzard.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 7-9

With regard to coastal flooding, the same vulnerable populations discussed in Section 4.5 are vulnerable to flooding caused by nor'easters. Further "flood" damage could be caused by flooding from frozen water pipes.

7.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives

Potential mitigation measures for storm surges and flooding caused by nor'easters include those appropriate for flooding. These were presented in Section 4.6 and are not repeated here. Likewise, wind-related mitigation was covered in Section 5.6. However, winter storm mitigation measures must also address blizzards, snow, and ice hazards. These are emphasized in the following subsections. Note that natural resource protection and structural projects are generally not applicable categories of mitigation.

7.6.1 Prevention

Cold air, snow, and ice cannot be prevented from impacting any particular area. Thus, mitigation should be focused on property protection, infrastructure protection, emergency services (discussed below), and prevention of damage to structures and utilities as caused by breakage of tree limbs. Previous recommendations for tree limb inspections and maintenance in Section 5.6 are thus applicable to winter storm hazards as well. If utilities are underground, then heavy snow, ice, and winter winds cannot damage or destroy them.

7.6.2 Property Protection

Property can be protected during winter storms through the use of shutters, storm doors, storm windows, weather stripping, and other means of keeping cold air outdoors and heat indoors.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 7-10

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. During the winter of 2010-2011, even sloping roofs had trouble with snow loads. Heating coils may be used to melt snow from flat roofs, and rakes can be used to physically remove snow. Pipes should be adequately insulated to protect against freezing and bursting. All of these recommendations apply to new construction although they may also be applied to existing buildings during renovations.

7.6.3 Public Education and Awareness

As "hardy New Englanders," 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 Connecticut. Public education should therefore focus on safety tips and reminders to individuals about how to prepare for cold weather.

7.6.4 Emergency Services

Plowing the access to and from critical facilities, such as health and medical facilities and the shelters that were listed in Table 2-1, should be prioritized. It is recognized that this may not be a priority to all residents as people typically expect their own roads to be cleared as soon as possible.

7.7 Recommended Actions

Most of the recommendations in Sections 4.7 and 5.7 for mitigating coastal flooding and hurricane storm surges are suitable for mitigation of coastal flooding caused by winter storms and nor'easters. These are not repeated in this subsection. The following

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 7-11

recommendations are applicable to other aspects of winter storms such as winds, snow, and ice:

Conduct a study to identify municipal buildings, critical facilities, and commercial/industrial buildings that are vulnerable to roof damage or collapse due to heavy snow loads

Develop a plan to prioritize snow removal from the roof of municipal buildings (especially critical facilities) and make funding available for clearing

Consider posting the snow plowing routes in municipal buildings and the town website

Identify areas that are difficult to access during winter storm events and develop contingency plans

Provide information for mitigating icing, insulating pipes, and retrofits for flat-roofed buildings

In addition, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 11.1.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 7-12

8.0 EARTHQUAKES

8.1 Setting

The entire Town is susceptible to earthquake damage. However, even though earthquake damage has 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 may occur and would likely cause effects to a large area of the Town (refer to Tables 1-2 and 1-3) if one occurred.

8.2 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 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.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-1

The Richter scale defines the The following is a description of the 12 levels of magnitude of an earthquake. Modified Mercalli intensity from the USGS:

Magnitude is related to the amount of I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. seismic energy released at the II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended hypocenter of the earthquake. It is objects may swing. III. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, based on the amplitude of earthquake especially on upper floors of buildings. Many waves recorded on instruments that people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration have a common calibration. The similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated. magnitude of an earthquake is thus IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, represented by a single, instrumentally windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking determined value recorded by a building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. seismograph, which records the V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes and windows broken. Unstable objects varying amplitude of ground overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. VI. Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy oscillations. 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 The magnitude of an earthquake is ordinary structures; considerable damage in determined from the logarithm of the poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. amplitude of recorded waves. Being VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial logarithmic, each whole number buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory increase in magnitude represents a stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. tenfold increase in measured strength. IX. Damage considerable in specially designed Earthquakes with a magnitude of about structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in 2.0 or less are usually called substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. microearthquakes and are generally X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed only recorded locally. Earthquakes with foundations. Rails bent. XI. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain with magnitudes of 4.5 or greater are standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. strong enough to be recorded by XII. Damage total. Lines of sight and level are destroyed. Objects thrown in the air. seismographs all over the world.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-2

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. A comparison of Richter magnitude to typical Modified Mercalli intensity is presented in Table 8-1.

TABLE 8-1 Comparison of Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity

Richter Typical Maximum Modified Magnitude Mercalli Intensity 1.0 to 3.0 I 3.0 to 3.9 II - III 4.0 to 4.9 IV - V 5.0 to 5.9 VI - VII 6.0 to 6.9 VII - IX 7.0 and above VIII - XII

Unlike seismic activity in California, earthquakes in Connecticut are not associated with specific known active faults. Instead, earthquakes with epicenters in Connecticut are referred to as intraplate 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 as a whole, potentially putting a greater number of people at risk.

The built environment in Connecticut includes old, nonreinforced masonry that is not seismically designed. Those who live or work in nonreinforced 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.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-3

8.3 Historic Record

According to the Northeast States Emergency Consortium and the Weston Observatory at Boston College, there were 139 recorded earthquakes in Connecticut between 1668 and 2011. The vast majority of these earthquakes had a magnitude of less than 3.0. 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 are provided below based on information provided in USGS documents, the Weston Observatory, the 2010 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, other municipal hazard mitigation plans, and newspaper articles.

A devastating earthquake near Three Rivers, 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. 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 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 Hebron 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.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-4

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 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, respectively), in Greenwich in 1991 (3.0 magnitude), and on Long Island in East Hampton, New York in 1992. The most recent noticeable earthquake to occur in Connecticut happened on March 11, 2008. It was a 2.0 magnitude with its epicenter three miles northwest of the center of Chester. A magnitude 5.0 earthquake struck at the Ontario-Quebec border region of Canada on June 23, 2010. This earthquake did not cause damage in Connecticut but was felt by residents in Hartford and New Haven Counties. A magnitude 3.9 earthquake occurred 117 miles southeast of Bridgeport, Connecticut on the morning of November 30, 2010. The quake did not cause damage in Connecticut but was felt by residents along Long Island Sound.

Most recently, a magnitude 5.8 earthquake occurred 38 miles from Richmond, Virginia on August 23, 2011. The quake was felt from Georgia to Maine and reportedly as far west as Chicago. Many residents of Connecticut experienced the swaying and shaking of buildings and furniture during the earthquake although widespread damage was constrained to an area from central Virginia to southern Maryland.

8.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures

The Connecticut Building Codes include design criteria for buildings specific to each municipality as adopted by the Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA). These include the seismic coefficients for building design in the Town. The Town has

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-5

adopted these codes for new construction, and they are enforced by the Town Building Official.

Due to the infrequent nature of damaging earthquakes, land use policies in the Town do not directly address earthquake hazards. However, various regulations indirectly address areas susceptible to earthquake damage and regulations that help to minimize potential earthquake damage. Consider Section 273-2 of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town. The definition for steep slope is "a significant area of steep slopes has a grade of more than 25% and a horizontal width of 50 feet or more measured 90° to the contours at an interval not exceeding two feet." The Town reserves the right to impose more stringent regulations on a site to maintain the stability of a slope or bank under the proposed conditions.

8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment

Surficial earth materials behave differently in Liquefaction is a phenomenon in response to seismic activity. Unconsolidated which the strength and stiffness of a soil are reduced by earthquake materials such as sand and artificial fill can shaking or other rapid loading. It amplify the shaking associated with an occurs in soils at or near saturation and especially in finer earthquake. In addition, artificial fill material has textured soils. the potential for liquefaction. When liquefaction 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 greater damage to buildings and structures and a greater loss of life.

As explained in Section 2.3, approximately 3,630 acres out of approximately 30,216 total acres or just over 12% of the Town are underlain by sand and gravel, including the commercial Town center. Figure 2-4 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

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-6

material is the application of the most stringent building codes such as those in the Connecticut Building Codes or, wherever the Town deems necessary, the possible prohibition of new construction. However, many of these areas occur in floodplains associated with East River, West River, Sluice Creek, and other surface water bodies in the Town, so they are already regulated. The areas that are not at increased risk during an earthquake due to unstable soils are the areas in Figure 2-4 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 and 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 10.0.

According to the FEMA HAZUS-HM The AEL is the expected losses due to Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses earthquakes each year. Note that this for the United States (2008) document, number represents a long-term average; thus, actual earthquake FEMA used probabilistic curves losses may be much greater or developed by the USGS for the National nonexistent for a particular year. Earthquakes Hazards Reduction Program to calculate Annualized Earthquake Losses (AEL) for the United States. Based on the results of this study, FEMA calculated the AEL for Connecticut to be $11,622,000. This value placed Connecticut 30th 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.

According to the 2010 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, Connecticut is at a low to moderate risk for experiencing an earthquake of a magnitude greater than 3.5 and at a moderate risk of experiencing an earthquake of a magnitude less than 3.0 in

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-7

the future. No earthquake with a magnitude greater than 3.5 has occurred in Connecticut within the last 30 years, and the USGS currently ranks Connecticut 43rd out of the 50 states for overall earthquake activity.

A series of earthquake probability maps was generated using the 2009 interactive web- based mapping tools hosted by the USGS. These maps were used to determine the probability of an earthquake of greater than magnitude 5.0 or greater than magnitude 6.0 damaging the Town. Results are presented in Table 8-2 below.

TABLE 8-2 Probability of a Damaging Earthquake in the Vicinity of Guilford

Probability of the Occurrence Probability of the Occurrence Time Frame of an Earthquake Event > of an Earthquake Event > (Years) Magnitude 5.0 Magnitude 6.0 50 1% to 2% < 1% 100 2% to 3% < 1% 250 6% to 8% 1% to 2% 350 8% to 10% 2% to 3%

Based on the historic record and the probability maps generated from the USGS database, the state of Connecticut has areas of seismic activity. It is likely that Connecticut will continue to experience minor earthquakes (magnitude less than 3.0) in the future. While the risk of an earthquake affecting Guilford is relatively low over the short term, long- term probabilities suggest that a damaging earthquake (magnitude greater than 5.0) could occur within the vicinity of Guilford.

The 2010 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update created four "maximum plausible" earthquake scenarios (three historical, one potential) within HAZUS-MH to generate potential earthquake risk to the state of Connecticut. The same four scenarios were simulated within HAZUS-MH to generate potential damages in the Town from those events using the default year 2000 building inventories and census data. The four events are as follows:

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-8

Magnitude 5.7, epicenter in Portland, Connecticut, based on historic event Magnitude 5.7, epicenter in Haddam, Connecticut, based on historic event Magnitude 6.4, epicenter in East Haddam, Connecticut, based on historic event Magnitude 5.7, epicenter in Stamford, Connecticut, magnitude based on USGS probability mapping

The results for each HAZUS-MH earthquake simulation are presented in Appendix H. These results are conservatively high and considered appropriate for planning purposes for the Town. The range of potential impacts from any earthquake scenario is very large, ranging from minor impacts to the maximum possible impacts generated by HAZUS-MH. Note that potentially greater impacts could also occur.

Table 8-3 presents the number of residential buildings (homes) damaged by the various earthquake scenarios while Table 8-4 presents the total number of buildings damaged by each earthquake scenario. A significant percentage of building damage is to single- family residential buildings while other building types include agriculture, commercial, education, government, industrial, other residential, and religious buildings. The exact definition of each damage state varies based on building construction. See Chapter 5 of the HAZUS-MH Earthquake Model Technical Manual, available on the FEMA website, for the definitions of each building damage state based on building construction.

TABLE 8-3 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Number of Residential Buildings Damaged

Epicenter Location Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Total and Magnitude Damage Damage Damage Damage Haddam – 5.7 1,425 412 56 7 1,900 Portland – 5.7 708 153 18 2 881 Stamford – 5.7 88 15 1 0 104 East Haddam – 6.4 2,039 755 131 22 2,947

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-9

TABLE 8-4 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Total Number of Buildings Damaged

Epicenter Location Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Total and Magnitude Damage Damage Damage Damage Haddam – 5.7 1,576 512 81 10 2,179 Portland – 5.7 800 199 27 3 1,029 Stamford – 5.7 110 22 2 0 134 East Haddam – 6.4 2,247 990 225 42 3,504

The HAZUS simulations consider a subset of critical facilities termed "essential facilities," which are important during emergency situations. As shown in Table 8-5, minimal damage to essential facilities is expected for each earthquake scenario, with the exception of the East Haddam historical earthquake scenario. The East Haddam earthquake scenario simulates minor damage to each essential facility resulting in a reduction in functionality to less than 50% for at least one day.

TABLE 8-5 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Essential Facility Damage

Epicenter Location Emergency Operations Fire Stations (1) Police Stations (1) Schools (8) and Magnitude Center (1) None or Minor, all but one school with Haddam – 5.7 None or Minor None or Minor greater than 50% None or Minor functionality after one day. Portland – 5.7 None or Minor None or Minor None or Minor None or Minor Stamford – 5.7 None or Minor None or Minor None or Minor None or Minor Minor, all schools Minor, less than Minor, less than Minor, less than 50% have less than 50% East Haddam – 6.4 50% functionality 50% functionality functionality after one functionality after after one day after one day day. one day.

Table 8-6 presents potential damage to utilities and infrastructure based on the various earthquake scenarios. The municipal transportation network and utility network was assumed by HAZUS-MH to include the following items, although it is understood that Guilford does not possess a public sanitary sewer system:

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-10

Highway: 28 major roadway bridges and 14 important highway segments Railway: Two important railway segments and one important railway bridge Light Rail: Two important light rail segments and one important facility One communications facility A potable water system consisting of 367 total kilometers of pipelines A sanitary sewer system consisting of 220 total kilometers of pipelines and one treatment facility A total of 147 kilometers of natural gas lines

TABLE 8-6 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Utility, Infrastructure, and Fire Damage

Epicenter Location Transportation Network Utilities Fire Damage and Magnitude None or minor damage consisting of: • Five leaks and one major break in potable water None or minor damage system (no loss of service) costing $20,000 consisting of: • Two leaks and one major break in wastewater • Highway bridge system costing $10,000 (no loss of service) damage totaling • One leak in natural gas system (no loss of Haddam – $480,000 (no loss of No ignitions or service) 5.7 service) fire damage • Loss of electricity: 11% of homes off for at least • Light rail facility one day, 5% off for three days, 2% off for one damage totaling week, <1% off for a month or more $510,000 (no loss of service) • Communications: Minor damage totaling $10,000 (no loss of service) • Total damage: $50,000

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-11

TABLE 8-6 (continued) HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Utility, Infrastructure, and Fire Damage

Epicenter Location Transportation Network Utilities Fire Damage and Magnitude None or minor damage consisting of: None or minor damage consisting of: • Highway bridge • Two leaks in potable water system (no loss of damage totaling service) costing $10,000 Portland – $70,000 (no loss of • One leak in wastewater system (no loss of No ignitions or 5.7 service) service) fire damage • Light rail facility • Communications: Minor damage totaling damage totaling $10,000 (no loss of service) $280,000 (no loss of • Total damage: $20,000 service) None or minor damage Stamford – with no loss of service; No ignitions or No damage or loss of service 5.7 $50,000 in damage to fire damage light rail facility None or minor damage consisting of: • 21 leaks and five major breaks in potable water None or minor damage system (no loss of service) costing $90,000 consisting of: • 10 leaks and three major breaks in wastewater • Highway bridge system costing $50,000 (no loss of service) damage totaling $4.3 East • Four leaks and one major break in natural gas million (no loss of No ignitions or Haddam – system costing $20,000 (no loss of service) service) fire damage 6.4 • Loss of electricity: 29% of homes off for at least • Light rail facility one day, 14% off for three days, 3% off for one damage totaling week, <1% off for a month or more $610,000 (no loss of service) • Communications: Minor damage totaling $20,000 (no loss of service) • Total damage: $170,000

As shown in Table 8-6, highway bridges and the light rail facility are predicted to experience minor damage under each earthquake scenario. In terms of utilities, the Stamford earthquake scenario will cause minimal damage while the less-distant earthquake scenarios will cause minor damage and widespread electrical outages. The potable water system, wastewater system, and natural gas network will experience minor damage and leaks that will be able to be isolated with minimal service loss. No fires or fire damage are expected under any of the simulations although earthquake-related fires could realistically occur.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-12

Table 8-7 presents the estimated tonnage of debris that would be generated by earthquake damage during each HAZUS-MH scenario. As shown in Table 8-6, significant debris is expected for each of the four earthquake scenarios (except for the Stamford scenario), with the historical East Haddam earthquake scenario generating the most debris in the Town.

TABLE 8-7 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Debris Generation (Tons)

Epicenter Estimated Cleanup Reinforced Location and Brick / Wood Total Truckloads Concrete / Steel Magnitude (25 Tons / Truck) Haddam – 5.7 6,000 4,000 10,000 560 Portland – 5.7 6,600 3,400 10,000 240 Stamford – 5.7 None None None None East Haddam – 6.4 18,400 21,600 40,000 1,600

Table 8-8 presents the potential sheltering requirements based on the various earthquake events simulated by HAZUS-MH.

TABLE 8-8 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Shelter Requirements

Epicenter Location Number of Displaced Short-Term Sheltering and Magnitude Households Need (Number of People) Haddam – 5.7 23 11 Portland – 5.7 8 3 Stamford – 5.7 None None East Haddam – 6.4 67 33

The predicted sheltering requirements for earthquake damage (not including fire damage in Table 8-6) are relatively minimal for the Haddam and Portland scenarios but more significant for the East Haddam scenario. The Stamford scenario predicts that no sheltering need will occur. However, it is possible that an earthquake could also produce a dam failure (flooding) that could increase the overall sheltering need in the Town. Thus, the Guilford shelters are likely insufficient during an event such as the East

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-13

Haddam scenario when one considers damage from the earthquake, fires, and potential dam failures.

Table 8-9 presents the casualty estimates generated by HAZUS-MH for the various earthquake scenarios. Casualties are broken down into four severity levels that describe the extent of injuries. The levels are as follows:

Severity Level 1: Injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed. Severity Level 2: Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life threatening. Severity Level 3: Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not promptly treated. Severity Level 4: Victims are killed by the earthquake.

TABLE 8-9 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Casualty Estimates

Epicenter Location - 2 AM Earthquake 2 PM Earthquake 5 PM Earthquake Magnitude 9 (Level 1); 11 (Level 1); 10 (Level 1); Haddam – 5.7 1 (Level 2) 2 (Level 2) 2 (Level 2) 4 (Level 1); 4 (Level 1); Portland – 5.7 4 (Level 1) 1 (Level 2) 1 (Level 2) Stamford – 5.7 None 1 (Level 1) None 39 (Level 1); 31 (Level 1); 21 (Level 1); 8 (Level 2); 7 (Level 2); East Haddam – 6.4 4 (Level 2); 1 (Level 3); 1 (Level 3); 1 (Level 4) 2 (Level 4) 2 (Level 4)

Some casualties would be expected from earthquake damage in the Town for the four earthquake scenarios, with the East Haddam scenario producing the highest level of casualties including deaths. The casualty categories include commuters, educational, hotels, industrial, other-residential, and single-family residential and are accounted for during the night, in the early afternoon, and during afternoon rush hour.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-14

Table 8-10 presents the total estimated losses and direct economic impact that may result from the four earthquake scenarios created for the Town as estimated by the HAZUS-MH software. Capital damage loss estimates include the subcategories of building, contents, and inventory damages. The direct property damage losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building or its contents. Business interruption loss estimates include the subcategories of lost income, relocation expenses, and lost wages. The business interruption losses are associated with the inability to operate a business due to the damage sustained during a hurricane and also include temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the storm. Note that these damages do not include transportation, utility, or fire damage in Table 8-6.

TABLE 8-10 HAZUS-MH Estimated Direct Losses From Earthquake Scenarios (x $1,000)

Epicenter Location Estimated Total Estimated Total Estimated Total and Magnitude Capital Losses Income Losses Losses Haddam – 5.7 75,290 11,670 86,970 Portland – 5.7 28,970 4,600 33,570 Stamford – 5.7 1,810 640 2,450 East Haddam – 6.4 133,320 34,030 167,350

Note that the losses are presented in 2006 dollars, which implies that they will be greater in the future due to inflation. It is also believed that the next Plan update will be able to utilize 2010 census data, providing a more recent dataset for analysis.

Despite the low probability of occurrence, earthquake damage presents a potentially significant hazard to the Town. However, it is very unlikely that the Town would be at the epicenter of such a damaging earthquake.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-15

8.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives

As earthquakes are relatively infrequent, difficult to predict, and can affect the entire Town, potential mitigation can only include adherence to building codes, education of residents, and adequate planning. The following potential mitigation measures have been identified:

Ensure that municipal departments have adequate backup facilities in case earthquake damage occurs to critical facilities Consider preventing residential development in areas prone to collapse such as below steep slopes or in areas prone to liquefaction Continue to require adherence to the state building codes Ensure that municipal departments and critical facilities have adequate backup facilities in case damage occurs Conduct maintenance as necessary along Route 77 near Lake Quonnipaug to minimize rock slides

In addition, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 11.1.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 8-16

9.0 WILDFIRES

9.1 Setting

The ensuing discussion about wildfires is focused on the undeveloped wooded, marsh, and shrub/grassland areas of Guilford, along with the wildland interface, which is low- density suburban-type development found at the margins of these wooded areas. Structural fires in higher density areas of the Town are not directly addressed. Given the large land area of the Town and its many wildland interfaces, wildfires can occur almost anywhere in the municipality.

9.2 Hazard Assessment

Wildfires are considered to be 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 primarily by lightning.

Nevertheless, wildfires are also a natural process in many ecosystems, 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 fire 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.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 9-1

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 itself 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 of humans and wildlife in these areas.

9.3 Historic Record

According to the Connecticut Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, Connecticut enacted its first statewide forest 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 towers and patrols, and regulations regarding open burning. The severe fire weather in the 1940s 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 DEEP, forest has reclaimed over 500,000 acres of land that was used for agriculture as of 1914. However, that new forest has been 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 20th century. An improved transportation network, coupled with advances in firefighting

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 9-2

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 USDA Forest Service Annual Wildfire Summary Report for 1994 through 2003, an average of 600 acres per year in Connecticut was burned by wildfires. The National Interagency Fire Center reports that a total of 2,778 acres of land burned in Connecticut due to 1,940 nonprescribed wildfires, an average of 1.4 acres per fire (Table 9-1). In general, the fires are small and detected quickly, with most of the largest 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.

TABLE 9-1 Wildland Fire Statistics for Connecticut

Number of Number of Acres Acres Total Acres Year Prescribed Wildland Fires Burned Burned Burned Burns 2010* 76 253 6 53 306 2009 264 246 6 76 322 2008 330 893 6 68 961 2007 361 288 7 60 348 2006 322 419 6 56 475 2005 316 263 10 130 393 2004 74 94 12 185 279 2003 97 138 8 96 234 2002 101 184 13 106 290 Total 1,940 2,778 74 830 3,608

*As of September 19, 2010

Source: National Interagency Fire Center

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 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 wildfire in

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 9-3

1986 in the Mattatuck State Forest in the town of Watertown, Connecticut burned 300 acres.

The area known as "West Woods" just south of I-95 Exit 57 in Guilford has experienced wildfires over the past five years. The CT DEEP assisted the Town with controlling and eventually ending these fires and requested and received mutual aid. The West Woods forest has a mix of ownership including the Town, CT DEEP, and private owners, which leads to complications for the Town when managing the land.

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 supply of equipment. The Town Subdivision Regulations require provision of supplemental water supply systems for fire protection and stipulate that the Fire Department review and approve the location, size, design, construction specifications, and installation of these water supply systems. In addition, new roads, subdivisions, and fire ponds are required to allow 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 Guilford Fire Department goes to the fires whenever possible. This proactive approach is believed to be effective for controlling wildfires. The Fire Department has some water storage capability but primarily relies on the use of the fire ponds, dry hydrants, water tanks, and the Town's limited public water system (owned by The Connecticut Water Company) to fight fires located along major roads throughout Town.

The DEEP Forestry Division uses the rainfall data recorded by the Automated Flood Warning system to compile forest fire probability forecasts. This allows the DEEP and Guilford to monitor the drier areas of the state to be prepared for forest fire conditions.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 9-4

9.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment

The most common causes of wildfires are arson, 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 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.

However, the likelihood of a severe and expansive wildfire developing in Connecticut is lessened by the vast network of water features in the state, which creates natural breaks likely to stop the spread of a fire. It is noted that during long periods of drought, these natural features may dry up, increasing the vulnerability of the state to wildfires.

According to the Connecticut DEEP, the actual forest fire risk in Connecticut is low due to several factors. First, the overall incidence of forest fires is limited (233 fires occurred in Connecticut per year from 2002 to 2009, which is a rate slightly higher than one per municipality per year). 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 equipment. 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 intermunicipal 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 wildfires recorded since 1986 that burned 300 acres each.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 9-5

The Tree Warden reports that hemlocks throughout Guilford provide good sources of fuel for wildfires. In general, these contribute to the fire risk in the more wooded sections of the Town. Indeed, wildfires are of particular concern in the wooded areas and other areas with poor access for fire-fighting equipment to the north of I-95 in Guilford. However, the preparedness and responsiveness of the Guilford Fire Department is very strong. As a result, the overall vulnerability of Guilford to wildfire hazards is believed to be relatively low despite the risks for occurrence. In other words, wildfires are considered a likely event each year but, when one occurs, it is generally contained to a small range with limited damage to nonforested areas.

The low overall vulnerability notwithstanding, there are areas of Town where roads are narrow and/or one-way. This hinders emergency access to fight fires amongst other issues. This is a particular problem within many of the private community associations like those of the shoreline communities. 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 and driveways.

Further complicating matters, these very same areas also lack public water supply with fire protection via hydrants. Indian Grove and Mulberry Point are two coastal areas that are adjacent to extensive tidal marshes containing phragmites. According to the Director of Health, these areas are of great concern to the Town regarding fighting fires because of narrow roads, limited points of access, and lack of a public water supply. The Fire Department should continue public education in these areas and encourage homeowners and private communities to widen the access for emergency vehicles wherever possible.

Aside from the densely populated areas that lack a public water supply and have poor access, the wildfire risk areas in Guilford are generally defined as being contiguous wooded areas with limited access. These areas are generally associated with large tracts of privately and publicly owned forests and other Town-owned open space such as

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 9-6

coastal marshes. The limited access conservation properties are considered to be at the highest risk for fires. In Guilford, this is land to the north of I-95. For example, north of I-95 and the intersection of Clapboard Hill Road and Duck Hole Road to Leatherman Road, the woodlands surrounding Guilford Lakes are believed to be possible locations for future wildfires. The woodlands covering much of the extreme northwest and northeast sections of Town are likewise areas of concern. Residents on the outskirts of these risk areas are the most vulnerable to fire, heat, and smoke effects of wildfires.

Finally, wildfires in tidal marshes have become problematic in Guilford where invasive phragmites have taken hold. Often the fires start along the railroad tracks resulting from sparks or discarded cigarettes. While these fires have not been known to cause risk to nearby structures, the migration of phragmites causes the potential to increase.

In summary, there are three types of vulnerable areas in Guilford: densely populated areas with poor access and lacking a public water supply, woodland areas north of Interstate 95, and the tidal marshes where invasive phragmites are present.

Should a wildfire occur, it is reasonable to estimate that the average area to burn would be five acres during a drought period and one to two acres during wetter periods, consistent with the state averages. 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. This is also consistent with actual data in Connecticut. Residential areas bordering such lands would thus be vulnerable to wildfires.

Recall from Figures 2-7 through Figure 2-9 that elderly and persons with disabilities reside in the Town. In comparing these figures with the wildfire risk areas described above, 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 isolated households, and numerous people with disabilities could reside near wildfire impact areas. Thus, it is

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 9-7

important for the Guilford Fire Department to be prepared to assist these special populations during emergencies, including wildfire.

9.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives

Potential mitigation measures for wildfires include a mixture of prevention, education, and emergency planning. Educational materials should be made available at all applicable municipal offices. 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 improvement is another important class of potential mitigation for wildfires.

The following recommendations could be implemented to mitigate fire risk:

Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of forest fire danger, equipment usage, and protecting homes from wildfires Ensure that amendments to the Subdivision Regulations regarding fire protection facilities are being enforced Extend public water supply and fire protection to Mulberry Point, Tuttles Point, and Indian Cove Pursue additional sources of fire-fighting water where adequate supplies do not exist Develop a program of phragmites control that minimizes burning and prevents uncontrolled burning Patrol Town-owned open space and parks to prevent campfires Focus on the West Woods area where a few wildfires have occurred Continue to promote intermunicipal cooperation in fire-fighting efforts Develop a program for thinning of hemlocks where wildfire risk is greatest Enforce regulations and permits for open burning Continue to require than utilities be installed underground

In addition, specific recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 11.1.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 9-8

10.0 DAM FAILURE

10.1 Setting

Dam failures can be triggered suddenly with little or no warning and often in connection with 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 27 registered dams and potentially several other minor dams scattered throughout the Town, dam failure has the potential to occur throughout Guilford. While flooding from a dam failure generally has a limited geographic extent, the effects are potentially catastrophic depending on the downstream population. Fortunately, a major dam failure is not considered a likely hazard event in any given year (Table 1-2).

10.2 Hazard Assessment

The Connecticut DEEP administers the Dam Safety Section 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 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 MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 10-1

Class B dams are significant hazard potential dams that upon failure would result in any of the following: possible loss of life; minor damage to habitable structures, residences, hospitals, convalescent homes, and schools; damage or interruption of the use of service of utilities; damage to primary roadways and railroads; and a 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.

According to the "Connecticut Dams" data file that was published in 1996, there were 27 DEEP-registered dams within Guilford, of which eight were Class A, two were Class B, eight were Class BB, two were Class C, and seven were unranked. Dams in Guilford are listed in Table 10-1, and dam locations are illustrated in Figure 10-1.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 10-2

Figure 10-1

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 10-3

TABLE 10-1 Dams Registered With the DEEP in the Town of Guilford

Number Name Class 6001 Menuckatuck Reservoir Dam C 6017 Upper Guilford Lakes Dam C 60041 Town Millpond Dam B 6005 Duffield Dam/Lower Guilford Lakes Dam B 6002 Maupus Pond Dam BB 6003 Witch Hazel Pond Dam BB 6006 Bishops Pond Dam BB 6007 Endres Pond Dam BB 6009 Quonnipaug Lake Dam BB 6010 Malleys Pond Dam BB 6011 Myer Huber Pond Dam BB 6022 Lane's Pond Dam BB 6012 Platner Pond Dam A 6015 Hill Road Pond Dam A 6016 Capella Pond Dam A 6018 Pencil Pond Dam A 6019 Dry Pond Dam A 6021 Spot Pond Dam A 6023 Kelsey Pond Dam A 6027 Baldwin Dudley Pond Dam A 6013 Guilford Sportsman Association -- 6014 Moose Hill Pond Dam -- 6020 Thody Pond Dam -- 6024 Unnamed Dam -- 6026 Ruscan Pond Dam -- 6028 Unnamed Dam -- 6029 Clear Lake Dam --

1Listed as a Class B dam in 1996 but was not included in the 2007 DEEP list of Class B and C dams

This HMP section primarily discusses the possible effects of failure of both high potential hazard (Class C) dams and significant hazard (Class B) dams. The Town Millpond Dam (No. 6004) was registered as a Class B dam in 1996 but was not included in the 2007 DEEP list of Class B and C dams. A dam failure analysis (DFA) is not believed to have been performed for the Upper Guilford Lakes Dam (No. 6017) and the Menuckatuck Reservoir Dam (No. 6001), which is owned by the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 10-4

In contrast, a DFA was performed on the Lower Guilford Lakes Dam/Duffield Dam in 1996. According to CT DEEP Dam Safety records, this Class B dam is listed as being owned by the Guilford Lakes Improvement Association as of October 2007.

The Maupus Dam is a privately owned dam of concern according to the Guilford Fire Department and the CT DEEP, based partly on discussions and file reviews. Although the Maupus Pond Dam is listed as a Class BB dam (not Class C or B), this Plan will address the impoundment due to the stated concerns. Letters were reportedly sent to the owner of the dam calling for repair work in 2005 and 2008, but no records exist documenting any repair work.

10.3 Historic Record

According to the CT DEEP website, approximately 200 notable dam and reservoir failures occurred worldwide in the twentieth century while in excess of 8,000 people died in these disasters. The following is a listing of some of the more catastrophic dam failures in Connecticut's recent history:

1938 and 1955: Exact numbers of dam failures caused by these floods are unavailable, but the Connecticut DEEP believes that more dams were damaged in these events than in the 1982 or 2005 flooding events described below. 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. 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.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 10-5

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 DEEP reported that the sustained heavy rainfall from October 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 10-2.

TABLE 10-2 Dams Damaged Due to Flooding From October 2005 Storms

Number Name Location Class Damage Type Ownership ----- Somerville Pond Dam Somers -- Partial Breach DEEP 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 City of Meriden ----- ABB Pond Dam Bloomfield -- Minor Damage Private 4905 Springborn Dam Enfield BB Minor Damage DEEP 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 DEEP

Dam failures in Connecticut were of primary concern to the well-being of many communities in 2010 according to an American Rivers blog posted on March 31, 2010. As an example, overtopping of the Sylvias Pond Dam in Stonington, Connecticut caused an evacuation of homes downstream in 2009. Additionally, the mayor of the town of Montville evacuated a section of town once it become possible that the Rand-Whitney Dam in town could breach.

Nearing the end of their lives, a significant number of dams in Connecticut, New England, and across the United States are likely to grow as potential threats to life and property. Indeed, the Association of State Dam Safety Officials has indicated that dam failures have been documented in every state. From January 1, 2005 through January 1, 2009, state dam safety programs reported 132 dam failures and 434 incidents requiring intervention to prevent failure.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 10-6

10.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures

The dam safety statutes are codified in Section 22a-401 through 22a-411 inclusive 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 registration, classification, and inspection of dams. Dams must be registered by the owner with the DEEP according to Connecticut Public Act 83-38.

Dam Inspection Regulations require that nearly 700 dams in Connecticut be inspected annually. The DEEP currently prioritizes inspections of those dams that pose the greatest potential threat to downstream persons and properties.

Dams found to be unsafe under the inspection Dams regulated by the DEEP must be designed to pass the program must be repaired by the owner. Depending 100-year rainfall event with one on the severity of the identified deficiency, an owner foot of freeboard, a factor of safety against overtopping. is allowed reasonable time to make the required repairs or remove the dam. If a dam owner fails to Significant and high hazard dams are required to meet a make necessary repairs to the subject structure, the design standard greater than the 100-year rainfall event. DEEP 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 DEEP Commissioner is empowered by statute to remove or correct, at the expense of the owner, any unsafe structures that present a clear and present danger to public safety.

In Connecticut, the owners of Class C dams are required to maintain EOPs. According to Connecticut DEEP Dam Safety files, a DFA was performed in 1996 on the Duffield Dam/Lower Guilford Lakes Dam (No. 6005) although it is unknown whether the dam has an EOP. The only other listed Class B dam in 1997 was the Town Millpond Dam (No. 6004). However, it was not included in the 2007 list, and records regarding the dam were

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 10-7

not available at the Connecticut DEEP Dam Safety Section. It is likely that the dam does not have an EOP.

10.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment

As previously discussed, failure of a Class C dam would result in any of the following: loss of life; major damage to habitable structures, residences, hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, and main highways; and a significant economic loss. Failure of a Class B dam failure would result in any of the following: possible loss of life; minor damage to habitable structures, residences, hospitals, convalescent homes, and schools; damage or interruption of the use of service of utilities; damage to primary roadways and railroads; and a significant economic loss. Both hazard classes of dams are regarded as significant in the state of Connecticut. Additionally, eight dams were classified as Class BB, representing a moderate hazard potential.

The impacts related to the Class C, B, and BB dams in Town are described below. Discussion regarding Class C and B dams is the most involved while discussion about the less significant hazard dams, those dams classed as Class BB dams, is less extensive.

The descriptions below are based on information available at the Connecticut DEEP Dam Safety Section. It is noted that the failure of any of the 15 other dams in Town could also have impacts on human life and property within Guilford although these are not discussed in favor of the other classes.

Class C Dams

Menuckatuck Reservoir Dam (No. 6001) is located at the southern end of the Menuckatuck Reservoir to the northwest of Route 77/Durham Road. The impoundment creates a water supply source for the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority (RWA), and the dam is also owned by the RWA. The

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 10-8

dam's spillway elevation is 253 feet. The dam was constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. The Genesee Aqueduct/Tunnel, owned by the South Central Connecticut RWA, runs through the dam. The aqueduct/tunnel extends from the Hammonasset Reservoir in Madison to the west through Guilford and Menuckatuck Reservoir Dam to Lake Gaillard in North Branford and then turns north to the Lumpback and Northford Diversions. The most recent maintenance was conducted per bid documents that were issued in 1997.

Failure of the Menuckatuck Reservoir Dam would likely cause catastrophic damage along the West River, where flooding is already a concern for property owners and relative to access on Route 77.

Upper Guilford Lakes Dam (No. 6017) is 170 linear feet in length, comprised of earthen fill with a crest width of 26 feet. The dam has a maximum height of 10.25 feet. The upstream face of the dam is a grouted masonry wall while the downstream face is comprised of dry masonry. The dam was constructed in 1929, and the lake above the dam covers a surface area of 13.8 acres.

A 1981 dam inspection report describes the dam as having two adjacent spillways, a low level outlet, and an emergency overflow. Both spillways are comprised of concrete with mortared masonry training walls. The western spillway is 12 feet and six inches in width while the eastern spillway has a width of 15 feet and three inches. The left spillway is a trapezoidal weir, having a length of 17 linear feet and a crest elevation of 54.9 feet. The right spillway is a broad crested weir, having a crest elevation of 55.0 feet and a length of 13 linear feet. The emergency overflow consists of two 15-inch vitrified clay pipes near the left abutment. The invert of the overflow is 55.5 feet, and the maximum height is 12 feet. The low level outlet is two (2) 24- inch diameter vitrified clay pipes controlled by manual sluice gates. The Upper Guilford Lakes Dam impounds an 83 acre-foot area at the top of the dam, an elevation of 58.3 feet.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 10-9

Failure of the Upper Guilford Lakes Dam would likely cause catastrophic damage along Iron Stream where flooding is already a concern for property owners and continuing down to the upper East River. In addition, failure of the dam would likely cause overtopping or failure of the Duffield Dam/Lower Guilford Lakes Dam described below.

Class B Dams

Duffield Dam/Lower Guilford Lakes Dam (No. 6005) is located in east-central Guilford north of Interstate 95, between White Birch Drive and North Madison Road to the east of Munger Road. The dam is currently owned by the Guilford Lakes Improvement Association. The impoundment creates a pond located centrally within the group of lakes known as the Guilford Lakes.

A DFA and an EOP were developed in 1996. The EOP was revised in March 2003 while the DFA did not change. The DFA states that the flooding limits extend to Capello Pond when the dam breaches at 33.10 feet. However, flooding is possible prior to the dam breaching as the elevation of the lowest first floor of houses along the west side of Capello Pond, just south of the impoundment, is 23.75 feet. However, water elevations fall to 22 .92 feet 150 feet downstream of the dam, where the first floor of the houses is not believed to flood.

Failure of the Lower Guilford Lakes Dam would likely cause major to catastrophic damage along Iron Stream where flooding is already a concern for property owners, depending on whether the Upper Dam had also failed. This flooding and damage would continue down to the upper East River.

Town Millpond Dam (No. 6004) is located just north of Cherry Street at the southern edge of New Millpond. Limited information is available for this dam. DEEP files

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 10-10

were not available. However, failure of this dam would cause flood damage to important roads and nearby properties downstream along the lower West River.

Class BB Dams

Maupus Pond Dam (No. 6002) is located at the southern end of Maupus Pond to the north of Maple Hill Road. The Maupus Pond Dam has been mentioned by the Guilford Fire Department as a dam of concern. A letter regarding its repair was sent to the owner of the dam in 2005 regarding requests for repair work, and another was sent requesting its repair by December 31, 2008. It is not believed that repairs have been made to the dam since these letters were issued.

Failure of the Maupus Pond Dam would cause a sudden release of water to the Lower Guilford Lake, potentially causing overtopping or failure of that dam. Failure of the Lower Guilford Lakes Dam would then cause major damage along Iron Stream where flooding is already a concern.

Witch Hazel Pond Dam (No. 6003), Bishops Pond Dam (No. 6006), and Endres Pond Dam (No. 6007) are three Class BB dams with files that are not available at the Connecticut DEEP Dam Safety Section. All three are located in the West River drainage basin, and failure of any one would cause flooding and damage to the lower West River.

Quonnipaug Lake Dam (No. 6009) is a Class BB dam that experienced repairs in 1993. The dam impounds one of the Town's largest lakes and functionally serves as the headwaters to the West River. Failure of the dam would cause flooding along the entire West River, which includes areas that are already floodprone. According to an engineering report prepared in 2009, the dam is in “poor condition” and the spillway is only capable of passing a two year storm before becoming overtopped.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 10-11

Malleys Pond Dam (No. 6010) is located just to the north of Alden Drive at the southern end of Malleys Pond. Failure of the dam could cause flooding along Little Meadow Brook.

Myer Huber Pond Dam (No. 6011) is located to the west of Route 77 at the eastern end of Myer Huber Pond in extreme northern Guilford. Failure of this dam would cause flooding along the Coginchaug River, flowing north into the town of Durham.

Lane's Pond Dam (No. 6022) is located at the southern end of Lane's Pond at the end of Lane's Pond Road near the Guilford/North Branford municipal boundary. The pond acts as a reservoir surface water supply for the Town of Wallingford Public Utilities Water Department. The original dam was reconstructed from 1916 to 1918, with further modifications made in 1924, 1942, and 1948. The full reservoir water elevation is at an elevation of 554.5 feet. The dam was classified as a Class BB dam in 1988, and maintenance and repair work was conducted on the dam in 1999. In 2006, a letter was sent to the Town of Wallingford regarding a proposed training wall repair not being maintained and needing a permit.

The impoundment creates a reservoir having a surface area of 15 acres, with a 358- acre contributing drainage basin. The Town conducts quarterly dam inspections and, in 2006, it was noted that riprap was to be placed on the upstream side of the dam and that the wall upstream of the spillway is damaged and leaning. Additionally, the inspection resulted in the Town noting that the easterly masonry wall was in need of repair, that pack mortar needed to be placed behind the channel support for the stoplog, and that the Guilford diversion pipe needed repair.

Most recently, reseeding and riprap replacement was conducted in 1999 and 2000 while the wood stoplogs were replaced with a steel channel in 2003. Most recently, concrete and riprap were added to the discharge channel in 2005. Quarterly inspections continue to this day, and the dam is believed to be very well maintained.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 10-12

Failure of Lane's Pond Dam would cause a sudden release of water to Menuckatuck Reservoir, which would then have the potential to overtop or fail.

10.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives

The Dam Safety Section of the DEEP 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 Connecticut DEEP also administers the Flood and Erosion Control Board program, which can provide noncompetitive state funding for 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 Control Boards, but municipalities must take action to create the board within the context of the local government, such as by revising the municipal charter. The Town of Guilford has a Flood and Erosion Control Board per its Town Code although the board is not active.

The Town should work FEMA and the Association of Dam Safety Officials have a variety of resources available for dam owners. More with private property information can be found at http://www.fema.gov and owners, the RWA, the http://www.damsafety.org/resources/downloads/ Town of Wallingford, and the Connecticut DEEP to stay up to date on the evolution of any EOPs and DFAs for the significant hazard dams in Guilford should any be produced. The Town's Building and Engineering Department should have copies of all existing EOPs and DFAs for dams in Guilford in its possession. Whenever possible, copies of these documents (or portions of them that do not provide specific dam vulnerabilities) should be made available at the Town Hall for reference and public viewing.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 10-13

The Town should maximize its emergency preparedness for a potential dam failure. The Town should also consider coordinating occasional inspections of Class A, AA, BB, and unranked dams with the assistance of private property owners and inform dam owners of resources available to them through various governmental agencies.

Guilford should consider including future dam failure areas into the Reverse 911 emergency notification system. This technology should be used to warn residents downstream of a dam of an impending dam failure and facilitate evacuation. In the absence of DFA mapping, the 500-year floodplains downstream of a Class BB or Class B dam could be used to delineate potential dam failure areas.

The following specific recommendations are offered for dam failure mitigation:

Include dam failure areas in the Reverse 911 emergency contact database Work with the RWA to develop a specific EOP for Menuckatuck Reservoir Dam Work with the Guilford Lakes Improvement Association to develop a specific EOP for the Upper and Lower Guilford Lakes Dams Develop a specific EOP for the Town Mill Pond Dam Work with the Guilford Lakes Improvement Association to reconstruct the Lower Guilford Lake Dam to contain overflow to the spillway and reduce overtopping/spillage nearby that affects private properties Resume correspondence with the owner of the Maupus Pond Dam to ensure that it is repaired Conduct formal inspections of Town-owned dams, especially Lake Quonnipaug Dam Provide technical assistance and outreach to owners of private Class B and BB dams regarding inspections and maintenance Evaluate and classify the seven unranked dams

Finally, there are several suggested potential mitigation strategies that are applicable to all hazards in this Plan. These are outlined in Section 11.1.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 10-14

11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1 Additional Recommendations

Recommendations that are applicable to critical facilities were presented in Section 2.11. Recommendations for mitigating specific hazards were discussed in the applicable subsections of Sections 3.0 through 10.0. 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 listed below.

Disseminate informational pamphlets regarding natural hazards to public locations such as the Community Center, Town Hall, Town Hall Annex, library, and the like

Add pages to Town website dedicated to citizen education and preparation for natural hazard events

Using the LID checklist as a model, develop a checklist for land development applicants that cross references regulations and codes related to disaster resilience

Consider modifying the Subdivision Regulations to encourage two modes of egress into new neighborhoods

Continue reviewing subdivision applications to ensure proper access for emergency vehicles

Require that utilities be placed underground in new developments

Pursue funding to place utilities underground in existing developments

Utilize the state's AlertNow service to its fullest capabilities

Encourage residents to purchase and use NOAA weather radio with an alarm feature

11.2 Summary of Specific Recommendations

As noted above, recommendations that are applicable to critical facilities were presented in Section 2.11 whereas recommendations for mitigating specific hazards were discussed

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-1

in the applicable subsections of Sections 3.0 through 10.0. For completeness, all of these recommendations are provided below:

General Recommendations

Review and update the evacuation route map at least once annually and post it to the Town's website Acquire and install evacuation signs Encourage the public to register their mobile phones with the reverse 911 system Continue to review and update the EOP at least once annually Obtain copies of the disaster planning guides and manuals from the "Are You Ready?" series (http://www.ready.gov/america/publications/index.html) and make them available at the Town Hall and Community Center

Specific Recommendations for Critical Facilities

Install a multidirectional emergency horn at Town Hall to replace the current fixed horn Relocate the Public Works Facility outside a flood zone and hurricane surge zone Upgrade the Guilford High School for use as one of two primary shelters Upgrade the Community Center to improve its viability as one of two primary shelters Consider floodproofing measures for the Fire Station at 51 Water Street Consider floodproofing measures for the Fire Station at 120 Whitfield Street Consider floodproofing measures for the Fire Station at 10 Graves Avenue Consider floodproofing measures for Apple Rehabilitation at 10 Boston Post Road Improve the driveway for Apple Rehabilitation as needed to ensure egress Develop a site-specific evacuation plan for Apple Rehabilitation Consider floodproofing measures for The Gables at 201 Granite Road Elevate Granite Road as needed to ensure egress for The Gables

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-2

Develop a site-specific evacuation plan for The Gables Consider floodproofing measures for Boston Terrace Senior Living at 41 Boston Terrace; and elevate Elevate Boston Terrace as needed to ensure egress for Boston Terrace Senior Living Develop a site-specific evacuation plan for Boston Terrace Develop an emergency evacuation plan for Seaside Avenue residents Work with residents and the Town of Madison to develop an evacuation protocol for Guilford residents on Neck Road Ensure that the Town Marina has procedures and equipment to assist with watercraft removal before disasters Develop a mutual aid agreements with Brown's Boat Yard and Guilford Boat Yard to enable their assistance prior to disasters

Inland Flooding

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-3

Public Education Consider enrolling in the Community Rating System Provide outreach regarding home elevation, flood barriers, dry and wet floodproofing, and other home improvement techniques

Structural Projects Developing a hydrologic and hydraulic model of the West River watershed as a way to prioritize mitigation activities such as culvert and bridge upgrades, property acquisitions and elevations, and retention/detention Upgrade bridges and culverts along West River south of Lake Quonnipaug Upgrade the Route 1 bridge at West River Stabilize slopes and lake edge along Route 77 to prevent further erosion of the road Upgrade culverts along and under Route 77 southwest of the Fire Station to prevent flooding and washout along a tributary of West River Conduct culvert maintenance along Sucker Brook near Lake Drive; work with private property owners as needed Work with the DEEP to control beaver activity at the north end of Lake Quonnipaug and prevent flooding of Route 77 Install culverts to reduce flooding from a hillside near County Road and Route 77 Upgrade culverts to reduce flooding associated with the outlet stream from the Menuckatuck Reservoir near 3300 Route 77 Upgrade culverts to reduce flooding along Race Hill Road associated with Hall Lot Brook or a West River tributary

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-4

Improve drainage and West River flood conveyance near Bittner Park Improve drainage and Spinning Hill Brook flood conveyance in the area that floods near Martin Bishop Field and Long Hill Road Determine whether flooding still occurs at the new bridge over Little Meadow Brook at Little Meadow Road Improve drainage and Munger Brook flood conveyance in the area that floods between County Road and Route 80

Coastal Flooding

Emergency Services Work with residents to develop a satellite shelter for residents that may become isolated in Sachems Head and Indian Cove during coastal flooding Work with residents to develop a satellite shelter for residents that may become isolated in Mulberry and Tuttles Points during coastal flooding Work with residents to develop a satellite shelter for residents that may become isolated in Leetes Island during coastal flooding

Prevention Continue to regulate activities within SFHAs to the greatest extent possible with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations

Property Protection - General Apply freeboard standard of one foot when requiring structure elevations for renovations and new construction in coastal A zones Apply freeboard standard of one foot when requiring structure elevations for renovations and new construction in V zones Ensure that docks proposed in V zones conform to the design standards in 6.7.3(a) of the Harbor Management Plan Ensure that transit-oriented development around the railroad station is flood disaster resistant and practical under sea level rise scenarios

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-5

Implement a comprehensive review of all shore protection features in the Harbor Sector to mitigate repeated loss of the damage that was typical of Tropical Storm Irene.

Property Protection for Repetitive Loss Properties Provide technical assistance to RLP owners (and other owners of structures that suffer flood damage) regarding floodproofing measures or pursue elevation or acquisition/demolition of these properties for open space

Structural Projects Elevate Route 146 at West River; upgrade bridge Elevate Route 146 at Long Cove provided that clearance below the railroad bridge is not jeopardized; upgrade culverts Elevate Route 146 at Great Harbor/Hidden Lake; upgrade culverts Elevate Route 146 at Leetes Island; upgrade culverts

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-6

Elevate Whitfield Street from Seaview Terrace to the entrance of the marina to minimize flooding and improve drainage Elevate Daniel Avenue or West Lane to provide multiple modes of egress for Indian Cove residents Elevate Tuttles Point Road to provide egress for Tuttles Point residents Elevate selected locations along Old Quarry Road Elevate low spots on Chimney Corner Road Elevate Chaffinch Island Road as needed as long as Brown's Boat Yard remains a critical facility Elevate selected locations along Seaside Avenue Upgrade stormwater collection and discharge systems along Whitfield Street and in Guilford Center to keep up with rising sea level Raise the entire bulkhead and seawall in the marina area.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-7

Wind Damage Related to Hurricanes, Summer Storms, Tornadoes, Winter Storms

Winter Storms

Conduct a study to identify municipal buildings, critical facilities, and commercial/industrial buildings that are vulnerable to roof damage or collapse due to heavy snow loads Develop a plan to prioritize snow removal from the roof of municipal buildings (especially critical facilities) and have funding available for clearing Consider posting the snow plowing routes in municipal buildings and the Town website Identify areas that are difficult to access during winter storm events and develop contingency plans Provide information for mitigating icing, insulating pipes, and retrofits for flat roofed buildings

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-8

Earthquakes

Consider preventing residential development in areas prone to collapse such as below steep slopes or in areas prone to liquefaction Continue to require adherence to the state building codes Ensure that municipal departments and critical facilities have adequate backup facilities in case damage occurs Conduct maintenance as necessary along Route 77 near Lake Quonnipaug to minimize rock slides

Dam Failure

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-9

Wildfires

11.3 Prioritization of Specific Recommendations

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:

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-10

Social: Is the proposed strategy socially acceptable to the community? Are there equity issues involved that would mean that one segment of the community is treated unfairly?

Technical: Will the proposed strategy work? Will it create more problems than it will solve?

Administrative: Can the community 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 the community authorized to implement the proposed strategy? Is there a clear legal basis or precedent for this activity?

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 was evaluated and assigned a score based on the above criteria as described in Section 1.4. An evaluation matrix with the total scores from each strategy can be found in Appendix A. After each strategy was evaluated using the STAPLEE method, it was then possible to prioritize the strategies according to the final scores.

Theoretically, the highest scores would be determined to be of more importance economically, socially, environmentally, and politically and, hence, these recommendations would be prioritized over those with lower scores. However, the scoring system inherently favors recommendations that have no incremental costs, such as continuing to enforce regulations (which is accomplished by existing municipal personnel and commissions).

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-11

In consideration of the STAPLEE ranking results and the risks and vulnerabilities described in this Plan, the following recommendations from each category were identified by the Town as the highest priority projects and/or policies:

General Recommendations

Using the LID checklist as a model, develop a checklist for land development applicants that cross references regulations and codes related to disaster resilience Review and update the EOP at least once annually Obtain copies of the disaster planning guides and manuals from the "Are You Ready?" series (http://www.ready.gov/america/publications/index.html) and make them available at the Town Hall and Community Center

Specific Recommendations for Critical Facilities

Relocate the Public Works facility outside a flood zone and hurricane surge zone Upgrade Guilford High School and the Community Center for dual use as primary shelters Develop site-specific evacuation plans for Apple Rehabilitation, the Gables, and Boston Terrace Ensure that the Town Marina has procedures and equipment to assist with watercraft removal before disasters

Flooding

Regulate activities within SFHAs to the greatest extent possible with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations Provide technical assistance to RLP owners (and other owners of structures that suffer flood damage) regarding floodproofing measures or pursue elevation or acquisition/demolition of these properties for open space

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-12

Pursue the acquisition of additional municipal open space in inland and coastal SFHAs Developing a hydrologic and hydraulic model of the West River watershed as a way to prioritize mitigation activities such as culvert and bridge upgrades, property acquisitions and elevations, and retention/detention Upgrade bridges and culverts along West River Improve drainage and Spinning Hill Brook flood conveyance in the area that floods near Martin Bishop Field and Long Hill Road Apply a freeboard standard of one foot when requiring structure elevations for renovations and new construction in coastal A and V zones Ensure that docks proposed in V zones conform to the design standards in 6.7.3(a) of the Harbor Management Plan Ensure that transit-oriented development around the railroad station is flood disaster resistant and practical under sea level rise scenarios Elevate Route 146 at selected locations Upgrade stormwater collection and discharge systems along Whitfield Street and in Guilford Center to keep up with rising sea level

Erosion Control

Conduct beach nourishment at Jacob's Beach Conduct a study of alternatives for erosion control at Jacob's Beach, Chittenden Beach, and near Chaffinch Island and implement feasible and prudent alternatives Maintain existing hard structures in good condition

Wind Damage Related to Hurricanes, Summer Storms, Tornadoes, Winter Storms

Continue tree limb inspections and maintenance and outreach to private property owners regarding branches above power lines

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-13

Increase funding for the Tree Warden to address a wider range of tree limb hazards than the current budget allows Develop a plan for addressing dead or dying trees near structures and roads

Winter Storms

Earthquakes

Consider preventing residential development in areas prone to collapse such as below steep slopes or in areas prone to liquefaction Require adherence to the state building codes

Dam Failure

Wildfires

Extend public water supply and fire protection to Mulberry Point, Tuttles Point, and Indian Cove

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-14

Pursue additional sources of fire-fighting water where adequate supplies do not exist Promote intermunicipal cooperation in fire-fighting efforts

11.4 Sources of Funding

The following sources of funding and technical assistance may be available for the priority projects listed above. Funding requirements and contact information are provided in Section 12.0.

Beach Replenishment and Erosion Control

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers – funding for beach nourishment.

U.S. Department of Agriculture – technical assistance for erosion control.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program - matching funds at the state level for projects that conserve, restore, and protect coastal wetlands. Nationally competitive.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Program – funding for projects that support long-term wetlands acquisition, restoration, and/or enhancement. Requires a 1-to-1 funds match.

Flood Mitigation

FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program – grants for pre-disaster flood hazard mitigation planning and projects such as property acquisition, relocation of residents, and flood retrofitting.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – 50/50 match funding for floodproofing and flood preparedness projects.

U.S. Department of Agriculture – financial assistance to reduce flood damage in small watersheds and to improve water quality.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-15

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.

Wildfire Mitigation

Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program – pre-disaster grants to organizations such as fire departments that are recognized for expertise in fire prevention and safety programs.

General Hazard Mitigation

FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) – funding for hazard mitigation projects following a presidentially declared disaster.

FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) – funding for hazard mitigation projects on a nationally competitive basis.

Massachusetts Land Acquisition & Conservation Program – funding for open space acquisition.

AmeriCorps – teams may be available to assist with landscaping projects such as surveying, tree planting, restoration, construction, and environmental education.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 11-16

12.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

12.1 Implementation Strategy and Schedule

The Guilford Board of Selectmen is authorized to implement and update this HMP as needed working through existing boards or commissions or a committee assembled for the Plan update; coordinate its adoption; and guide it through the FEMA approval process. In order to assist in this process, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planning Committee will be retired and the “Hazard Mitigation Commission” will be formed by ordinance. The commission will have ongoing responsibilities to advise the Board of Selectmen on prioritization of actions, plan updates, and grant opportunities. The resolution in Appendix L includes language to create the commission.

As individual recommendations of the HMP are implemented, they must be implemented by the municipal commissions and departments that oversee these activities. The Board of Selectmen, Emergency Management Agency, Public Works Department, Building and Engineering Department, Planning and Zoning Commission, Fire Department, Police Department, Parks and Recreation Director, Harbor Management Commission, Marina Commission, and Tree Warden will primarily be responsible for implementing selected projects and studies as advised by the Hazard Mitigation Commission. 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 Hazard Mitigation Commission will be authorized and this plan will be made available to applicable Town departments and commissions as a planning tool to be used in conjunction with existing documents and regulations. It is expected that revisions to other Town plans and regulations such as the Plan of Conservation and Development, department annual budgets, and Zoning and Subdivision Regulations may reference this plan and its updates. The Office of the First Selectman will be responsible

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-1

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. Refer to Table 12-1 for a cross-reference of which plans and regulations may be most important for updating relative to the HMP.

Table 12-1 Plans and Regulations to be Potentially Updated

Status Relative to Hazard Mitigation Regulation or Plan Responsible Party Plan Zoning Regulations Several recommendations of HMP to Planning and Zoning be incorporated. Commission Subdivision Regulations Several recommendations of HMP to Planning and Zoning be incorporated. Commission Inland Wetland Regulations No changes needed at present time. Not applicable Master Plan for Preservation and Scenic This one-time plan is not an official Not applicable Conservation (1995) town document; no changes needed. Plan of Conservation and Development The POCD update is underway and Planning and Zoning (2002) will incorporate elements of the HMP. Commission Transportation Plan (2003) The next major revision of this plan Planning and Zoning will incorporate elements of the HMP. Commission Growth Management Plan (2004) The next major revision of this plan Planning and Zoning will incorporate elements of the HMP. Commission Plan for Economic Development (2004) The next major revision of this plan Economic Development will incorporate elements of the HMP. Commission Natural Resources Inventory and This one-time plan is not meant to be Not applicable Assessment (2005) updated; no changes needed. Emergency Operations Plan (2007) The next major revision of the EOP Emergency Management will incorporate elements of the HMP. Agency Land Acquisition Commission Report The next revision of this report will Land Acquisition (2007) incorporate elements of the HMP Commission related to land acquisition. Town Center South Plan (2007) The next major revision of this plan Planning and Zoning will incorporate elements of the HMP. Commission Municipal Coastal Program (2008) The Municipal Coastal Program Planning and Zoning recommended the development of the Commission HMP and provided the basis for some of the recommendations in the HMP; future revisions will be consistent with future updates of the HMP. Harbor Management Plan (2011) This plan already incorporates elements Harbor Management of the HMP; future revisions will be Commission consistent with future updates of the HMP.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-2

The Office of the First Selectman The Office of the First Selectman with the assistance of the Hazard Mitigation Commission will be responsible for assigning appropriate Town officials to update portions of the Plan of Conservation and Development, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, and EOP to include the provisions from this Plan if it is determined that such updates are appropriate. However, 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 Development and the EOP are the two documents most likely to benefit from the inclusion of the Plan in the Town's library of planning documents.

The Planning and Zoning Commission is listed multiple times in Table 12-1 and in the implantation table in Appendix A. This commission has demonstrated relatively rapid action in the past as a result of receiving recommendations from a plan. For example, the commission revised and amended portions of the Zoning Regulations within 12 months of the adoption of the Municipal Coastal Program. The Town anticipates that the commission will continue to be active in implementing certain recommendations of this HMP.

Finally, the Hazard Mitigation Commission will be responsible to assure that 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 Public Works Department.

12.2 Progress Monitoring and Public Participation

The Office of the First Selectman with the assistance of the Hazard Mitigation Commission will be the party responsible for monitoring the successful implementation of the Plan as part of its oversight of all municipal departments. Participants in this

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-3

review may include but need not be limited to representatives of the departments listed in Section 12.1.

Site Reconnaissance for Specific Recommendations – A member (or members) of the Hazard Mitigation Commission will annually perform reconnaissance-level inspections of sites that are subject to specific recommendations between April 1 and November 1 each year. This will ensure that these recommendations remain viable and appropriate. Examples include home acquisitions or elevations, structural projects such as culvert replacements, roadway elevations in coastal areas, and water main extensions for increased fire suppression capabilities. The worksheet in Appendix M will be filled out

for specific project-related recommendations. This Site Reconnaissance to be worksheet is taken from the FEMA 386 series. completed between April 1 and November 1 each year

The repetitive loss properties shall be subject to a windshield survey at least once every two years to ensure that the list (available from the State) is reasonably accurate relative to addresses and Repetitive loss properties to be viewed biennially other basic information.

Annual Reporting and Meeting – Matters to be reviewed on an annual basis will include the goals and objectives of the HMP, hazards or disasters that occurred during the preceding year (for example, the recent damage from Tropical Storm Irene in the marina area), 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 meeting shall be conducted in July or August each year, at least two months before the annual application cycle for pre-disaster grants under the HMA programs1. This will enable a list of possible projects to be circulated for Town departments to review, with sufficient time for Annual meeting to be developing applications. The Hazard Mitigation conducted in July or August Commission and the First Selectman (or his designee) each year

1 PDM, FMA, and RFC applications are typically due to the DEEP in October of any given year.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-4

shall jointly prepare a report based on the review of recent events and ongoing or recent mitigation activities for review at this annual meeting. Results of the site reconnaissance efforts will be reviewed as well.

Post-Disaster Reporting and Meeting – Subsequent to federally declared disasters in the State of Connecticut and within two months, a meeting shall be conducted to develop a list of possible projects for developing an HMGP application. The Hazard Mitigation Commission and the First Selectman (or his designee) shall jointly prepare a report based on the review of recent events and ongoing or recent mitigation activities for review at the HMGP meeting. Public outreach shall be Meeting to be conducted within two months of each Federal disaster solicited for HMGP applications at a separate declaration in Connecticut meeting.

Continued Public Involvement – Continued public involvement will be sought regarding the monitoring, evaluating, and updating of the HMP. Public input will be solicited through community meetings, presentations on local cable access channels, input to web- based information gathering tools, and articles in the Guilford Courier and the Shoreline Times. The proliferation of the local Patch.com web sites continued in Connecticut in 2011. If a Guilford Patch is developed, it will be utilized as well. Direct input from the homeowners from several coastal neighborhoods is anticipated to continue each year.

The First Selectman and Hazard Mitigation Commission will continue to provide the linkage to other municipal departments throughout the plan monitoring and evaluations each year relative to communication and participation.

12.3 Updating the Plan

The Hazard Mitigation Commission will update this plan at least once every five years or sooner if a consensus to do so is reached by the Board of Selectmen. To update the plan, the Hazard Mitigation Commission will work with many of the same departments

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-5

solicited for input to this plan. In addition, local business leaders, community and neighborhood group leaders, relevant private and nonprofit interest groups, and the four neighboring municipalities will be solicited for representation, including the following:

The neighborhood associations listed in Section 1.0

TNC's Coastal Resilience staff (if available)

Representatives from the Public Works and Planning Departments in the municipalities of Branford, North Branford, Durham, and Madison.2

To update the plan, the project recommendation worksheets (Appendix M) and annual reports described above will be reviewed. In addition, the following questions will be discussed and answered by the members of the Hazard Mitigation Commission:

Do the mitigation goals and objectives still reflect the concerns of Guilford residents, business owners, and officials? Have conditions in Guilford changed so that findings of the risk and vulnerability assessments should be updated? Are new sources of information available that will improve the risk assessment? For example, revised coastal DFIRMs will be released and adopted during the time between this plan and the first plan update. If risks and vulnerabilities have changed, do the mitigation goals and objectives still reflect the risk assessment? What hazards have caused damage in the Town since the last edition of the plan was developed? Were these anticipated and evaluated in the plan or should these hazards be added to the plan? For example, T.S. Irene occurred during the final stages of this plan, and the effects were important considerations. Are current personnel and financial resources of the Town sufficient for implementing mitigation actions?

2 These municipalities do not have pre-disaster hazard mitigation plans as of the adoption date of this Guilford hazard mitigation plan, and only one (Durham) has commenced the planning process; but all four are expected to have plans prior to the revision of the Guilford hazard mitigation plan.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-6

For each mitigation action that has not been completed, what are the obstacles to implementation? What are potential solutions for overcoming these obstacles? For each mitigation action that has been completed, was the action effective in reducing risk? What mitigation recommendations should be added to the plan and proposed for implementation? If any proposed mitigation actions should be deleted from the plan, what is the rationale?

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 shelters and critical facilities 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 potential 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, 6th 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

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-7

development areas in both predisaster and postdisaster environments. The Risk Insurance Branch mitigates flood losses by providing affordable flood insurance for 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 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 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 the Emergency Management Institute in Emmitsburg, Maryland.

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

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-8

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 postdisaster 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 hospital.

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, identification of and training on nonstructural mitigation measures, and evaluating the performance of seismically rehabilitated structures, postearthquake.

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. This includes the Public Assistance Grant Program (PA), which provides 75% grants for mitigation projects to protect eligible damaged public and private nonprofit 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.

Computer Sciences Corporation New England Regional Insurance Manager Bureau and Statistical Office (781) 848-1908

Corporate Headquarters

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-9

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 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 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:

Capitalization Grants for State Revolving Funds: Low interest loans to governments to repair, replace, or relocate wastewater treatment plants 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 that control non-point pollution are eligible. Grants are administered through the CT DEEP, Bureau of Water Management, Planning and Standards Division.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 20 Church Street, 19th Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3220

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-10

(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 CDBG. One program objective is to improve housing conditions for low and moderate income families. Projects can include acquiring floodprone homes or protecting them from flood damage. Funding is a 100% grant and 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 postflood 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 flood 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.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-11

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 renourishment, stream clearance and snagging projects, floodproofing, and flood preparedness are funded on a 50/50 matching basis by Section 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 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 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 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 nonstructural 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/

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-12

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides 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 out wetlands 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 landowners, groups of landowners, communities, and soil and water conservation districts on land use and conservation planning, resource development, stormwater management, flood prevention, erosion control and sediment reduction, detailed soil surveys, watershed/river basin planning and recreation, and 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 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, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-13

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 economic opportunities, and improving community facilities and services.

Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 (860) 424-3000 http://www.dep.state.ct.us/

The Connecticut DEEP provides technical assistance to subapplicants for planning efforts and HMA projects. The department includes several divisions 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, 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 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 State Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is updated every three 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 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. Has the power to construct and repair flood and erosion management systems. Certain nonstructural measures that mitigate

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-14

flood damages are also eligible. Funding is provided to communities that apply for assistance through a Flood & Erosion Control Board on a noncompetitive 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 nonpoint 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 (CAM) Act program and Long Island Sound License Plate Program.

Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security 25 Sigourney Street, 6th 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 and 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. Additionally, the agency is available to provide technical assistance to subapplicants during the planning process.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-15

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 that 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 improvements and bridge repairs that could be mitigation related.

Private and Other Resources

Association of State Dam Safety Officials 450 Old Vine Street Lexington, KY 40507 (859) 257-5140 http://www.damsafety.org

ASDSO is a nonprofit organization of state and federal dam safety regulators, dam owners/operators, dam designers, manufacturers/suppliers, academia, contractors and others interested in dam safety. Their mission is to advance and improve the safety of dams by supporting the dam safety community and state dam safety programs, raising awareness, facilitating cooperation, providing a forum for the exchange of information, representing dam safety interests before governments, providing outreach programs, and creating a unified community of dam safety advocates.

The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) 2809 Fish Hatchery Road, Suite 204 Madison, WI 53713 (608) 274-0123 http://www.floods.org/

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-16

ASFPM is a professional association of state employees with a membership of over 1,000 that assists communities with the NFIP. 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 nonprofit 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, NY 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

NAFSMA is an organization of public agencies that 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/

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-17

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 key words 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 nonprofit 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.

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 floodproofing 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 that cannot be funded elsewhere.

AmeriCorps - AmeriCorps is the National Community Service Organization. It is a network of local, state, and national service programs that connects volunteers with nonprofits, public agencies, and faith-based and community organizations to help meet our country's critical

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-18

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 MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 12-19

13.0 REFERENCES

Adamson, Julia, 2011, "Disastrous Dam Failure in Connecticut Eleven People Killed", http://www.suite101.com/content/disastrous-dam-failure-in-connecticut-eleven-people-killed- a336178, Suite 101.com

Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 2010, "Dam Failures, Dam Incidents (Near Failures)," http://www.damsafety.org/media/Documents/PRESS/US_FailuresIncidents.pdf

___, 2010, Connecticut Dam Safety Program, http://www.damsafety.org/map/state.aspx?s=7

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.

Buck, Rinker, 2010, "Earthquake Reported off Long Island Sound", Hartford Courant, http://articles.courant.com/2010-11-30/news/hc-earthquake-1201-20101130_1_small-quake- minor-earthquake-minor-temblor

Columbia University Earth Institute, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and The Nature Conservancy, 2011, Downscaled Sea Level Rise Projections for Long Island Sound Across Several Emission Scenarios.

Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, 2010, Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.

___, 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

___, 1999, Tropical Storm Floyd Heavy Rains and Flooding, September 15-16, 1999, Review Draft, Inland Water Resources Division

___. GIS Data for Connecticut - DEP Bulletin Number 40, rev. 2010.

Connecticut Flood Recovery Committee, 1955, Report of the Connecticut Flood Recovery Committee, November 3, 1955, Connecticut State Library, http://www.cslib.org/floodrecov.pdf

Connecticut Geological & Natural History Survey, 1990, Generalized Bedrock Geologic Map of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, http://www.wesleyan.edu/ctgeology/images/CtGeoMap_big.jpg, Assessed 12/30/2010.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 13-1

Connecticut State Data Center, 2011, Connecticut Census Data, http://ctsdc.uconn.edu/connecticut_census_data.html

Cornell University, 2011, Information regarding the magnitude 5.8 earthquake that occurred 38 miles from Richmond, Virginia on August 23, 2011. Earthquake Information Bulletin, 1973, Volume 5, Number 5, September-October 1973, by Carl Von Hake, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/massachusetts/history.php

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2010, Flood Insurance Study, New Haven County, Connecticut (All Jurisdictions) effective June 18, 2010.

___, 2010, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance. http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4225

___, 2010, "Connecticut Disaster History", http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters_state.fema?id=9

___, 2010, "Wind Zones in the United States", http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/saferoom/tsfs02_wind_zones.shtm

___, 2009, "FEMA BCA Toolkit v.4.5.5.0."

___, April 2008, HAZUS®-MH Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States. FEMA document 366.

___, 2007, Mitigation Best Practices Portfolio, The Town of East Haven Has Lifted Itself Above the Grade.

___, 2007, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. March 2004, Revised November 2006 and June 2007.

___, 2007, Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guide Number Five, FEMA document 386-5.

___, 2005, Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding: A Guide for Communities, FEMA document 511.

___, 2003, Developing the Mitigation Plan – Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementation Strategies, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guide Number Three, FEMA document 386-3.

___, 1999, "In the Aftermath of Floyd, FEMA Offers Suggestions to Reduce Damages from the Next Flood," FEMA Release 1302-15, http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=8655

___, 1987, Reducing Losses in High Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local Officials, The Association of State Floodplain Managers.

___, Hazards, Tornadoes, http://www.fema.gov/hazard/tornado/index.shtm

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 13-2

___, 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/fima/

___, Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology – Earthquake Model: Hazus-MH MR5 Technical Manual.

___, Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology – Flood Model: Hazus-MH MR5 Technical Manual.

___, Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology – Hurricane Model: Hazus-MH MR5 Technical Manual.

___, National Hurricane Program, http://www.fema.gov/hazards/hurricanes/nhp.shtm

___, 1987, Reducing Losses in High Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local Officials, The Association of State Floodplain Managers.

Flounders, Helene T., 2004, Connecticut Statewide Forest Resource Plan, 2004 – 2013, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

Fox News.com. 2008. Rare Earthquake Strikes Connecticut. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336973,00.html. Accessed 8/11/2010.

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.

Hershfield, David M., 1961, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, Technical Paper No. 40, U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau.

Institute for Business and Home Safety, undated, "Is Your Home Protected From Wildfire Disaster? – A Homeowner's Guide to Wildfire Retrofit."

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001, Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001.

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

Kennard, D., 2008, "Fuel Categories", Forest Encyclopedia Network, http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p4/p140/p353/p506

Map and Geographic Information Center, 2010, "Connecticut GIS Data", University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, http://magic.lib.uconn.edu/connecticut_data.html

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 13-3

Milone & MacBroom, Inc., 2011, City of Danbury Hazard Mitigation Plan, City of Danbury, Connecticut.

____, 2011, Town of Sherman Hazard Mitigation Plan, Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials, Brookfield, Connecticut.

____, 2010, Town of New Fairfield Hazard Mitigation Plan.

____, 2009, Borough of Naugatuck Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT.

____, 2009, Town of Southbury Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT.

____, 2009, Town of Middlebury Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT.

____, 2009, Town of Beacon Falls Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT.

____, 2009, Town of Thomaston Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT.

____, 2009, Town of Bethlehem Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT.

___, 2008, Town of Cheshire Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT.

___, 2008, Town of Prospect Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT.

___, 2008, Town of Wolcott Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT.

___, 2007, City of Waterbury Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT.

___, 2007, Town of Nantucket Hazard Mitigation Plan.

___, 2006, Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency Hazard Mitigation Plan, Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency, Bridgeport, CT.

___, 2005, City of New Haven Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Miller, D.R., G.S. Warner, F.L. Ogden, A.T. DeGaetano, 1997, Precipitation in Connecticut. University of Connecticut College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Connecticut Institute of Water Resources, Storrs, CT.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 13-4

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 Interagency Fire Center, 2011, Fire Information – Wildland Fire Statistics, http://www.nifc.gov/fire_info/fire_stats.htm

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Hurricane Research Division, Hurricane Histograms. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/counties/CT.html

___, Coastal Services Center, 2011, "Hurricane Historical Tracks", http://csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/

___, National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), Extreme Weather and Climate Events. http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms

____, National Hurricane Center, 2011, "Return Periods", http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/basics/return.shtml

___, National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center Tropical Prediction Center. NHC/TPC Archive of Past Hurricane Seasons. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml

___, Severe Weather, http://www.noaawatch.gov/themes/severe.php

___, National Severe Storms Laboratory, 2009, "Tornado Basics", http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/tornado/tor_basics.html

___, 2008, "Lightning Basics", http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/lightning/ltg_basics.html

___, 2006, "Damaging Winds Basics", http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/wind/wind_basics.html

___, 2006, "Hail Basics", http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/hail/hail_basics.html

___. 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), 2011, Extreme Weather and Climate Events, http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms

___, 2011, The Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS), http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and- ice/nesis.php

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 13-5

___, National Weather Service, Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services, 2010, NEW Weather Fatality, Injury, and Damage Statistics, http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml

___, National Weather Service Columbia, SC Forecast Office, 2010, Downbursts…, http://www.erh.noaa.gov/cae/svrwx/downburst.htm

___, 2010, Hail…, http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/cae/svrwx/hail.htm

Neumann, J.E., G. Yohe, R. Nicholls, M. Manion, 2000, Sea-level Rise and Global Climate Change, A Review of Impacts to the U.S. Coasts, Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

New England Seismic Network, 2011, "NESN Recent Earthquakes", Weston Observatory – Boston College, http://aki.bc.edu/cgi-bin/NESN/recent_events.pl

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/

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/technical/classification/scfile/index.html [Accessed 10 February 2004]. USDA-NRCS, Lincoln, NE.

The Nature Conservancy, 2010, mapping of Guilford provided from the Coastal Resilience program.

Tornado Project Online, http://www.tornadoproject.com/

Town of Guilford, 2011, Harbor Management Plan.

___, 2008, Municipal Coastal Program.

___, 2007, Emergency Operations Plan.

___, 2007, Land Acquisition Commission Report.

___, 2007, Town Center South Plan.

___, 2005, Natural Resources Inventory and Assessment.

___, 2004, Growth Management Plan.

___, 2004, Plan for Economic Development.

___, 2003, Transportation Plan.

___, 2002, Plan of Conservation and Development.

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 13-6

___, 1995, Master Plan for Preservation and Scenic Conservation.

___, Inland Wetlands Regulations.

___, Municipal Code.

___, Subdivision Regulations.

___, Zoning Regulations.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1994, Connecticut Hurricane Evacuation Study and Technical Data Report.

___, 1994, Flood Warning Assessment for the Farm River, East Haven and North Branford, Connecticut.

United States Census Bureau, 2011, 2010 Census Data, http://www.census.gov/

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, Earthquake Hazards Program, Earthquake Information for Connecticut, http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/states/connecticut/connecticut_history.html

___, 1999, National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Atlantic Coast, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-593.

___, The Severity of an Earthquake. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq4/severitygip.html

___, 2010, "2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping", https://geohazards.usgs.gov/eqprob/2009/index.php

___, 2010, "Magnitude / Intensity Comparison", http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mag_vs_int.php

___. 2009. Seismic Hazard Map of Connecticut. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/connecticut/hazards.php. Assessed 8/11/2010.

___. 2009. The Severity of an Earthquake. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq4/severitygip.html Assessed 8/11/2010.

___, 2009, "Top Earthquake States", http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/top_states.php

___, 2006, Wildfire Hazards – A National Threat, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3015/2006- 3015.pdf

WFSB, 2010, "Residents Report Feeling Canadian Earthquake," http://www.wfsb.com/news/24007970/detail.html

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 13-7

Wikipedia, 2011, "1993 Storm of the Century", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Storm_of_the_Century

___, 2011, "Great Blizzard of 1888", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Blizzard_of_1888

___, 2011, "Northeastern United States Blizzard of 1978", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeastern_United_States_blizzard_of_1978

___, 2010, "Fire Triangle", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_triangle

___, 2011, List of Connecticut Tornadoes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Connecticut_tornadoes

2426-10-4-s1411-rpt.doc

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GUILFORD, CONNECTICUT SEPTEMBER 2011; ADOPTED JUNE 2012 13-8

APPENDIX A STAPLEE MATRIX

APPENDIX B PLAN DEVELOPMENT MEETING MINUTES

APPENDIX C PUBLIC MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATION SEPTEMBER 2010

APPENDIX D PUBLIC MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATION SEPTEMBER 2011

APPENDIX E EMERGENCY ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR HURRICANES EARL (2010) AND IRENE (2011)

APPENDIX F HURRICANE EVACUATION STUDY

APPENDIX G EVACUATION MAP

APPENDIX H HAZUS DOCUMENTATION

APPENDIX I PHOTOGRAPHS OF FLOODING

APPENDIX J THE NATURE CONSERVANCY COASTAL RESILIENCE PROJECT MAPS

APPENDIX K PHOTOGRAPHS OF DAMAGE FROM HURRICANE IRENE

APPENDIX L RECORD OF MUNICIPAL ADOPTION

APPENDIX M ANNUAL WORKSHEET

RESOLUTION

TOWN OF GUILFORD HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AND HAZARD MITIGATION COMMISSION

WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 encourages communities to prepare a Hazard Mitigation Plan to outline natural hazard vulnerabilities and potential mitigation measures; and

WHEREAS, in light of recent natural disasters that severely impacted public infrastructure and private properties in the Town of Guilford, the Town developed a Hazard Mitigation Plan to understand local conditions and plan accordingly; and

WHEREAS, the primary goal of the Hazard Mitigation Plan is to reduce the loss of or damage to life, property, infrastructure, and natural, cultural, and economic resources from natural disasters; and

WHERAS, public information meetings were held to solicit public input and recommendations and to review the plan as required by law;

WHEREAS, the Hazard Mitigation Plan recommends many hazard mitigation actions that will protect the people and property affected by the natural hazards that potentially face the town; and

WHEREAS, some of the recommended mitigation actions may qualify for Federal funding but only if the Town of Guilford officially adopts the Hazard Mitigation Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Town of Guilford shall implement, maintain, and update the Hazard Mitigation Plan through the continuation of the voluntary committee that developed the plan;

BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Guilford that the Hazard Mitigation Plan is hereby adopted as an official plan of the Town of Guilford, and the Hazard Mitigation Commission will be created by ordinance, and that the appropriate municipal departments will report anually on their activities, accomplishments, and progress relative to the Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Town of Guilford.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town of Guilford is authorized to apply for and accept any future Federal or State grant assistance to accomplish the goals of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Adopted this 4th day of June 2012 by the Board of Selectmen of Guilford, Connecticut

______(Signatures)