. ` STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-5127

AMEY MARRELLA, COMMISSIONER

Photographed by DEP staff, September 19, 1999, Jenson’s Trailer Park, Still River, Danbury CT.

CONNECTICUT’S 2010 NATURAL HAZARD

MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE

Prepared by: Department of Environmental Protection Inland Water Resources Division Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse

With Assistance From: The Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security

December 2010

Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Americans with Disabilities Act Notice:

The Department of Environmental Protection is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer and service provider. In conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, DEP makes every effort to provide equally effective services for persons with disabilities. Individuals with disabilities who need this information in an alternative format, to allow them to benefit and/or participate in the agency’s programs and services, should call 860-424-3051 or 860-418-5937 or e-mail Marcia Bonitto, ADA Coordinator, at [email protected]. Persons who are hearing impaired should call the State of Connecticut relay number 711.

~ ii ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Participants and Contributors

Amey Marrella, Commissioner CT Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) Peter J. Boynton, Commissioner CT Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Betsey Wingfield, Bureau Chief CTDEP Water Protection and Land Reuse (WPLR) Denise Ruzicka, Director CTDEP Inland Water Resources Division (IWRD) Steve Tessitore, CTDEP IWRD Karen Michaels, CTDEP IWRD Art Christian, CTDEP IWRD Diane Ifkovic, CTDEP IWRD Carla Feroni, CTDEP IWRD Kevin O’Brien, CTDEP OLISP Jennifer Pagach, CTDEP Office of Long Island Sound (OLISP) Emily Pysh, CTDEP IWRD Douglas Glowacki, CT Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Alphonse Letendre, (DEMHS) Margaret Thomas, CTDEP State Geologist Elizabeth Napier, CTDEP IWRD Ann Kuzyk, CTDEP IWRD Lisa Humble, State Building Inspector, CT Inter-Agency Hazard Mitigation Committee Rudolph Kamm, CT Department of Transportation, CT Inter-Agency Hazard Mitigation Committee Bruce Wittchen, CT Office of Policy and Management Paul Stacey, CTDEP Office of the Bureau Chief, Division Director of Planning and Standards Roslyn Reeps, CTDEP, Office of Planning and Program Development Ralph Scarpino, CTDEP Forestry Division Chris Martin, Connecticut State Forester Ahmadali Alex Tabatabai, Environmental Analyst, Drinking Water Section, CT Department of Public Health Arde Ramthun, U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service Nicole Belk, National Weather Service

~ iii ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Abbreviations Used In This Plan

Acronym Definition ALERT Connecticut Automated Flood Warning System BFE Base Flood Elevation BOCA Building Officials and Code Administration C.G.S. Connecticut General Statute CAP Community Assistance Program CAV Community Assistance Visit CCMA Connecticut Coastal Management Act CEO Council of Elected Officials CFMA Connecticut Floodplain Management Act CFR Code of Federal Register CIHMC Connecticut Interagency Hazard Mitigation Committee CMI Crop Moisture Index COG Council of Governments CRREL U.S. Army Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory CRVFCC Connecticut River Valley Flood Control Compact CT PHERP Connecticut Public Health Emergency Response Plan DEMHS Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security DEP Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection DMA 2000 Disaster Mitigation Act DOE Connecticut Department of Education DHCD Connecticut Department of Housing and Community Development DOT Connecticut Department of Transportation DPH Connecticut Department of Public Health EAS Emergency Alert System EOC State Emergency Operations Center EWP Emergency Watershed Protection FECB Flood and Erosion Control Board FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance FMP Flood Management Program FPMS Floodplain Management Studies GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMGRC Hazard Mitigation Grant Review Committee IA Individual Assistance IBC 2003 International Building Code IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRC 2003 International Residential Code IWRD Inland Water Resources Division LISICOS Long Island Sound Integrated Coastal Observing System MACOORA Mid-Atlantic Coastal Ocean Observing Regional Association MHFMMM Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization Management Program MIP Management Information Portal MOU Memorandum of Understanding

~ iv ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

NAWAS National Warning System NECIA Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment group NFIA National Flood Insurance Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NFIRS National Fire Incident Reporting System NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 NHMP Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration NRCS National Resources Conservation Service NU Northeast Utilities NWRAH NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards OCP Office of Civil Preparedness OEM Office of Emergency Management, now CTDEMHS OIM Connecticut DEP's Office of Information Management OLISP Office of Long Island Sound Program OPM Connecticut Office of Policy and Management OSBI Connecticut Office of the State Building Inspector PA Public Assistance PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program PDSI Palmer Drought Severity Index RFC Repetitive Flood Claims Grant Program RPA Regional Planning Agencies RPO Regional Planning Organization SBA Small Business Administration SCEL Stream Channel Encroachment Line SHMO State Hazard Mitigation Officer SHSGP State Homeland Security Grant Program SLR Sea level rise SLOSH Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes TRVFCC Thames River Valley Flood Control Compact USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security USGS U.S. Geological Survey WUI Wildland/Urban Interface

~ v ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Preface

Connecticut's standard Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP) has been updated in response to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), and FEMA’s January 2008 version of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance. The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prepared the 2010 Plan Update with assistance by planning team members from the Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS), Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Public Health, and Office of Policy and Management. An external review group, consisting of members from the Connecticut Interagency Hazard Mitigation Committee (CIHMC), reviewed the Plan and provided input. Funding for this Plan was provided through FEMA’s FFY 2009 and 2010 Community Assistance Program (CAP-SSSE) Cooperative Agreement. The areas of focus for the updated 2010 Plan include: The update of data and information in each chapter of the plan, to provide the most up- to-date information available regarding natural hazard mitigation in the State of Connecticut; The inclusion of FEMA’s newest grant programs into the Plan; The presentation of information, especially in Chapter 2 – Hazards and Risk Assessment, in a more easy-to-read and cohesive manner; including a discussion of impacts due to climate change with regards to natural hazard mitigation under all applicable natural hazards presented; and The reassessment of the goals, objectives, strategies and activities as presented in the 2007 Plan.

The main premise of natural hazard mitigation is the prevention of loss of life, the reduction of damages associated with natural disasters, and the restoration of public services after each disaster. As a means to achieving effective hazard mitigation, states and local communities need to use the planning process and develop effective plans. Connecticut's efforts in updating its 2010 NHMP include: An assessment of all natural hazards that affect Connecticut including the frequencies, magnitudes, and distribution of these hazards; A risk assessment of Connecticut's vulnerability to natural hazards as addressed through potential loss of life and surveys of critical facilities in areas subject to these hazards; The integration of climate impact as it relates to the assessment and analysis of specific natural hazards that could potentially affect the State; An outline of Connecticut's governmental organization before, during, and after a natural disaster. The outline presents the roles of each major state agency or DEP division in planning and responding to these hazards; and An expanded Appendix section to provide readers with additional resources regarding natural hazards that may impact the State.

This plan update has provided Connecticut with an opportunity to build more effective interagency communication between its many agencies that affect hazard mitigation planning, and to identify enhancements in current hazard mitigation planning that will help move the State

~ vi ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013 forward in hazard mitigation planning. In addition, this update provides an opportunity to explore climate impact and its relation to natural hazard mitigation planning as a whole. This analysis of climate impact on hazard mitigation planning has recently become an important focus for CTDEP and will remain a primary focus in future plan updates.

The State of Connecticut is committed to reducing future damage from natural disasters through mitigation. The mission of Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Program and this associated Plan is to mitigate the effects of natural hazards by minimizing loss of life and property damage. Chapter 5 of this plan lays out the State’s goals, objectives, strategies, and proposed activities that relate to hazard mitigation. The State of Connecticut has developed these goals and their associated strategies potential activities based upon the following: 1. Hazard vulnerability and risk assessments contained in this plan; 2. Evaluation of current state and federal regulations; and 3. State and federal funding sources available to conduct natural hazard mitigation measures in Connecticut.

It is anticipated that by working towards achieving the goals set out in this Plan, effective natural hazard mitigation measures will be implemented to protect all residents of the State, and will promote the responsible natural hazard mitigation throughout Connecticut both on a state and local level.

The implementation of effective hazard mitigation requires on-going planning and dedicated persistence both on a state and local level to maintain what has been done in the past and to improve upon past efforts to strive for implementing the most protection possible from natural hazards.

The related strategies and activities presented in this Plan provide a guide to assist the State in working towards achieving these goals that will be implemented or initiated during the time period encompassing this NHMP Update. The goals themselves are achievable, yet they require adequate resources such as financial and staff resources to achieve significant results. The State of Connecticut believes in the importance of natural hazard mitigation planning and implementation of hazard mitigation activities both on a state and local level in order to reduce/eliminate lives lost and property damaged suffered by natural hazards.

~ vii ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

______Page

Contributors and Participants iii

Abbreviations Used in the Plan iv

Preface vi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Introduction 2 Purpose 2 Scope 2 Federal Authorities 2 State Authority 3 History of the Original NHMP 3 The Planning Process for the 2010 NHMP Update 3 Future Development of the Hazard Mitigation External Planning Group (HMEPG) 5 Related State and Federal Plans 6 Sections of the Connecticut NHMP 6 Future Plan Updates 7 Local Planning Coordination 7 Local Plan Development Process 12 Coordination with Business and Industry Groups 15

CHAPTER 2: NATURAL HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION 16 General Description of Connecticut and Its Natural Hazards 17 Development Trends 20 Connecticut Conservation and Development plan Policies 23 Connecticut Environmental Policy Act 23 Connecticut Department of Economic Development 23 Floodplain Management Certifications 23 DECD’s Office of Responsible Growth 23 Connecticut Population Assessment 24 Connecticut’s History of and Future Risk for Natural Disasters 26 Tropical Cyclone (Hurricane and Tropical Storm) 60 Connecticut Tropical Cyclone (Hurricane and Tropical Storm) History 63 Potential Future Tropical Cyclone Risk 75 Future Tropical Cyclone Vulnerability 76 Winter Storms 88 History of Winter Storms in Connecticut 94 Potential Future Risk of Major Winter Storms 99 Future Vulnerability to Major Winter Storms 100 Flooding 101 History of Flooding in Connecticut 102 The Flood of 1936 103 The Flood of 1982 105

~ viii ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

______Page The Flood of October 2005 106 The Floods of April 2007 (also known as the 2007 April Nor’easter) 109 March 2010 Severe Storms and Flooding 118 Potential Future Risk of Flooding 120 Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) Study 122 Connecticut DEP Flood Hazard Risk Factor Analysis 123 Future Vulnerability to Flooding 127 Ice Jams 136 History of Ice Jams in Connecticut 137 Salmon River, East Haddam 137 Shetucket River, Sprague 138 Potential Future Ice Jam Risk 139 Future Vulnerability to Ice Jams 140 Dam Failures 140 Potential Risk and Impact of Dam Failures 142 Future Vulnerability to Dam Failures 142 Wildland Fires 143 History of Wildland Fires in Connecticut 147 Fire Management Activities Used Today 149 Potential Future Wildland Fires Risk 152 Future Vulnerability to Wildland 154 Tornadoes 154 History of Tornadoes in Connecticut 157 Potential Failure Tornado 158 Future Vulnerability to Tornadoes 159 Drought 159 General Climate and Climate Division of the State 160 Drought Categories 161 Human Activity and Land Use 162 Potential Risk of Drought Impacts 162 Drought Preparedness and Response Planning in Connecticut 163 Potential Future Risk of Drought 165 Future Vulnerability to Drought 166 Earthquakes 169 Earthquake History of Connecticut 173 Potential Risk of an Earthquake in Connecticut 174 Future Vulnerability of Earthquakes in Connecticut 178 Tsunami 181 Potential Risk of a Tsunami in Connecticut 182 Potential Future Vulnerability to a Tsunami in Connecticut 182 CHAPTER 3: CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT 183 Capability Overview 184 State Hazard Mitigation Programs and Related Laws 184 State Floodplain Management Act 184 Floodplain Management and Mitigation Act 185

~ ix ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

______Page Connecticut State Agencies, Intra-Agency Groups, and Inter-State Groups That are Associated With Natural Hazard Mitigation 186 Connecticut Inter-Agency Hazard Mitigation Committee (CIHMC) 186 The Adaptation Subcommittee of the Governor’s Steering Committee on Climate Change (GSC) 187 Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS) 187 DEMHS Disaster Preparedness Programs 188 State Homeland Security Grant Program 188 Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program 188 Department of Transportation 189 Department of Public Health 189 Connecticut Public Health Emergency Response Plan 190 Connecticut Drinking Water Section Emergency Contingency Plan 191 Connecticut (DPH) Water Emergency Assessment and Response (WEAR) Teams 191 Connecticut DPH Drinking Water Section Incident Report Forms: Standard Operating Procedures 191 Office of the State Building Inspector 192 Office of Policy and Management 193 The Department of Environmental Protection 193 Inland Water Resources Division 193 Dam Safety Section 194 Inventory of High Hazard Dams 194 Flood Management Section 195 Ensuring Local Compliance to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 195 Map Modernization 196 Critical Facilities Mapping 197 Engineering Analysis Section 198 Stream Channel Encroachment Lines 198 Engineering Services Section 199 The Automated Flood Warning System 199 DamWatch Program 201 Office of Long Island Sound Programs 202 Other DEP Divisions/Programs 203 Forestry Division 203 Solid Waste Division’s Debris Management Plan 204 Office of Information Management 205 Connecticut Geological Survey 205 Interstate Programs 206 Thames River and Connecticut River Flood Control Compacts 206 Intra-State Programs 210 Federal Agencies and Programs for Disaster Response and Recovery, and Related Executive Orders 210

~ x ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

______Page Federal Executive Orders 210 The National Weather Service and the State Severe Weather Warning System 210 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 217 FEMA Enabling Legislation 217 FEMA Disaster Preparedness Programs 217 Civil Preparedness Activities 218 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 218 NRCS Enabling Legislation 218 NRCS Water Resources Programs 218 Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) 219 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 220 USACE Enabling Legislation 222 Section 205 Program 222 USACE Disaster Preparedness Program 222 Municipal Programs 222 Policies, Programs, and Capabilities 224 The Effectiveness of Local Hazard Mitigation Plans 224 Land Use Controls 224 Flood and Erosion Control Boards 225 Activities of Other Entities Located in Connecticut 226 Northeast Utilities 226 PowerWatch 226 Tree Trimming Program 226 Activities for Future Updates 226

CHAPTER 4: NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAMS 228 Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs 229 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 229 The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) 229 The Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program 230 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) 230 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM) 231 Repetitive Flood Claims Program (RFC) 232 Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL) 232 Other Natural Hazard Mitigation Funding Sources 236 State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) 236 Grants Administration Overview 237 Enabling Federal and State Regulations 237 Federal Laws and Regulations 237 State Laws and Regulations 237 Delegation of Responsibility 237 Department of Environmental Protection 238 Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security 238 State Office of Policy and Management 238 Department of Education 238 Office of the State Building Inspector 239

~ xi ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

______Page Department of Housing and Community Development 239 Department of Public Health 239 Department of Transportation 239 U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service 239 Major Components of FEMA Grant Programs 239 Project Solicitation and Eligibility 239 Eligible Mitigation Activities 239 Sub-Applicant Eligibility 240 Notification to Potential Sub-Applicant 240 Application Procedures 241 Submission of Sub-Applications 241 Sub-Application Review Process 242 Technical Assistance 242 Breaking Ties 242 Project Management and Funding 242 Contractual Agreement for Approved Project 243 Cost Overruns 244 Appeals 244 Connecticut Inter-Agency Hazard Mitigation Committee 244 Project Monitoring 246 Allowable Project Costs for Construction 247 Allowable Planning Costs 247 General Administration of FEMA Grant Projects 247 Non-Performance of Projects 247 Project Interruption Due to a Disaster Declaration 248 Effectiveness of Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Measures 248

CHAPTER 5: HAZARD MITIGATION GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIVITIES FOR 2007 – 2010 249 Connecticut’s Hazard Mitigation Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 250 Goal 1: Implementation of Sound Floodplain Management and Other Natural Hazard Mitigation Principles on a State and Local Level 250 Strategies and Activities to be Utilized to Achieve Goal 1 251 Goal 2: Implementation of Effective Hazard Mitigation Projects on a State and Local Level 251 Strategies and Activities to be Utilized to Achieve Goal 2 251 Goal 3: Increase Research and Planning Activities for Natural Hazard Mitigation on a State and Local Level 251 Strategies and Activities to be Utilized to Achieve Goal 3 252 Recommended Hazard Mitigation Activities for Goals 1,2 and 3 253 Assessment of Proposed Mitigation Activities 266 Incorporation of Risk Assessment Activities of the State Conservation and Development Plan into Future Updates of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 266 Summary of Stated Goals, Strategies and Activities 267

~ xii ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

FIGURES

Figure______Page

2-1 Municipal and County Boundaries in Connecticut 19 2-2 Total Building Permits Issued in CT for Years 2000-2009 20 2-3 Example of the Three Types of Tropical Cyclone Systems 61 2-4 Diagram of a Tropical Cyclone (Hurricane) 61 2-5 Revised Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale 63 2-6 Category 1 Hurricanes That Have Impacted Connecticut 64 2-7 Category 2 Hurricanes That Have Impacted Connecticut 64 2-8 Category 3 Hurricanes That Have Impacted Connecticut 65 2-9 Return Period for a Category 1 Hurricane in the Northeast 66 2-10 Return Period for a Category 2 Hurricane in the Northeast 67 2-11 Return Period for a Category 3 Hurricane in the Northeast 67 2-12 Bedford Street Looking South Towards Broad Street, Stamford CT 68 2-13 Ludlow Street, Stamford CT 68 2-14 Great Gordon Tire Works, Connecticut Boulevard, East Hartford CT 69 2-15 Stamford Gas & Electric Company, 1954 Flood, Hurricane Carol 71 2-16 East Meadow Street Looking South, Stamford CT, 1954 Flood, Hurricane Carol 71 2-17 Church Street Bridge, Torrington CT, 1955 Hurricanes 72 2-18 Naugatuck CT, 1955 Hurricanes 73 2-19 Winsted CT, 1955 Hurricanes 73 2-20 Peak Wind Gust & Hurricane Track for the 1938 Hurricane 82 2-21 Peak Wind Gust & Hurricane Track for the1944 Hurricane 82 2-22 Peak Wind Gust & Hurricane Track for Hurricane Carol 83 2-23 Peak Wind Gust & Hurricane Track for Hurricane Donna 83 2-24 Peak Wind Gust & Hurricane Track for Hurricane Gloria 84 2-25 Development of Snow 90 2-26 Development of Freezing Rain 90 2-27 Development of Sleet 91 2-28 A Satellite Picture of a Snow Storm that Occurred in February 2003 92 2-29 Algorithm to Determine NESIS Category of Severity and Example of Results 93 2-30 Asylum Street in Hartford CT after the Blizzard of 1888 97 2-31 Bank Street in Waterbury CT after the Blizzard of 1888 97 2-32 NESIS Analysis Results and Rating of the February 12-13, 2006 Winter Storm 99 2-33 Flood of 1936, Bushnell Park and State Capital Building, Hartford CT 104 2-34 Streets of Hartford After the 1936 Flood 104 2-35 June 4-7, 1982 Rainfall 105 2-36 Flooding in Enfield CT 108 2-37 Road Damage as a Result of the 2005 Flood, Miller Road, South Windsor CT 109 2-38 1-Day Observed Precipitation for Connecticut on 4/15/07 110 2-39 1-Day Observed Precipitation for Connecticut on 4/16/07 110 2-40 Erosion Along the Pomperaug River in Woodbury CT 114 2-41 Nod Road Adjacent to the Farmington River in Avon CT 115 2-42 April 2007 Flood, Map of Affected Counties 115 2-43 Annual Cycle of Flood Hazard in CT 120 2-44 Example of a SLOSH Map for Fairfield County 123 2-45 CT DEP County and Community Risk Representation 125 2-46 Major Downstream Damage, Bushy Hill Dam Break, 1982 141

~ xiii ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

FIGURES Continued

Figure______Page

2-47 Fire Triangle 143 2-48 Diagram of the Elements of a Wildfire 144 2-49 Fire Behavior Triangle 145 2-50 Example of a Home Ignition Zone 146 2-51 2006 Land Coverage for the State of Connecticut 148 2-52 Mapped Wild land/Urban Interface Areas Within the State of Connecticut 149 2-53 Visual Diagram of a Tornado 155 2-54 Damage Indicators Associated with the Enhanced Fujita Scale 156 2-55 Sequence of Drought Impacts 163 2-56 Population per Community 166 2-57 2006 Land Cover in Connecticut 167 2-58 Map of Seismic Activity Within the Northeast Between 1975 and 2008 171 2-59 Map of Active Seismic Stations Within New England and Canada 172 2-60 Earthquake Activity in the Northeast from 1924 to 2006 174 2-61 USGS Hazard Map for the Eastern United States 176 2-62 Example of Probability Maps Developed for Haddam- East Haddam-Portland CT 177 3-1 Map of Connecticut River Flood Control Facilities 208 3-2 Map of Thames River Basin 209 3-3 Map of NWS County Warning Forecast Areas in Connecticut 211 3-4 NWS Public Forecast Zone Boundaries for Connecticut 212 3-5 Depiction of NWRAH Coverage in Connecticut 213 4-1 Grant Program Weighted Evaluation Form Example 246

~ xiv ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

TABLES

Table______Page

1-1 List of Planning Activities Funded by FEMA 8 1-2 FEMA Approved Hazard Mitigation Plans for Local Communities in CT 10 2-1 Census Data for the State of Connecticut 18 2-2 Total Building Permits Issued by County 21 2-3 Top Community for Greatest Number of Building Permits Issued by County for Years 2000-2009 21 2-4 Top Ten Communities for Net Gains of Number of Housing Units for Years 2000-2009 22 2-5 Total Housing Inventory by County 22 2-6 Census Population Estimates for July 1, 2000- July 1, 2009 Per County 25 2-7 Top Community with Largest Estimated Population Increase for a Ten-Year Period: Years 2000-2009 26 2-8 Weather Event Breakdown Per County from 1/1/1950 to 3/31/2009 27 2-9 Local Hazard Mitigation Information 29 2-10 List of Significant Tropical Cyclones to Impact Southern New England from 1900 to 1999 68 2-11 Coastal Connecticut Total Population Change from 1970 to 2000 78 2-12 Estimated Population and Areas of Inundation by Category 1 & 2 Hurricanes 79 2-13 Estimated Population and Areas of Inundation by Category 3 & 4 Hurricanes 80 2-14 Estimated Debris from Wind Damage by Material Type per Storm Scenario 84 2-15 Counties Estimated to Generate the Greatest Amount of Debris for Hurricane Scenarios Based on Historical Storms 85 2-16 County with Greatest Percentage of Total Estimated Tonnage – Brick, Wood, & Other 85 2-17 Total Estimated Building Damages per Storm Scenario Statewide 86 2-18 Estimated Sheltering Needs for Historic Storm Simulations 86 2-19 Total Estimated Building Related Losses Statewide per Storm Scenario 87 2-20 Estimated Direct Economic Losses for Buildings Statewide 88 2-21 NESIS Scale 93 2-22 Connecticut Snowfall and Snow Depth Extremes Table 94 2-23 Connecticut Record 1-Day, 2-Day, and 3-Day Snowfall for Winter 95 2-24 Severe Weather Events Affecting Connecticut and Its Counties from 1/1/1950 to 5/31/2009 96 2-25 USGS Connecticut Water Science Center, Peak Flows, Peak River Stages and Recurrence Intervals for Floods of October 9-25, 2005 106 2-26 Summary of Peak Stages and Peak Discharges During the April 2007 Flood and Recurrence Intervals of the April 2007 Flood 112 2-27 Residential Damages 116 2-28 Business Damages 117 2-29 Breakdown of Federal Disaster Aid for April 2007 Flood 118 2-30 Breakdown of Total Mapped Floodplain Acreage per County 121 2-31 NFIP Data for Connecticut Counties as of 10/22/09 121 2-32 Flood Hazard Risk Data Categories and Sources 123 2-33 Category Risk Values 124 2-34 County Risk Ranking 125 2-35 through 2-40 County Summaries for Impacts from a 100-Year Flood Event 127

~ xv ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

TABLES Continued

Table______Page 2-41 County Rank (High to Low) of Estimated Direct Economic Losses Per Economic Sector, 100-Year Flood Event (millions of dollars, 2006 dollars) 135 2-42 Rivers Susceptible to an Ice Jam 139 2-43 Regulated Dams by Hazard Class 142 2-44 Forest Fire Danger Rating 150 2-45 Enhanced Fujita Scale 156 2-46 Total Number of Tornadoes per County from 1950 through August 31, 2009 157 2-47 Preliminary Damage Estimates as of July 21, 2009 for Damage Incurred by the Severe Weather of June 26, 2009 158 2-48 Common Types of Drought Impacts 163 2-49 2000 Population Percentage for Groups 18 Years and Under and 65 Years and Over 168 2-50 2008 Population Percentage for Groups 18 Years and Under and 65 Years and Over 168 2-51 Earthquake Magnitude/Intensity Comparison 173 2-52 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale 173 2-53 Probability of an Earthquake of Specific Magnitude Occurring in the Haddam- East Haddam-Portland Area of Connecticut 176 2-54 Probability of an Earthquake of Specific Magnitude Occurring in the New Haven-Greenwich Area of Connecticut 177 2-55 HAZUS-MH Estimated Direct Losses of Earthquake Scenario Events 180 2-56 Total Number of Buildings Damaged by Expected Degree of Damage per Scenario Event 180 2-57 Potential Fire Impact From Each Earthquake Scenario 181 3-1 State Funded Programs Related to Floodplain Management 186 3-2 Warning/Advisory Criteria for Connecticut 214 3-3 NRCS Damage Reduction NRCS Public Law 566 Watershed Projects 220 3-4 USACE Damage Information for Connecticut 220 3-5 USACE Authorized Flood Control Projects in Connecticut 221 3-6 Local Plan and Regulations Used by Communities 223 4-1 Connecticut Severe Repetitive Loss Communities 234 4-2 Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs Available in Connecticut 235 5-1 Hazard Mitigation Activities to Help Accomplish Natural Hazard Mitigation Goals 253

~ xvi ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

APPENDICES

Appendix A – List of Grant Projects/Planning Activities Funded Over the Years

Appendix B – Glossary of Meteorological Terms

Appendix C – Earthquake Information

Appendix D - Hurricane Information

Appendix E - Flood Information

Appendix F – 2009 Natural Disaster Plan, CT DEMHS and 2008 HGMP Grant Administration Plan, CT DEMHS

Appendix G - List of High Hazard Dams (Copies Available Upon Request Only)

Appendix H – Natural Hazard Maps for Critical Facilities (Copies Available Upon Request Only)

Appendix I – Historic Listing of Tornadoes

Appendix J – Critical Facility Information

Appendix K – Flood Risk Rankings from Connecticut Map Modernization Program

Appendix L – Information on USDA Forestry Service Grants Distributed in Connecticut FFY2006

Appendix M – DEP/DEMHS signed Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Role and Responsibility of Both Agencies Regarding FEMA’s HMGP Grant Program and the Performance of the State Hazard Mitigation Officer Duties

Appendix N – STAPLE-E Evaluation and Criterion

Appendix O – Information for March 2010 Severe Storms and Flooding

Appendix P – Connecticut Plan of Conservation and Development for 2005 to 2010

Appendix Q – CT Smart Growth Primer

Appendix R – Census and DECD Data for Development Analysis

~ xvii ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Chapter 1 Introduction

~ 1 ~

Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Introduction

Connecticut's Standard Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (NHMP) has been updated in response to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), and FEMA’s January 2008 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance. The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prepared this 2010 Plan Update with the assistance of a multi- agency planning team. An external review group, consisting of members from the Connecticut Interagency Hazard Mitigation Committee (CIHMC), reviewed the Plan. Funding for this Plan was provided through FEMA’s FFY 2009 and 2010 Community Assistance Program (CAP- SSSE) Cooperative Agreement. The areas of focus for the updated 2010 Plan are: Update the existing Plan to the standards contained within Section 322 of DMA 2000 for a standard state mitigation plan; Expand on the previous hazard identification and risk assessment section of the Plan; Incorporate FEMA’s newest grant programs into the Plan; Incorporation of a discussion on potential impacts due to climate change with regards to natural hazard mitigation in applicable hazard risk assessment sections; Inclusion of updated information within all chapters of the Plan; and Reassessment of the goals, objectives, and activities presented in the 2007 Plan.

Purpose

This standard State NHMP has been prepared to fulfill the requirements of DMA 2000 and to help minimize the impacts of inland and coastal flooding, high winds, hurricanes and other natural hazards that affect the State of Connecticut.

Scope

This plan addresses natural hazard risk assessment and mitigation implementation for the State of Connecticut as a whole, and is structured in accordance with pre-disaster planning requirements as stated in Section 201.4 and 201.4(d) of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) for a standard state plan.

Federal Authorities

The State of Connecticut is in compliance with FEMA Regulations - 44 Code of Federal Register (CFR), Part 206, Subpart N (P.L. 100-107, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act dated 1994.), the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Section 322, and other related Federal authorities including: FEMA regulations - 44 CFR, Part 13, Uniform Administrative Requirements of Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments; FEMA regulations - 44 CFR, Part 14; Executive Order 12612, Federalism; Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands; Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; and 44 CFR, Part 201.4 (c) (7) § 13.11 (c) and § 13.11 (d).

The State of Connecticut will continue to comply with all applicable Federal statutes and regulations during periods for which it receives grant funding, in compliance with 44 CFR

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 2 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

13.11(c), and will amend its plan whenever necessary to reflect changes in the State or Federal laws and statutes as required in 44 CFR 13.11(d).

State Authority

The DEP was established pursuant to Title 22a, Chapter 439 of the Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.) and given jurisdiction to preserve and protect the natural resources of the state. Chapter 476a of the C.G.S. authorizes flood management activities of the DEP.

History of the Original NHMP

Connecticut’s first formal Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (Section 406 Plan) was adopted on August 17, 1983 as a result of a major flooding event and disaster declaration (FEMA-661-DP) that occurred on June 6, 1982. Several municipalities participated in the planning process including the communities of Wallingford, Waterford, Guilford, Orange, Woodbury and Essex, and the cities of Milford, Waterbury, Shelton, Danbury, Ansonia and New Haven.

Several major recommendations of the first plan included updating local and state emergency operations plans, establishing an automated flood warning system, expanding the Dam Safety Section of the DEP, setting new standards for road and bridge culvert design, and pursuing several legislative initiatives that enhanced Connecticut’s ability to regulate its floodplains.

The 406 Plan was updated in a regular succession subsequent to the occurrence of a major natural disaster, including the following years: 1985 - in response to a flooding event that also resulted in a Federal disaster declaration; 1989 – in response to a powerful tornado that caused extensive damage and two deaths in western Connecticut; 1990 – regularly scheduled update; 1992 - as a result of Hurricane Bob (FEMA-916-DR-CT) that struck Connecticut and New England on August 19, 1991; 1993 - as a result of Winter Storm Beth (FEMA-972-DR-CT), which occurred on December 10 – 13, 1992; 1999 – in response to the impact from Tropical Storm Floyd, which caused severe riverine flooding within the state; 2004 – a regular scheduled update in response to FEMA’s new planning requirements under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Section 322 requirements issued in 2001; and 2007 – a regular scheduled update.

The Planning Process for the 2010 NHMP Update

The NHMP update planning process is a continual process which began once the CTNHMP 2007 Update was approved by FEMA. A planning team which consisted of representatives from several state agencies directly responsible for hazard mitigation actions and/or activities performed during a natural hazard event was created and began meeting to discuss the updating process and any necessary changes in July 2009. The planning team met on a bi- monthly basis for the first six months of its existence and then monthly until the plan update was completed. A total of 8 meetings were held by the group over a twelve month period. Representatives of the following state agencies participated on the planning team:

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 3 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS) Office of Policy and Management (OPM) Department of Public Health (DPH)

Individual team members provided input on changes and revisions to the existing plan’s chapters throughout the planning process. Communication activities between planning meetings during the active Plan Update phase included meeting at regularly scheduled times for meetings, telephone, interpersonal, and email communications. The planning team was asked various questions during the planning process for this plan update. Examples of questions the members were asked and provided input for include: What has changed within the State in terms of natural hazards or mitigation of natural hazards? Is the current data provided within the existing plan and utilized to develop the existing plan still viable for planning purposes for this planning period? Are the stated goals and objectives stated in the existing plan still relative to achieving the State’s mission for natural hazard mitigation? What natural hazard mitigation activities could the State pursue over the next three to five years to help achieve its natural hazard mitigation goals? Is the data that was gathered during the past three years appropriate? Should different data be gathered or more data gathered in the next three years. What new data exists that can be beneficial to the plan update and can be incorporated into said plan update? What resources are currently available to perform the necessary planning activities required to generate the information needed for the plan update? What resources will be available during the next three years to perform planning activities and data analysis required by the updated plan? How successful was the State in implementing hazard mitigation projects in the past three years?

An external plan review group consisting of participating members of the Connecticut Inter- Agency Hazard Mitigation Committee (CIHMC) (please see Chapter 3 and 4 for a detailed discussion of this group) was also invited to participate in the last three planning meetings and a formal meeting for the CIHMC was convened in June 2010 to obtain additional input and comments to the plan and the planning process as it related to each members individual’s agency. All members of the CIHMC were also contacted during the active plan updating process for updated information for their particular agency and any comments they may have for the plan.

An internal agency review of the entire Plan was performed by both DEP and DEMHS, whose commissioners are responsible for officially adopting the Plan. This review was performed twice, once prior to initially submitting the Plan to FEMA for review and then a second time prior to officially adopting the plan.

In addition, coordinated efforts were employed with various divisions within DEP and other state or federal agencies that are currently not part of the CIHMC throughout the planning process to obtain input and updated information for the NHMP. All divisions and agencies listed in this plan (see Chapter 3) were contacted and sent pertinent chapters of this plan for review, comment and revision. A ninety-nine percent response was received from all the divisions/agencies presented in this plan (no response was received from USACE). This allowed for the most

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 4 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013 accurate information to be utilized and presented in this plan with regard to various presented programs related to hazard mitigation. The following is a list of agencies/divisions that were contacted in a coordinated effort to update pertinent data and information for the NHMP update:

State Agencies: Office of Policy & Management Department of Emergency Management & Homeland Security State Building Inspector Office/ Department of Public Safety Department of Transportation Department of Public Works Department of Public Health DEP Divisions: . Office of Long Island Sound (OLISP) . Solid Waste . Forestry . Air Quality – Climate Impact Group . Office of Information Management . Inland Water Resources Division: o Elizabeth Napier (IWRD representative – State Drought Plan) o Dam Safety o Engineering Analysis and Engineering Services Sections (Stream Channel Encroachment Lines (SCEL) program and Flood Management Certification program)

Federal Agencies/Outside Entities: US Natural Resources and Conservation Services US Army Corp of Engineers National Weather Service

The planning process for this update worked well given the limited timeframe provided by FEMA (a state’s hazard mitigation plan must be updated and approved by FEMA every three years). In addition, the Plan Update did benefit greatly from the increased communication and planning efforts between multiple state agencies that resulted as an outcome of the implemented planning process. This newly created line of communication and planning effort helped to form the basis of this plan and direct attention towards the needs of the next plan update. It is intended that the communication planning efforts put forth by all participating state agencies for this plan update will continue into the future with respect to natural hazard mitigation activities.

Future Development the Hazard Mitigation External Planning Group (HMEPG)

It is the intent of DEP to continue to expand the participation of the external plan review group for future plan updates to include additional stakeholders involved in hazard mitigation. This will be done by soliciting participation from outside groups such as the CIHMC members, regional planning organizations, planners from various state agencies, Native American tribes, and other representative organizations affected by hazard mitigation. DEP has begun the initial steps on this activity by gathering potential contacts to participate in the group.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 5 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

It is the hope that the on-going efforts for the further development of both the planning team and the HMEPG will provide for an improved comprehensive look at hazard mitigation, develop working partnerships between various stakeholders, and increase the amount of hazard mitigation efforts implemented within the State of Connecticut.

Related State and Federal Plans

The Connecticut NHMP is one of a group of plans in Connecticut dedicated to the mitigation and preservation of the quality of life, state services and the natural environment of Connecticut from the negative effects of natural disasters.

In the preparation of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, the following State plans were consulted: The Department of Public Health, Drinking Water Division Emergency Contingency Plan Connecticut Public Health Emergency Response Plan Connecticut Automated Flood Warning System Operational Guide (DEP) State Map Modernization Plan (DEP) Connecticut Debris Management Plan (DEP) Connecticut Drought Plan (Water Planning Council) Connecticut Natural Disaster Plan, January 2009 (DEMHS, see Appendix F) Local and Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans from Connecticut communities (DEP)

These plans are a valuable source of information on state actions to reduce the effects of natural disasters.

Sections of the Connecticut NHMP

The main premise of natural hazard mitigation is the prevention of loss of life, the reduction of damages associated with natural disasters, and the restoration of public services after each disaster. As a means to achieving effective hazard mitigation, states and local communities need to use the planning process and develop effective plans. Connecticut's efforts in updating its 2010 NHMP include: 1. An overview of the planning process for the 2010 Plan update and state efforts for encouraging local and regional entities in developing their own hazard mitigation plans; 2. An assessment of all natural hazards that may affect Connecticut including an overview of the hazard in general, the history of impacts from a particular natural hazard within Connecticut, potential future risk from the occurrence of a particular hazard, and overview of the potential vulnerability the state and its residents may have from the occurrence of a particular natural hazard; 3. An overview of all agencies with primary responsibility to address impacts from a natural disaster, or agencies that implement policies, programs, and/or regulations that encourage mitigation from natural hazards; 4. An overview of the funding resources presumed to be available over the next three years to pursue hazard mitigation activities and assist the state and local communities in reaching their set hazard mitigation goals; and 5. A discussion of the State’s natural hazard mitigation goals, objectives and proposed activities required to achieve said goals and objectives.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 6 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Future Plan Updates

The State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) is responsible for ensuring that the NHMP is updated every three years. He/she will work with the members of the planning team and the external plan review group to update the plan.

The status of all state and local implementation measures will be updated every three years. Each implementation measure will be assessed for four elements: 1. Did the measure receive federal or state funding as a project application in the past three years? 2. Was the measure successfully completed? 3. What was the total cost of potential damages the project prevented from occurring in the event that a repeat storm event occurred in the project area? Did the project mitigate the damage it was expected to prevent? and, 4. Did the measure or project foster further cooperation between state and local agencies?

Based on the information collected from an assessment of the above four elements for a measure, DEP will reevaluate the evaluation criteria used to select proposed measures. The criteria may be adjusted, amended, or refined along with the strategies and goals of the Plan to reflect a refinement of the overall state mitigation strategy.

If a presidential disaster declaration leads to the updating of the Plan, data from the storm event will be used to update the vulnerability and risk assessments of the State and affected local plans. The capability assessment will be reviewed and updated. Agency responsibilities will be reviewed and any new legislation or agency reorganizations will be integrated into the Plan. The updated Plan will then be adopted and transmitted to FEMA.

Local Planning Coordination

In response to the planning requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) and the PDM grant program, the State of Connecticut undertook a local planning effort to ensure that local and regional hazard mitigation plans would be initiated.

Connecticut began assisting communities in the drafting of local hazard mitigation plans in 1997, utilizing Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) planning grant funds. The town of Westport was the first community to complete a local hazard mitigation plan in 1998. Due to limited FMA funding for planning activities, only one community each year was targeted to develop a plan under this grant program.

DEP realized that the development of one community plan per year would not be an effective approach if the continued goal is to have a plan for every Connecticut community. DEP’s current approach is to work with regional planning organizations (RPOs) to prepare regional natural hazard mitigation plans.

When FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) planning grant funds are made available, the State solicits grant sub-applications from eligible sub-applicants. The sub-applications are reviewed for eligibility and sub-application completeness by DEP, and are then evaluated and ranked by

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 7 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013 the CIHMC (please see Chapter for details on the general grant administration process). A list of physical hazard mitigation projects and planning activities funded throughout the years under various FEMA grant programs can be seen in Appendix A. Table 1-1 provides a list of planning projects funded in part by FEMA grants from Federal Fiscal Year 2000 to 2009.

Table 1-1: List of Past and Current Planning Activities Funded by FEMA

FEDERAL DESCRIPTION STATUS FUNDING FISCAL YEAR PROGRAM FEDERAL LOCAL FFY 00 FMA Drafting of a regional Hazard Completed $19,900.00 $4,975.00 Mitigation Plan by CRERPA Totals for FFY 00 $19,900.00 $4,975.00 FFY 01 FMA Preparation of the third phase of Completed $19,400.00 $4,850.00 the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan by CRERPA. HMGP Draft a mitigation plan in Completed $20,000.00 $9,000.00 cooperation with CRERPA Totals for FFY 01 $39,400.00 $13,850.00 FFY 02 FMA Prepare a Regional Hazard Completed $19,600.00 $6,533.33 Mitigation Plan

PDM Prepare a Regional Hazard Completed $76,133.37 $25,377.89 Mitigation Plan by SECCOG Prepare a Regional Hazard Completed $37,461.79 $12,487.26 Mitigation Plan by SWRPA Prepare a Regional Hazard Completed $17,790.94 $5,930.31 Mitigation Plan by NECCOG Totals for FFY 02 $150,986.10 $50,328.79 FFY 03 FMA Prepare a Regional Hazard Completed $20,000.00 $6,667.69 Mitigation Plan

PDM Prepare a Regional Hazard Completed $50,878.20 $17,007.00 Mitigation Plan by the CCRPA Prepare a Regional Hazard Completed $51,676.66 $17,225.55 Mitigation Plan by the COGCNV Prepare a Regional Hazard Completed $70,845.00 $23,615.00 Mitigation Plan by the GBRPA Prepare a Regional Hazard Completed $70,000.00 $23,333.00 Mitigation Plan by the WINCOG Prepare a Regional Hazard Completed $33,635.74 $10,471.03 Mitigation Plan by CRERPA Totals for FFY 03 $297,035.60 $98,319.27 FFY 04

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 8 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

PDM Prepare a Regional Hazard Completed $101,050.00 $33,690.00 Mitigation Plan by the COGCNV Prepare a Regional Hazard Declined $40,856.63 $13,618.87 Mitigation Plan by the NWCCOG Prepare a Regional Hazard Completed $322,500.00 $107,500.00 Mitigation Plan by the CRCOG Prepare a Regional Hazard Completed $7,505.46 $2,501.82 Mitigation Plan by the City of New Haven Totals for FFY 04 $471,912.09 $157,310.69 FFY 05 FMA Update existing Hazard Mitigation Completed $8,247.00 $2,749.00 Plan, City of Milford Prepare a Hazard Mitigation Plan, Declined $0.00 $0.00 Town of Hamden Totals for FFY 05 $8,247.00 $2,749.00 FFY06 PDM Prepare a Regional Hazard Completed $95,000.00 $31,667.00 Mitigation Plan by the COGCNV Totals for FFY 06 $95,000.00 $31,667.00

FFY07 PDM Prepare a Regional Hazard Completed $137,564.60 $45,856.20 Mitigation Plan by Midstate RPA Totals for FFY 07 $137,564.60 $45,856.20

FFY08 PDM Prepare a Local Hazard Mitigation Ongoing $21,000.00 $7,000.00 Plan by the Town of Sherman (HVCEO) Totals for FFY 08 $21,000.00 $7,000.00

FFY09 PDM Prepare a Local Hazard Mitigation Ongoing $30,040.00 $10,531.00 Plan by the Town of Guilford Prepare a Local Hazard Mitigation Ongoing $37,499.06 $12,499.69 Plan by the City of Danbury Prepare a Regional Hazard Ongoing $26,237.45 $8,750.00 Mitigation Plan Update by SWRPA Totals for FFY 09 $93,776.51 $31,780.69 Grand Totals FFY 2000- $1,334,821.90 $443,836.64 2009

Of Connecticut’s 169 cities and towns, approximately 126 communities either have hazard mitigation plans or are in the process of writing such plans. In an effort to get more plans completed, DEP continues to work with RPOs to complete hazard mitigation plans for their communities. RPOs and municipalities have drafted plans for approximately three-quarters (75%) of Connecticut’s municipalities:

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 9 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Capital Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency (CCRPA) Connecticut River Estuary Regional Planning Agency (CRERPA) Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV) Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency (GBRPA) Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments (NECCOG) Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments (NWCCOG) Litchfield Hills Council of Elected Officials (LHCEO) South Western Regional Planning Agency (SWRPA) Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments (SECCOG) Windham Regional Council of Governments (WINCOG) Cities of New Haven, Milford, and Danbury, and the Towns of Milford, East Haven, Guilford, and Shelton

Below in Table 1-2 is a list of communities which currently have a FEMA approved local natural hazard mitigation plan. Several communities not listed in the table are either currently in the approval process for their plan or have recently begun the planning process either on their own or through a coordinated effort with one of the RPOs listed above.

Table 1-2: List and Status of Connecticut Communities with FEMA Approved Plans 5yr Municipality Date of Plan Approval County RPO update Andover September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Ashford February 16, 2007 Windham WINCOG 2/16/2012 Avon September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Barkhamsted February 27, 2007 Litchfield LHCEO 2/27/2012 New Beacon Falls April 10, 2009 Haven COGCNV 4/10/2014 Berlin In Progress Hartford CCRPA 9/24/2013 Bethlehem April 10, 2009 Litchfield COGCNV 4/10/2014 Bloomfield September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Bolton September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 New Bozrah October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 Bridgeport January 29, 2007 Fairfield GBRPA 1/29/2012 Bristol In Progress Hartford CCRPA 9/24/2013 Burlington In Progress Hartford CCRPA 9/24/2013 Canton September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Chaplin February 16, 2007 Windham WINCOG 2/16/2012 New Cheshire May 23, 2008 Haven COGCNV 5/23/2013 Chester January 18, 2007 Middlesex CRERPA 1/18/2012 Clinton January 18, 2007 Middlesex CRERPA 1/18/2012 New Colchester October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 Colebrook February 27, 2007 Litchfield LHCEO 2/27/2012 Columbia February 16, 2007 Tolland WINCOG 2/16/2012 Coventry February 16, 2007 Tolland WINCOG 2/16/2012

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 10 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Cromwell In Progress Middlesex MRPA Danbury In Progress Fairfield City Darien July 18, 2005 Fairfield SWRPA 7/18/2010 Deep River January 18, 2007 Middlesex CRERPA 1/18/2012 Durham In Progress Middlesex MRPA East Granby September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 East Haddam In Progress Middlesex MRPA East Hampton In Progress Middlesex MRPA East Hartford September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 New East Haven January 4, 2005 Haven town 1/4/2010 New East Lyme October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 East Windsor September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Easton January 29, 2007 Fairfield GBRPA 1/29/2012 Ellington September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Enfield September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Essex January 18, 2007 Middlesex CRERPA Fairfield January 29, 2007 Fairfield GBRPA 1/29/2012 Farmington September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 New Franklin October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 Glastonbury September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Greenwich July 18, 2005 Fairfield SWRPA 7/18/2010 Granby September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 New Griswold October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 Goshen February 27, 2007 Litchfield LHCEO 2/27/2012 New Groton, City October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 New Groton, Town October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 New Guilford In Progress Haven Town Haddam In Progress Middlesex MRPA Hampton February 16, 2007 Windham WINCOG 2/16/2012 Hartford September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Hartland February 27, 2007 Hartford LHCEO 2/27/2012 Harwinton February 27, 2007 Litchfield LHCEO 2/27/2012 Hebron September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Killingworth pending local adoption Middlesex CRERPA New Lebanon February 16, 2007 London WINCOG 2/16/2012 New Ledyard October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 New Lisbon October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 Litchfield February 27, 2007 Litchfield LHCEO 2/27/2012 New Lyme January 18, 2007 London CRERPA 1/18/2012

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 11 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Manchester September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Mansfield February 16, 2007 Tolland WINCOG 2/16/2012 Marlborough September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 New Middlebury May 29, 2009 Haven COGCNV 5/29/2014 Middlefield In Progress Middlesex MRPA Middletown In Progress Middlesex MRPA New Milford August 13, 2007 Haven town 8/13/2012 Monroe pending local adoption Fairfield GBRPA New Montville October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 Morris February 27, 2007 Litchfield LHCEO 2/27/2012 New Naugatuck September 9, 2009 Haven COGCNV New Britain In Progress Hartford CCRPA 9/24/2013 New Canaan July 18, 2005 Fairfield SWRPA 7/18/2010 New Hartford February 27, 2007 Litchfield LHCEO 2/27/2012 New New Haven October 24, 2005 Haven town 10/24/2010 New New London October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 Newington September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Norfolk February 27, 2007 Litchfield LHCEO 2/27/2012 New North Stonington October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 Norwalk July 18, 2005 Fairfield SWRPA 7/18/2010 New Norwich October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 New Old Lyme January 18, 2007 London CRERPA 1/18/2012 Old Saybrook January 18, 2007 Middlesex CRERPA 1/18/2012 New Oxford April 6, 2007 Haven COGCNV 4/6/2012 Plainville In Progress Hartford CCRPA 9/24/2013 Portland In Progress Middlesex MRPA New Preston October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 New Prospect August 6, 2008 Haven COGCNV 8/6/2013 Plymouth In Progress Litchfield CCRPA Rocky Hill September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 New Salem October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 Scotland February 16, 2007 Windham WINCOG 2/16/2012 Simsbury September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Somers September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 New Southbury April 10, 2009 Haven COGCNV 4/10/2014 Southington In Progress Hartford CCRPA 9/24/2013 Sprague October 12, 2005 New SCCOG 10/12/2010

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 12 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

London Stamford July 18, 2005 Fairfield SWRPA 7/18/2010 Stonington, New Borough October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 New Stonington, Town October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 South Windsor September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Stratford January 29, 2007 Fairfield GBRPA 1/29/2012 Suffield September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Thomaston April 10, 2009 Litchfield COGCNV 4/10/2014 Tolland September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Torrington February 27, 2007 Litchfield LHCEO 2/27/2012 Trumbull January 29, 2007 Fairfield GBRPA 1/29/2012 Vernon September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 New Voluntown October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 New Waterbury December 10, 2007 Haven COGCNV 12/10/2012 New Waterford October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 Watertown April 6, 2007 Litchfield COGCNV 4/6/2012 Westbrook pending local adoption Middlesex CRERPA West Hartford September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Weston July 18, 2005 Fairfield SWRPA 7/18/2010 Westport July 18, 2005 Fairfield SWRPA 7/18/2010 Wethersfield September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Willington February 16, 2007 Tolland WINCOG 2/16/2012 Wilton July 18, 2005 Fairfield SWRPA 7/18/2010 Winchester (Winsted) February 27, 2007 Litchfield LHCEO 2/27/2012 Windham pending local adoption Windham WINCOG Windsor September 24, 2009 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 Windsor Locks September 24, 2008 Hartford CRCOG 9/24/2013 New Wolcott September 30, 2008 Haven COGCNV 9/30/2013 Woodbury April 6, 2007 Litchfield COGCNV 4/6/2012 Mashantucket New Pequot October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010 New Mohegan Tribe October 12, 2005 London SCCOG 10/12/2010

Local Plan Development Process

In Connecticut, local governments are the primary decision-makers for land use. Their authorities include land use, planning, management measures, zoning and other regulatory tools. Development of a natural hazard mitigation plan at the community level is vital if the community is to effectively address natural hazards. Communities cannot prevent disasters from occurring, however, they can lessen the impacts and associated damages from these disasters. An effective plan will improve a community’s ability to deal with natural disasters and will document valuable local knowledge on the most

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 13 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

efficient and effective ways to reduce losses. Preparing a plan to lessen the impact of a disaster before it happens will provide the following benefits to a community: reduce public and private damage costs; reduce social, emotional, and economic disruption; provide better access to funding sources for natural hazard mitigation projects; and improve their ability to implement post-disaster recovery projects.

DEP and DEMHS provide technical assistance to sub-applicants for planning efforts and projects. Technical assistance includes meeting with local officials and RPOs to help guide them through the planning process, provide available planning guides and tools to assist them in developing a plan, and reviewing and providing feedback on draft plans submitted for FEMA approval.

DEP reviews and analyzes all multi-jurisdictional plans or regional plans when they are submitted to us before they are forwarded to FEMA. DEP plays an active role in the coordination of these reviews. DEP is knowledgeable in the contents of each plan and through its review, verifies that all multi-jurisdictional plans are consistent with the CT NHMP. DEP provides comments to the community or RPO to ensure the local/regional plan is complete and covers all FEMA requirements. DEP also provides technical assistance to municipal and RPO staff to guide them in their plan development.

Once the initial state review is completed DEP will forward the plan to FEMA for their initial review. If the plan meets all of the requirements to receive conditional approval, FEMA will send the RPO or the community a Conditional Letter of Approval. If the plan needs significant revision, FEMA will forward comments of revision to the plan to the DEP. The DEP will then send the RPO and community a letter with both FEMA and the State’s comments and will provide additional technical assistance to the community as they revise their plan. Once the revisions are made to the plan, the RPO or community will resubmit their draft plan to the DEP. The DEP then will forward the final draft plan to FEMA for Conditional Approval. FEMA will then send a letter of Conditional Approval to the RPO or the community. At this point, the community will hold a public meeting and formally adopt the mitigation plan, after which will send applicable documentation of plan adoption to DEP. Adoption documents may be discussed with FEMA on a case-by-case basis. The DEP will then forward the adoption documentation to FEMA who will review and then issue a letter of approval to the community with a copy to the RPO and DEP. The DEP will look at actions common to all plans and will use that data to target our resources for outreach, technical assistance and grant offerings. We will develop a system to capture this data into a spreadsheet format that will be provided in the next state plan update. In addition, the DEP will formalize our review process. We will develop a checklist and write qualitative comments as they pertain to the mission of the DEP and the State Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. The time goals established for this process are as follows: 1. Receipt of draft plan – Day 1; 2. Initial plan review and submission of draft comments to community – within 30 days of receipt of draft plan; 3. Comprehensive review, including time for community to revise plan based on initial comments – 60 to 120 days from submission of draft comments to community; 4. Community submits plan to FEMA – performed at the same time community submits a copy of draft plan back to CT DEP for a comprehensive review; and

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 14 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

5. CT DEP submits comments to FEMA – within 30 days of receipt of final draft from community for the comprehensive review. 6. Incorporate new data from FEMA approved local plan into the state’s NHMP by the next update of the Plan.

It is the responsibility of the local community to update its local natural hazard mitigation plan every 5 years. The community may chose to update the plan itself or in coordination with its affiliated RPO. Risk assessments from the local plans will be used to enhance Connecticut’s state risk assessment, where applicable, and to develop mitigation measures that will in-turn be evaluated using the goals and strategies listed in Chapter 5.

To enhance this local/regional plan review process and to encourage improved local/regional hazard risk assessments for use within the state’s NHMP planning process, DEP is currently in the initial planning phase to develop a system to capture this data into a database. Once this database is developed and fully functional, the data can be more readily accessed and analyzed for improved analysis of local and regional hazard mitigation actions, and resource needs.

In addition, DEP is working to develop a formal local/regional plan review process. This will entail the development of planning criteria for the performance of local plans reviews, and an associated checklist of the primary elements that must be incorporated into such plans. In addition, the formal review process would also incorporate written qualitative comments as they pertain to the mission of DEP and the NHMP.

Coordination with Business and Industry Groups

Throughout the planning process at the state and local level, Connecticut continues to work with public, private, and quasi-public entities to promote mitigation. The State of Connecticut will continue outreach efforts to local businesses in hazard prone areas to promote mitigation activities. Past successful examples of mitigation partnerships include:

In 1998-99 the Towns of Westport and East Haven partnered with Home Depot Inc. to provide training workshops and low cost materials for coastal homeowners to mitigate their homes against flooding and wind damage; The city of Milford participated with the Savings Bank of Milford to provide low interest loans for people to elevate their homes along the coast. This loan program was timed to coincide with a large-scale home elevation project being coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from 2001-2003; The city of Norwich worked with Shop Rite Inc. and the NRCS to design a dike to protect a group of flood-prone businesses (including a grocery store) in the Yantic Flats area of Norwich; and Since the late 1980’s the DEP, in cooperation with the NRCS, has assisted over 600 businesses and homeowners to reduce flood damages through the flood audit program. Flood audits provide the building owners with preventative as well as emergency actions that can be taken before flooding strikes to prevent or reduce flood damage.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 15 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Chapter 2 Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation

~ 16 ~

Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

General Description of Connecticut and its Natural Hazards

According to the 2000 US Census, the State of Connecticut has a population of 3,405,565 people. It is projected that this number will increase to 3,635,414 in 2015, and to 3,688,630 in 2030. Connecticut has 169 municipalities within 8 counties covering 5,543.33 square miles (see Table 2-1). The geography of Connecticut contains a wide variety of landscapes. From the shores of Long Island Sound in southern Connecticut, the land gently slopes upward to rolling hills across the southern half of the State. More rugged terrain covers the northwestern and northeastern areas of Connecticut with forested hills and mountains climbing to elevations of over 2,000 feet. The Connecticut River Valley cuts through the center of the State, and several deep river valleys cut through the eastern and western sections of the State. All of these rivers generally flow from north to south and into Long Island Sound.

There are approximately 8,400 miles of rivers and streams, 6,000 lakes and ponds, 4,300 dams, and 253 miles of shoreline in Connecticut. Connecticut's shoreline and riverine areas were heavily developed for commercial, residential, and industrial uses during the past 200 years, since these areas are relatively flat, highly desirable for construction purposes, and have the ability to provide an ample supply of hydropower, a major power source of early 19th Century industrialization,

The climate of Connecticut is moderate with annual rainfall averaging between 44 - 52 inches, and snowfall averaging between 30 inches at the coast of Long Island Sound up to 100 inches in the northwest hills. Temperatures range from highs in the 80's and 90's during the summer months, down to lows in the teens and single digits during the winter months. Transcontinental storms (low pressure systems), and storms that form near the Gulf of Mexico and along the East Coast deliver most of the annual rain and snowfall to the State. Heavy short-duration rains are also caused by thunderstorm activity in all but the winter season. Occasional hurricanes, which typically occur between June 1st and December 1st, deliver heavy rains of longer duration.

A hurricane strike to Connecticut has the potential to cause moderate to extensive damage within the State. The extent and location of the damage varies greatly depending on the track, intensity and duration of the hurricane. The Connecticut hurricanes of the 1930's, 40's and 50’s were markedly more severe than the hurricanes that occurred between the 1960's and present time.

Flooding events in Connecticut are comprised of three types: coastal, riverine, and urban. Floods can result from the occurrence of other natural hazards such as hurricanes, winter storms, heavy precipitation, ice jams or dam failures. The last presidentially declared disaster for a flood event occurred in April 2007.

All areas of the state are susceptible to tornadoes touching down. The last tornado to affect Connecticut occurred on July 31, 2009 touching down in Madison and Shelton Connecticut.

At least one severe winter storms occurs annually. These storms have the potential to produce over a foot of snowfall combined with either major coastal flooding or ice acculmulations. Fatalities during winter storms are often the result of drowning along the coast or vehicular accidents and may be preventable. Transportation gridlocks may last a few hours during heavy snowstorms.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 17 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Less frequent in Connecticut are droughts, forest fires and earthquakes. Large-scale forest fires are rare in Connecticut. Fires are typically small underbrush and ground fires that rarely damage large numbers of buildings.

Climate change will very likely have an increasingly significant impact on some types of natural disasters in Connecticut. The state and municipalities must consider scientists’ projections of climate impacts on sea level, precipitation, storm intensity, flooding, drought, and other natural disasters as they plan for the future.

Table 2-1: Census Data for the State of Connecticut Density Per Square Area In Square Miles Housing Mile Of Land Area Geographic Area Population Units Water Land Housing Total Area Population Area Area Units

COUNTY

Fairfield 882,567 339,466 836.96 211.15 625.80 1,410.3 542.4 Hartford 857,183 353,022 750.57 15.13 735.44 1,165.5 480.0 Litchfield 182,193 79,267 944.57 24.65 919.92 198.1 86.2 Middlesex 155,071 67,285 439.07 69.81 369.26 419.9 182.2 New Haven 824,008 340,732 862.02 256.38 605.64 1,360.6 562.6 New London 259,088 110,674 771.66 105.75 665.91 389.1 166.2 Tolland 136,364 51,570 417.01 6.94 410.07 332.5 125.8 Windham 109,091 43,959 521.47 8.71 512.75 212.8 85.7 Total for the State: 3,405,565 1,385,975 5,543.33 698.53 4,844.80 702.9 286.1 (X) Not applicable Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 18 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

FIGURE 2-1: MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY BOUNDARIES IN CONNECTICUT

North Canaan Colebrook Hartland Suffield Somers Salisbury Stafford Union Thompson

Enfield Norfolk Woodstock Granby

Canaan East Granby Windsor

Winchester Barkhamsted Locks Ellington Putnum East Windsor Eastford Tolland

Windsor Willington Ashford Pomfret Simsbury Sharon Canton Cornwall New Hartford Hartford TOLLAND COUNTY WINDHAM Killingly Gosh en Bloomfie ld South Vernon Torrington

Windsor COUNTY

LITCHFIELD COUNTY Coventry Mansfield Chaplin HARTFORDAvon COUNTY Hampton Brookline West Hartford East Manchester Bolton

Harwinton Hartford Hartford Litchfield Burlington Warren Andover

Kent Farmington Windham Canterbury Sterling Newing Wether sfield Scotland Plainfield Glastonbury Columbia

Morris Bristol Plainville New -ton

Washington Thomaston Hebron Plymouth Britain Rocky Hill

Lebanon Bethelhem Marlborough Sprague Goshen New Milford Berlin Cromwell Franklin Watertown Wolcott Southington Portland Voluntown Griswold

NEW LONDON COUNTY Woodbury Colchester Sherman Waterbury Preston Roxbury East Hampton Bozrah Norwich

Bridge - Middlebury Middletown Cheshire Meriden Middlefield

Water Prospect Haddam Naugatuck HaddamMIDDLESEX COUNTY Salem New East North Stonington Southbury Haddam Fairfield Brookfield Wallingford Durham Haddam Montville

Beacon Ledyard Oxford Falls Bethany Hamden Danbury Chester Killingworth Lyme Waterford Newtown Stonington NEW HAVEN COUNTYNorth East Lyme Seymour North Haven Madison New Groton Wood - Bethel Branford Deep River Lond on bridge Essex Ansonia FAIRFIELD COUNTY Old Lyme Monroe New East Old Derby Ridgefield Redding Haven Guilford Clinton Westbrook Shelton Haven Saybrook

Orange West Branford

Easton Trumbull Haven

Weston Milford

Wilton Bridgepor Stratford t Fairfield New Canaan Westport

Norwalk

Stamford Darien Greenwich

~ 19 ~

Development Trends

Development has continued throughout the last decade, however the pace of development slowed dramatically during years 2007-2009. This most likely was caused by the economic downturn which not only affected Connecticut, but affected the United States as a whole. Figure 2-2 shows this development trend for Connecticut as a whole. Year 2009 shows an exceptionally slow year for development.

Figure 2-2 Total Building Permits Issued In Connecticut For Years 2000-2009 14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000 Total for Connecticut 4,000

2,000

0 Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: CT DECD data

Table 2-2 provides the total number of building permits issued for years 2000-2009. The counties which continue to see the majority of development are Fairfield County and Hartford County. Fairfield County is a popular area of the state for housing for people who commute to New York City (NYC) for work, due to its proximity to NYC and the public transportation options available for commuters to NYC. With respect to Hartford County, the City of Hartford is the State Capitol and many large companies are located in and around the city. Thus housing demands in this region of Connecticut are increased due to the increase in job opportunities.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 20 ~

Table 2-2: Total Building Permits Issued by County Total number of permits issued for Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year the period County 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2000 to 2009 Fairfield County 2,278 2,220 1,879 1,964 2,495 3,119 1,939 2,290 1,814 1,199 21,197 Hartford County 1,705 2,026 2,284 2,585 2,389 2,487 2,305 1,711 1,039 810 19,341 Litchfield County 725 764 807 732 810 678 541 384 261 163 5,865 Middlesex County 867 799 820 821 963 795 634 558 355 299 6,911 New Haven County 1,918 1,586 1,701 1,826 2,534 2,251 1,654 1,256 920 509 16,155 New London County 814 782 956 1,222 1,348 1,208 1,006 718 363 427 8,844 Tolland County 693 679 742 731 706 754 699 526 297 229 6,056 Windham County 376 434 542 554 592 593 458 303 171 150 4,173 Total for Connecticut 9,376 9,290 9,731 10,435 11,837 11,885 9,236 7,746 5,220 3,786 88,542 Source: CT DECD data

Table 2-3 shows the top community for each county over the 10-year period. As one can see, for many of the counties, one or two communities dominate the top place for development occurring within this time period. For example, in Middlesex County, Middletown saw the most development for nine of the 10 years shown.

Table 2-3: Top Community for Greatest Number of Building Permits Issued by County for Years 2000-2009 County Year 2000 Year 2001 Year 2002 Year 2003 Year 2004 Year 2005 Year 2006 Year 2007 Year 2008 Year 2009 Fairfield Stamford Stamford Danbury Danbury Danbury Danbury Danbury Stamford Stamford Norwalk West Hartford Southington Berlin Southington Bloomfield Bristol Hartford Manchester Manchester Hartford Avon New New New New Litchfield New Milford Milford New Milford Milford Milford Torrington Milford Torrington New Milford Watertown Middlesex Middletown Middletown Middletown Middletown Middletown Middletown Middletown Middletown Middletown Chester New Haven Hamden Milford Wallingford Milford Meriden Milford Milford Milford Milford Wallingford' New London Groton Waterford Norwich Norwich Groton Norwich East Lyme East Lyme Groton Norwich Tolland Tolland Vernon Vernon Vernon Vernon Vernon Vernon Vernon Ellington Ellington Windham Plainfield Woodstock Killingly Killingly Woodstock Killingly Killingly Killingly Brooklyn Killingly Source: CT DECD data

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 21 ~

It should be noted that building permits issued contains data for all building activity which requires a building permit (e.g., new construction, remodeling/additions, demolitions, reconstruction, etc.). Therefore a more refined indicator may be a review of net gains of housing units for which building permits were issued. Table 2-4 shows the top ten communities ranked by net housing units gained for eay year for the period 2000-2009. Table 2-5 shows the total housing units by county and the total number of housing units gained over the ten-year period. Fairfield County maintained the largest inventory of housing units in the state followed by New London and then Hartford County.

Table 2-4: Top Ten Communities for Net Gain of Number of Housing Units for Years 2000-2009 Rank Year 2000 Year 2001 Year 2002 Year 2003 Year 2004 Year 2005 Year 2006 Year 2007 Year 2008 Year 2009 1 Stamford Stamford Danbury Bloomfield Danbury Danbury Danbury Stamford Stamford Norwalk 2 Danbury Norwalk Middletown Hartford Meriden Shelton Milford Manchester Milford Danbury 3 Southington Danbury Newtown Milford Milford Hartford Manchester Danbury Norwalk Norwich 4 Hamden Berlin Stamford Norwich Norwalk Norwalk Hartford Milford Middletown Avon 5 Middletown Southington Vernon Danbury Groton Milford New Haven Middletown West Hartford Bridgeport South 6 Milford Milford Southington Darien Bristol Stamford Vernon Bridgeport Windsor Windsor 7 Madison Middletown Manchester Middletown Middletown Berlin Middletown Vernon Shelton Chester South 8 Tolland Newtown Windsor Southington Oxford Manchester East Lyme Wallingford East Windsor Ellington 9 Ellington Vernon Avon Vernon Norwich Middletown Waterbury Brookfield Southington Middletown South 10 Glastonbury New Milford Greenwich Windsor Vernon Oxford Stamford Waterbury Bridgeport Milford Source: CT DECD data

Table 2-5: Total Housing Inventory by County Total Number of Permits Issued Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year over a ten- County 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 year period Fairfield County 340,821 341,193 342,403 343,889 345,542 347,877 348,951 350,632 351,806 352,621 11,800 Hartford County 357,285 354,617 356,601 358,970 361,150 363,495 365,548 367,078 367,988 368,391 11,106 Litchfield County 80,876 79,965 80,716 81,404 82,154 82,778 83,254 835,596 83,814 83,929 3,053 Middlesex County 67,905 68,034 68,830 69,612 70,556 71,279 71,837 72,351 72,662 72,900 4,995 New Haven County 344,652 341,758 343,169 344,612 346,667 348,703 350,153 351,139 351,745 352,042 7,390 New London County 112,333 111,374 112,250 113,414 114,709 115,841 116,786 117,422 117,569 117,950 5,617 Tolland County 51,954 52,232 52,960 53,686 54,371 55,105 55,786 56,299 56,542 56,737 4,783

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 22 ~

Windham County 43,993 44,359 44,873 45,375 45,921 46,491 469,906 47,165 47,314 47,437 3,444 Total for 1,399,81 1,393,53 1,401,80 1,410,96 1,421,07 1,431,56 1,862,22 2,197,68 1,449,44 1,452,00 Connecticut 9 2 2 2 0 9 1 2 0 7 52,188 Source: CT DECD data

Several new or recent programs and state planning requirements developed over the past ten years which will continue to have an impact on development in Connecticut are as follows:

Connecticut Conservation and Development Plan Policies

The Office of Policy and Management (OPM) maintains The Conservation and Development Policies Plant, 2005- 2010 (C&D Plan) for the state. The C&D Plan includes policies that guide the planning and decision-making processes of state government relative to balancing economic growth with resource conservation concerns, and coordinating state planning activities with long-term effectiveness in the expenditure of public funds.

Connecticut Environmental Policy Act

The purpose of the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) is to identify and evaluate the impacts of proposed state actions which may significantly affect the environment. This evaluation provides the decision maker with information necessary for deciding whether or not to proceed with the project. The process also provides opportunity for public review and comment.

CT Department of Economic Development’s (DECD) Floodplain Management Certifications

The Connecticut Flood Management Program requires certification, or an exemption, for all state actions within floodplains. The floodplain is considered to be the area located within the limits of the 100-year flood. The floodplain for a critical activity means the area located within the limits of the 500-year flood. Critical activity includes the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste and the siting of hospitals, housing for the elderly, schools or residences.

DECD’s Office of Responsible Growth

Responsible Growth is defined as economic, social and environmental development that incorporates land use and resources in ways that enhance the long-term quality of life for current and future generations of Connecticut residents. Responsible Growth supports a vibrant and resilient economy, preserves natural resources, and maximizes previous investments in existing infrastructure while preserving distinctive landscapes, historic structures, landmarks, and villages.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 23 ~

The Office of Responsible Development (ORD) manages programs and projects to foster growth and sustain Connecticut's communities. ORD's responsibilities include 1) advising the commissioner on responsible growth policies; 2) managing, planning and development projects to promote responsible growth; 3) reviewing and recommending program modifications and new programs to promote responsible growth; and 4) collaborating with other state agencies to improve the programs, and review approval and permitting processes that affect/advance responsible growth.

Connecticut's Responsible Growth Task Force defined Responsible Growth as economic, social and environmental development that incorporates land use and resources in ways that enhance the long-term quality of life for current and future generations of Connecticut residents.

DECD's Responsible Growth criteria include: 1. Project activities should be in conformance with the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut. 2. Locate Projects within existing developed areas and promote infill development. 3. Locate projects within existing public utilities service areas (water, sewer, etc.). 4. Projects outside of public utility services areas should be scaled to use on-site systems, where practicable, to manage unplanned development of adjacent land. 5. Promote transit-oriented development. 6. Promote energy/water conservation, energy efficiency and "green" building design. 7. Avoid impacts to natural and cultural resources and open space. 8. Promote mixed-use development and compatible land uses (pedestrian-friendly with access to multiple destinations within close proximity of each other).

For more details concerning DECD’s Smart Growth Initiative, a copy of DECD’s Smart Growth Primer has been placed in Appendix Q.

Connecticut Population Assessment

U.S. Census 2000 population estimates1 for July 1, 2000 through July 1, 2009 have been provided in Table 2-6. Individual community data is located in Appendix R.

1 All data used in the trend analysis section including building data and U.S. Census 10-year population estimates are provided in Appendix R.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 24 ~

Table 2-6: Census Population Estimates for July 1, 2000 - July 1, 2009 Per County Estimate d total Total populatio estimated n percentage July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, increase increased 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 for ten- in Estimat Estimat Estimat Estimat Estimat Estimat Estimat Estimat Estimat Estimat year population County e e e e e e e e e e period per county Fairfield County 884,420 888,036 890,635 892,311 892,291 891,015 888,526 889,067 894,401 901,208 16,788 1.90% Hartford County 858,422 861,183 864,497 868,343 868,109 870,039 871,743 874,107 876,319 879,835 21,413 2.49% Litchfield County 182,628 183,987 185,656 186,795 187,772 187,822 188,393 188,465 188,647 188,728 6,100 3.34% Middlesex County 155,633 157,061 159,207 160,784 161,377 162,025 163,326 164,034 164,932 165,702 10,069 6.47% New Haven County 824,992 828,610 832,376 837,258 838,429 839,408 841,055 843,619 845,573 848,006 23,014 2.79% New London County 259,575 261,007 263,098 265,341 266,890 265,443 268,331 264,481 265,830 266,830 7,255 2.79% Tolland County 136,860 138,737 141,963 144,448 145,798 146,492 147,556 148,200 149,919 150,461 13,601 9.94% Windham County 109,196 109,812 110,950 112,393 113,944 115,172 116,232 116,650 117,311 117,518 8,322 7.62% Source: U.S. Census 2000 data

It is estimated that New Haven County will see the greatest increase in population in numbers for this time period followed by Hartford and Fairfield Counties. At initial glance this may appear counter to building and permit data previously presented. However, New Haven County maintains the second highest number of housing units in the state, 352,042 units. By 2009 this number will be only 579 units less than Fairfield County’s inventory. A further detailed analysis of demographic data, which can be performed in future updates, may help to explain this increase (e.g., larger household populations, etc.).

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 25 ~

Table 2-7 shows the top community for each county with the largest estimated increase of population during this period.

Table 2-7: Top Community with Largest Estimated Population Increase for a Ten-Year Period: Years 2000 - 2009

Estimated total County Community population increase Fairfield Danbury 4,631 Hartford Southington 2,659 Litchfield New Milford 1,327 Middlesex Middletown 2,702 New Haven Milford 4,016 New London Montville 1,314 Tolland Mansfield 4,417 Windham Killingly 1,349 Source: U.S. Census 2000 data

A review of local housing data and population estimates indicate that development has continued throughout the last decade, but slowed dramatically in years 2008 and 2009. In addition, it appears that when the economy strengthens, communities may begin to grow at a greater pace. It is anticipated that both populations and housing will continue to increase for individual communities. A review of the data also indicates that many smaller communities may begin to experience increased development pressures, especially when larger communities reach their build-out limits. This will increase the importance of hazard mitigation planning and natural resource management on a local level to help mitigate and/or reduce potential losses such development activities have the ability to create.

Since the HAZUS-MH simulations ran for planning purposes in this plan are based on U.S. Census 2000 data, the increases in population and housing stock as presented in this section will have an impact on these scenarios by potentially increasing losses from the occurrence of such hazard events, and must be kept in mind when reviewing them. It is anticipated that updated HAZUS-MH simulations will be run with U.S. Census 2010 data once this data becomes available for use with the HAZUS-MH software.

Connecticut’s History and Future Risk of Natural Disasters

This chapter examines the types of natural hazards that impact Connecticut, their history and Connecticut's future vulnerability to each type of natural disaster. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has recorded an estimated 2,092

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 26 ~

severe weather events for the State of Connecticut during the time period of 1950-March 2007. Table 2-8 provides the total number of severe weather events recorded for each county. The events recorded by NOAA include such events as droughts, floods, hailstorms, severe lighting, snow & ice storms, and extreme temperatures. Records on hurricanes were not complete in this database, therefore they are not reflective in the table’s event totals. Information on number and the history of hurricanes is located in the hurricane hazard subsection of this chapter.

Table 2-8: Weather Event Breakdown per County From 1/1/1950 to 3/31/2009 Storm Event New Totals Fairfield Hartford Litchfield Middlesex New Haven London Tolland Windham Across Weather Event County County County County County County County County Counties Drought 3 2 3 3 3 0 0 14 Flood 68 78 68 27 68 47 8 7 371 Funnel Cloud 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 8 Hail 49 97 79 19 32 33 31 21 361 Lightning 22 24 8 8 24 16 3 3 108 Ocean and Lake Surf 15 0 0 4 14 5 0 0 38 Precipitation 29 47 69 34 46 30 36 32 323 Snow and Ice 62 45 26 35 43 37 49 44 341 Temperature Extremes 13 31 23 13 13 12 7 7 119 Thunderstorms and High Winds 225 240 227 70 172 95 119 104 1252 Tornado 12 14 22 8 13 2 10 3 84 Total Number of Storm Events Per County 502 578 525 223 430 281 263 221 3023 Note: Total Actual number of events listed for the State of Connecticut as a whole is 2,511 events. Many events listed within this breakdown affect multiple counties, thus are counted in each affected county.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 27 ~

The following subsections present a description of each type of natural hazard the state may expect to experience. The information presented in this chapter has been expanded upon and have been reorganize for ease of review for the reader. Major changes in this chapter include: Reorganization of information of general information, past history, future risk and vulnerability has been placed for each natural hazard under the respective natural hazard sub-category. Thus for example, general hazard information, past history, future risk (including HAZUS simulation results) and vulnerability for tornadoes is now located under the sub-section Tornadoes. Expansion of all information sections for every natural hazard discussed within this chapter, including an increased discussion for future risk and vulnerability for each natural hazard.

An effort was made in this update to begin incorporating information from existing local hazard mitigation plans. It is the intent that when additional defined data becomes available in future plan updates or new plans that the information will continue to be incorporated into the NHMP where applicable. Initial work began by gathering all plans on file and reviewing them, especially the risk assessment portions to excerpt data. Table 2-9 was created from this review. It should be noted that the state will continue to pursue the development of a database for the collection, organization and maintenance of risk assessment data from local and regional hazard mitigation plans into a database, so that data can be accessed and amazed with greater ease. Due to budgetary constraints, this work is in the initial planning phase. Additional work will be performed through planning efforts supported by FEMA grants and possible other grant/funding sources that may become available to Connecticut. Due to existing resource constraints, the advancement of research and planning for these stated activities for future updates of this plan will rely heavily on obtaining such support funding.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 28 ~

Table 2-9: Local Hazard Mitigation Information

Received FEMA Copy of Plan Final RPO or Approval FEMA Statement of primary Local for HMP Approved concerns/key Local potential loss Communi N/A = not Plan On- vulnerabilities local data and associated Municipality County ty available File ** plans focus upon hazard event Berlin Hartford CCRPA N/A N/A Primary concern is 17.9 million (HAZUS- riverine flood. Other MH 100 year flood) hazards included were dam failure, winter storms, wind storms (hurricane and tornadoes), drought, wildfire, and earthquakes. Bristol Hartford CCRPA N/A N/A Primary concern is 60.3 million (HAZUS- riverine flood. Other MH 100 year flood) hazards included were dam failure, winter storms, wind storms (hurricane and tornadoes), drought, wildfire, and earthquakes. Burlington Hartford CCRPA N/A N/A Primary concern is 5.6 million (HAZUS- riverine flood. Other MH 100 year flood) hazards included were dam failure, winter storms, wind storms (hurricane and tornadoes), drought, wildfire, and earthquakes.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 29 ~

New Britain Hartford CCRPA N/A N/A Primary concern is 13.6 million (HAZUS- riverine flood. Other MH 100 year flood) hazards included were dam failure, winter storms, wind storms (hurricane and tornadoes), drought, wildfire, and earthquakes. Plainville Hartford CCRPA N/A N/A Primary concern is 127.6 million (HAZUS- riverine flood. Other MH 100-year flood) hazards included were dam failure, winter storms, wind storms (hurricane and tornadoes), drought, wildfire, and earthquakes. Plymouth Litchfield CCRPA N/A N/A Primary concern is 11.8 million (HAZUS- riverine flood. Other MH 100 year flood) hazards included were dam failure, winter storms, wind storms (hurricane and tornadoes), drought, wildfire, and earthquakes. Southington Hartford CCRPA N/A N/A Primary concern is 267.2 million (HAZUS- riverine flood. Other MH 100 year flood) hazards included were dam failure, winter storms, wind storms (hurricane and tornadoes), drought, wildfire, and earthquakes.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 30 ~

Milford New Haven City Yes no Primary concern is Not provided in plan. coastal and inland flooding and hurricanes. Secondary concerns are winter storms and earthquakes. Other concerns include dam failure, droughts, extreme heat, landslides, tornadoes, wildfires, and extreme cold. Beacon Falls New Haven COGCNV Yes Yes N/A N/A Bethlehem Litchfield COGCNV Yes Yes N/A N/A Cheshire New Haven COGCNV Yes Yes The primary natural No future potential hazard presented in the loss estimates plan was flooding. Other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type included wind, hail, tornadoes, winter storms, hurricanes and earthquakes. Middlebury New Haven COGCNV Yes Yes N/A N/A Oxford New Haven COGCNV Yes no Primary hazards of No future potential concern included loss estimates flooding from provided for any hurricanes/tropical hazard type depressions, winter storms (nor’easters), and heavy thunderstorms. Other hazards of concern included dam failure, earthquakes, and tornadoes. Prospect New Haven COGCNV Yes Yes N/A N/A Southbury New Haven COGCNV Yes Yes N/A N/A Thomaston Litchfield COGCNV Yes Yes N/A N/A

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 31 ~

Waterbury New Haven COGCNV Yes no Inland flooding was No future potential determined to be the loss estimates most significant hazard provided for any that affects the city. hazard type Watertown Litchfield COGCNV Yes Yes The hazards of concern No future potential that were included in the loss estimates plan were dam failure, provided for any earthquakes, flooding, hazard type and winter storms. Flooding was determined to be of a primary concern. Wolcott New Haven COGCNV Yes Yes N/A N/A Woodbury Litchfield COGCNV Yes Yes The hazards of concern No future potential that were included in the loss estimates plan were dam failure, provided for any earthquakes, flooding, hazard type and winter storms. Flooding was determined to be of a primary concern. Andover Tolland CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Avon Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 32 ~

Bloomfield Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Bolton Tolland CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Canton Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. East Granby Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 33 ~

East Hartford Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. East Windsor Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Ellington Tolland CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Enfield Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 34 ~

Farmington Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Glastonbury Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Granby Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Hartford Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 35 ~

Hebron Tolland CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Manchester Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Marlborough Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Newington Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 36 ~

Rocky Hill Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Simsbury Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Somers Tolland CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. South Windsor Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 37 ~

Suffield Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Tolland Tolland CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Vernon Tolland CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. West Hartford Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 38 ~

Wethersfield Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Windsor Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Windsor Locks Hartford CRCOG Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concerns are winter storms and high winds. Other concerns include dam failure, drought, earthquake, wildfire, hurricane, and tornado. Chester Middlesex CRERPA Yes no The primary hazard of No future potential concern stated in the loss estimates plan for all communities provided for any was flooding. Plan also hazard type focused it risk assessment overview on the following hazards: wind and tornadoes; wildfires; winter storms; earthquakes; and hurricanes.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 39 ~

Clinton Middlesex CRERPA Yes no The primary hazard of No future potential concern stated in the loss estimates plan for all communities provided for any was flooding. Plan also hazard type focused it risk assessment overview on the following hazards: wind and tornadoes; wildfires; winter storms; earthquakes; and hurricanes. Deep River Middlesex CRERPA Yes no The primary hazard of No future potential concern stated in the loss estimates plan for all communities provided for any was flooding. Plan also hazard type focused it risk assessment overview on the following hazards: wind and tornadoes; wildfires; winter storms; earthquakes; and hurricanes. Essex Middlesex CRERPA Yes no The primary hazard of No future potential concern stated in the loss estimates plan for all communities provided for any was flooding. Plan also hazard type focused it risk assessment overview on the following hazards: wind and tornadoes; wildfires; winter storms; earthquakes; and hurricanes.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 40 ~

Killingworth Middlesex CRERPA N/A N/A The primary hazard of No future potential concern stated in the loss estimates plan for all communities provided for any was flooding. Plan also hazard type focused it risk assessment overview on the following hazards: wind and tornadoes; wildfires; winter storms; earthquakes; and hurricanes. Lyme New London CRERPA Yes no The primary hazard of No future potential concern stated in the loss estimates plan for all communities provided for any was flooding. Plan also hazard type focused it risk assessment overview on the following hazards: wind and tornadoes; wildfires; winter storms; earthquakes; and hurricanes. Old Lyme New London CRERPA Yes no The primary hazard of No future potential concern stated in the loss estimates plan for all communities provided for any was flooding. Plan also hazard type focused it risk assessment overview on the following hazards: wind and tornadoes; wildfires; winter storms; earthquakes; and hurricanes.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 41 ~

Old Saybrook Middlesex CRERPA Yes no The primary hazard of No future potential concern stated in the loss estimates plan for all communities provided for any was flooding. Plan also hazard type focused it risk assessment overview on the following hazards: wind and tornadoes; wildfires; winter storms; earthquakes; and hurricanes. Westbrook Middlesex CRERPA N/A N/A The primary hazard of No future potential concern stated in the loss estimates plan for all communities provided for any was flooding. Plan also hazard type focused it risk assessment overview on the following hazards: wind and tornadoes; wildfires; winter storms; earthquakes; and hurricanes. Bridgeport Fairfield GBRPA Yes no The primary hazard of No future potential concern stated was loss estimates inland and coastal provided for any flooding, followed by sea hazard type level rise, summer and winter storms, earthquakes and finally dam failures. Easton Fairfield GBRPA Yes no The primary hazard of No future potential concern stated was loss estimates inland and coastal provided for any flooding, followed by sea hazard type level rise, summer and winter storms, earthquakes and finally dam failures.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 42 ~

Fairfield Fairfield GBRPA Yes no The primary hazard of No future potential concern stated was loss estimates inland and coastal provided for any flooding, followed by sea hazard type level rise, summer and winter storms, earthquakes and finally dam failures. Monroe Fairfield GBRPA N/A N/A The primary hazard of No future potential concern stated was loss estimates inland and coastal provided for any flooding, followed by sea hazard type level rise, summer and winter storms, earthquakes and finally dam failures. Stratford Fairfield GBRPA Yes Yes The primary hazard of No future potential concern stated was loss estimates inland and coastal provided for any flooding, followed by sea hazard type level rise, summer and winter storms, earthquakes and finally dam failures. Trumbull Fairfield GBRPA Yes no The primary hazard of No future potential concern stated was loss estimates inland and coastal provided for any flooding, followed by sea hazard type level rise, summer and winter storms, earthquakes and finally dam failures. Sherman Fairfield HVCEO N/A N/A In development, no draft In development, no draft

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 43 ~

Barkhamsted Litchfield LHCEO Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concern is winter storms. Other hazards of concern include dam failure, high winds, drought, forest fire and earthquakes. Colebrook Litchfield LHCEO Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concern is winter storms. Other hazards of concern include dam failure, high winds, drought, forest fire and earthquakes. Goshen Litchfield LHCEO Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concern is winter storms. Other hazards of concern include dam failure, high winds, drought, forest fire and earthquakes. Hartland Hartford LHCEO Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concern is winter storms. Other hazards of concern include dam failure, high winds, drought, forest fire and earthquakes. Harwinton Litchfield LHCEO Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concern is winter storms. Other hazards of concern include dam failure, high winds, drought, forest fire and earthquakes.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 44 ~

Litchfield Litchfield LHCEO Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concern is winter storms. Other hazards of concern include dam failure, high winds, drought, forest fire and earthquakes. Morris Litchfield LHCEO Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concern is winter storms. Other hazards of concern include dam failure, high winds, drought, forest fire and earthquakes. New Hartford Litchfield LHCEO Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concern is winter storms. Other hazards of concern include dam failure, high winds, drought, forest fire and earthquakes. Norfolk Litchfield LHCEO Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concern is winter storms. Other hazards of concern include dam failure, high winds, drought, forest fire and earthquakes. Torrington Litchfield LHCEO Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concern is winter storms. Other hazards of concern include dam failure, high winds, drought, forest fire and earthquakes.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 45 ~

Winchester Litchfield LHCEO Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. riverine flooding. Secondary concern is winter storms. Other hazards of concern include dam failure, high winds, drought, forest fire and earthquakes. Cromwell Middlesex MRPA N/A N/A Primary concerns are HAZUS-MH Flood for floods, hurricanes, Middlesex County = winter storms (ice, $110.37 million snow), and windstorms. including building Secondary concerns losses and business include heat waves and interruption. HAZUS- extreme cold. Other MH Hurricane for concerns include Middlesex County = earthquake, drought, $76.3 million in wildfire, power outages, property damage and and erosion. business interruption loss. Durham Middlesex MRPA N/A N/A Primary concerns are HAZUS-MH Flood for floods, hurricanes, Middlesex County = winter storms (ice, $110.37 million snow), and windstorms. including building Secondary concerns losses and business include heat waves and interruption. HAZUS- extreme cold. Other MH Hurricane for concerns include Middlesex County = earthquake, drought, $76.3 million in wildfire, power outages, property damage and and erosion. business interruption loss.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 46 ~

East Haddam Middlesex MRPA N/A N/A Primary concerns are HAZUS-MH Flood for floods, hurricanes, Middlesex County = winter storms (ice, $110.37 million snow), and windstorms. including building Secondary concerns losses and business include heat waves and interruption. HAZUS- extreme cold. Other MH Hurricane for concerns include Middlesex County = earthquake, drought, $76.3 million in wildfire, power outages, property damage and and erosion. business interruption loss. East Hampton Middlesex MRPA N/A N/A Primary concerns are HAZUS-MH Flood for floods, hurricanes, Middlesex County = winter storms (ice, $110.37 million snow), and windstorms. including building Secondary concerns losses and business include heat waves and interruption. HAZUS- extreme cold. Other MH Hurricane for concerns include Middlesex County = earthquake, drought, $76.3 million in wildfire, power outages, property damage and and erosion. business interruption loss. Haddam Middlesex MRPA N/A N/A Primary concerns are HAZUS-MH Flood for floods, hurricanes, Middlesex County = winter storms (ice, $110.37 million snow), and windstorms. including building Secondary concerns losses and business include heat waves and interruption. HAZUS- extreme cold. Other MH Hurricane for concerns include Middlesex County = earthquake, drought, $76.3 million in wildfire, power outages, property damage and and erosion. business interruption loss.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 47 ~

Middlefield Middlesex MRPA N/A N/A Primary concerns are HAZUS-MH Flood for floods, hurricanes, Middlesex County = winter storms (ice, $110.37 million snow), and windstorms. including building Secondary concerns losses and business include heat waves and interruption. HAZUS- extreme cold. Other MH Hurricane for concerns include Middlesex County = earthquake, drought, $76.3 million in wildfire, power outages, property damage and and erosion. business interruption loss. Middletown Middlesex MRPA N/A N/A Primary concerns are HAZUS-MH Flood for floods, hurricanes, Middlesex County = winter storms (ice, $110.37 million snow), and windstorms. including building Secondary concerns losses and business include heat waves and interruption. HAZUS- extreme cold. Other MH Hurricane for concerns include Middlesex County = earthquake, drought, $76.3 million in wildfire, power outages, property damage and and erosion. business interruption loss. Portland Middlesex MRPA N/A N/A Primary concerns are HAZUS-MH Flood for floods, hurricanes, Middlesex County = winter storms (ice, $110.37 million snow), and windstorms. including building Secondary concerns losses and business include heat waves and interruption. HAZUS- extreme cold. Other MH Hurricane for concerns include Middlesex County = earthquake, drought, $76.3 million in wildfire, power outages, property damage and and erosion. business interruption loss.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 48 ~

Bozrah New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). Colchester New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). East Lyme New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). Franklin New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). Griswold New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes).

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 49 ~

Groton New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). Groton New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). Ledyard New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). Lisbon New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). Montville New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes).

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 50 ~

New London New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). North Stonington New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). Norwich New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). Preston New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). Salem New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes).

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 51 ~

Sprague New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). Stonington New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). Voluntown New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). Waterford New London SCCOG Yes no The primary hazard the No future potential plan focused on was loss estimates flooding. Two other provided for any hazards of concern hazard type stated in the plan were earthquakes, winter storms (including hurricanes). Meriden New Haven SCCROG N/A N/A N/A N/A

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 52 ~

Darien Fairfield SWRPA Yes no The hazards of concern No future potential that were included in the loss estimates regional plan included: provided for any floods; hazard type hurricanes/tropical storms; severe storms; severe thunderstorms; tornadoes; dam failure; drought; and earthquakes Greenwich Fairfield SWRPA Yes no The hazards of concern No future potential that were included in the loss estimates regional plan included: provided for any floods; hazard type hurricanes/tropical storms; severe storms; severe thunderstorms; tornadoes; dam failure; drought; and earthquakes New Canaan Fairfield SWRPA Yes no The hazards of concern No future potential that were included in the loss estimates regional plan included: provided for any floods; hazard type hurricanes/tropical storms; severe storms; severe thunderstorms; tornadoes; dam failure; drought; and earthquakes Norwalk Fairfield SWRPA Yes no The hazards of concern No future potential that were included in the loss estimates regional plan included: provided for any floods; hazard type hurricanes/tropical storms; severe storms; severe thunderstorms; tornadoes; dam failure; drought; and earthquakes

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 53 ~

Stamford Fairfield SWRPA Yes no The hazards of concern No future potential that were included in the loss estimates regional plan included: provided for any floods; hazard type hurricanes/tropical storms; severe storms; severe thunderstorms; tornadoes; dam failure; drought; and earthquakes Weston Fairfield SWRPA Yes no The hazards of concern No future potential that were included in the loss estimates regional plan included: provided for any floods; hazard type hurricanes/tropical storms; severe storms; severe thunderstorms; tornadoes; dam failure; drought; and earthquakes Westport Fairfield SWRPA Yes no The hazards of concern No future potential that were included in the loss estimates regional plan included: provided for any floods; hazard type hurricanes/tropical storms; severe storms; severe thunderstorms; tornadoes; dam failure; drought; and earthquakes Wilton Fairfield SWRPA Yes no The hazards of concern No future potential that were included in the loss estimates regional plan included: provided for any floods; hazard type hurricanes/tropical storms; severe storms; severe thunderstorms; tornadoes; dam failure; drought; and earthquakes

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 54 ~

Danbury Fairfield Town N/A N/A N/A N/A East Haven New Haven town Yes no Primary concern is Not provided in plan. coastal and inland flooding. Other concerns include wind (hurricane, tornadoes, winter storms, thunderstorms) and earthquakes. Guilford New Haven Town N/A N/A N/A N/A New Haven New Haven Town Yes Yes Primary concern is Not provided in plan. coastal and inland flooding, with secondary concern of effects of hurricanes. Other hazards of concern include sea level rise, summer storms, tornadoes, winter storms, land subsidence, earthquakes and rockslides. Newtown Fairfield Town N/A N/A N/A N/A Ansonia New Haven VCOG N/A N/A N/A N/A Derby New Haven VCOG N/A N/A N/A N/A Seymour New Haven VCOG N/A N/A N/A N/A Shelton Fairfield VCOG Yes no N/A N/A Ashford Windham WINCOG Yes Yes Each town chapter No future potential focused on presenting a loss estimates general risk analysis for provided for any the following hazards: hazard type dam failure; drought; earthquake; flooding; hurricanes; ice jams; severe winter storms; thunderstorms; tornadoes/wind damage; and wildfires.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 55 ~

Chaplin Windham WINCOG Yes Yes Each town chapter No future potential focused on presenting a loss estimates general risk analysis for provided for any the following hazards: hazard type dam failure; drought; earthquake; flooding; hurricanes; ice jams; severe winter storms; thunderstorms; tornadoes/wind damage; and wildfires. Columbia Tolland WINCOG Yes Yes Each town chapter No future potential focused on presenting a loss estimates general risk analysis for provided for any the following hazards: hazard type dam failure; drought; earthquake; flooding; hurricanes; ice jams; severe winter storms; thunderstorms; tornadoes/wind damage; and wildfires. Coventry Tolland WINCOG Yes Yes Each town chapter No future potential focused on presenting a loss estimates general risk analysis for provided for any the following hazards: hazard type dam failure; drought; earthquake; flooding; hurricanes; ice jams; severe winter storms; thunderstorms; tornadoes/wind damage; and wildfires.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 56 ~

Hampton Windham WINCOG Yes Yes Each town chapter No future potential focused on presenting a loss estimates general risk analysis for provided for any the following hazards: hazard type dam failure; drought; earthquake; flooding; hurricanes; ice jams; severe winter storms; thunderstorms; tornadoes/wind damage; and wildfires. Lebanon New London WINCOG Yes Yes Each town chapter No future potential focused on presenting a loss estimates general risk analysis for provided for any the following hazards: hazard type dam failure; drought; earthquake; flooding; hurricanes; ice jams; severe winter storms; thunderstorms; tornadoes/wind damage; and wildfires. Mansfield Tolland WINCOG Yes Yes Each town chapter No future potential focused on presenting a loss estimates general risk analysis for provided for any the following hazards: hazard type dam failure; drought; earthquake; flooding; hurricanes; ice jams; severe winter storms; thunderstorms; tornadoes/wind damage; and wildfires.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 57 ~

Scotland Windham WINCOG Yes Yes Each town chapter No future potential focused on presenting a loss estimates general risk analysis for provided for any the following hazards: hazard type dam failure; drought; earthquake; flooding; hurricanes; ice jams; severe winter storms; thunderstorms; tornadoes/wind damage; and wildfires. Willington Tolland WINCOG Yes no Each town chapter No future potential focused on presenting a loss estimates general risk analysis for provided for any the following hazards: hazard type dam failure; drought; earthquake; flooding; hurricanes; ice jams; severe winter storms; thunderstorms; tornadoes/wind damage; and wildfires. Windham Windham WINCOG No No Each town chapter No future potential focused on presenting a loss estimates general risk analysis for provided for any the following hazards: hazard type dam failure; drought; earthquake; flooding; hurricanes; ice jams; severe winter storms; thunderstorms; tornadoes/wind damage; and wildfires. Bethany New Haven No Plan No No N/A N/A Bethel Fairfield No Plan No No N/A N/A Branford New Haven No Plan No No N/A N/A Bridgewater Litchfield No Plan No No N/A N/A Brookfield Fairfield No Plan No No N/A N/A Brooklyn Windham No Plan No No N/A N/A

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 58 ~

Canaan Litchfield No Plan No No N/A N/A Canterbury Windham No Plan No No N/A N/A Cornwall Litchfield No Plan No No N/A N/A Eastford Windham No Plan No No N/A N/A Hamden New Haven No Plan No No N/A N/A Kent Litchfield No Plan No No N/A N/A Killingly Windham No Plan No No N/A N/A Madison New Haven No Plan No No N/A N/A New Fairfield Fairfield No Plan No No N/A N/A New Milford Litchfield No Plan No No N/A N/A North Branford New Haven No Plan No No N/A N/A North Canaan Litchfield No Plan No No N/A N/A North Haven New Haven No Plan No No N/A N/A Orange New Haven No Plan No No N/A N/A Plainfield Windham No Plan No No N/A N/A Pomfret Windham No Plan No No N/A N/A Putnam Windham No Plan No No N/A N/A Redding Fairfield No Plan No No N/A N/A Ridgefield Fairfield No Plan No No N/A N/A Roxbury Litchfield No Plan No No N/A N/A Salisbury Litchfield No Plan No No N/A N/A Sharon Litchfield No Plan No No N/A N/A Stafford Tolland No Plan No No N/A N/A Sterling Windham No Plan No No N/A N/A Thompson Windham No Plan No No N/A N/A Union Tolland No Plan No No N/A N/A Wallingford New Haven No Plan No No N/A N/A Warren Litchfield No Plan No No N/A N/A Washington Litchfield No Plan No No N/A N/A West Haven New Haven No Plan No No N/A N/A Woodbridge New Haven No Plan No No N/A N/A Woodstock Windham No Plan No No N/A N/A **Note: as of 12/10/2010 final FEMA approved copy of plan not on file, available draft plan used for review.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 59 ~

The data in Table 2-9 indicates that the primary hazard of concern identified in local plans which occurs in a greater frequency is flooding as a result of various other hazards, such as winter storms, hurricanes and tropical storms, and heavy thunderstorms. A second concern which is the focus of many of the local plans on file is wind damage from tornadoes, heavy winter and spring storms. This information assisted the State in focusing its risk assessment efforts on all identified hazards within the locally produced plans. The hazards focused on in the remainder of the chapter are: tropical cyclones; winter storms; flooding; ice jams; dam failures; wildland fires; tornadoes; drought; earthquake; and tsunami. Since much of the plans on file that were utilized in this review were older (circa 2005-2006) and did not provide any real lost estimates as to future potential damage from the occurrence of a particular hazard, the State relied on its own research and modeling activities for the risk assessment and vulnerability sections for each hazard. It is anticipated that as local plans are updated and additional new plans are created, that they will provide more refined costs estimates for future losses by hazard events. This information, when it becomes available will be incorporated into the State Plan.

Tropical Cyclone (Hurricane and Tropical Storm)

Tropical Cyclone – is a warm-core, low pressure system without any “front” attached, that develops over the tropical or subtropical waters, and has an organized circulation. In the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific Oceans the strongest of these cyclones is called a hurricane.2

Tropical cyclones include three types of systems which are differentiated primarily on wind speed: 1. Tropical Depression – A system in which the maximum sustained surface wind is 33 knots (38 mph) or less. 2. Tropical Storm – A system in which the maximum sustained surface wind ranges from 34 to 63 knots (39 – 73 mph). 3. Hurricanes (also known as typhoons in the Western Pacific and cyclones in the Indian Ocean) – A system in which the maximum sustained surface wind is 64 or greater (74+ mph). This is the worst and strongest of all tropical systems.3

Figure 2-3 shows an example of all three types of tropical storm systems. Since Connecticut is located along the Atlantic coastline it has experienced all three types of systems including some of the worst hurricanes to make landfall within the United States.

2 Source: Nation Weather Service website: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/tropics/tc.htm. 3 Note: in the literature, the terms hurricane, tropical cyclone and typhoons (for the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans) are regular used interchangeably.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 60 ~

Figure 2-3 Example of the Three Types of Tropical Cyclone Systems4

Figure 2-4 shows a diagram of the anatomy of a tropical cyclone (hurricane) which consists of5: 1. An eye – the center of a hurricane which is the calmest part of the storm, and is typically 20-40 miles across; 2. An eye wall – surround s the eye and consists of a ring of tall thunderstorms that produce heavy rains and usually the strongest winds; and 3. Rain bands – curved bands of clouds and thunderstorms that rail away from the eye wall in a spiral fashion. Rain bands are capable of producing high winds, heavy outburst of rain and tornadoes.

Figure 2-4: Diagram of a Tropical Cyclone (Hurricane)

4 Source: Picture from University of Illinois website http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hurr/stages/home.rxml. Original picture taken from the GOES-8 website, NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center, data from NOAA GOES Project. The GOES Project website maintains a library of various types of satellite imagery from 1994 to the present. 5 Source NOAA website.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 61 ~

There are several environmental conditions which must be present for a tropical cyclone to form:6 Warm ocean waters (at least 80oF) throughout a depth of about 150 feet; An atmosphere which cools fast enough with height such that it is potentially unstable to moist convection; Relatively moist air near the mid-level of the troposphere; A minimum 300 mile distance from the equator; A pre-existing near surface disturbance; and Low values of vertical wind shear (change in wind speed with height) between the surface and the upper troposphere.

Several types of natural hazards may be associated with tropical cyclones including storm surge, flooding (both coastal and riverine), tornadoes, and high winds. Prior to 2009 hurricane season, hurricanes were categorized by the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale that incorporated central pressure and storm surge as components of the categories. Due to criticisms and confusion regarding this practice, in 2009, the scale was revised and is now called the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale7 This modified scale, which is more scientifically defensible, is predicated on wind speeds and removed both storm surge and central pressure as factors.

6 Source: NOAA website. 7 Source NOAA website.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 62 ~

Figure 2-5: Revised Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale

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 to poorly constructed signs. Loose outdoor items will become projectiles, causing additional damage. Persons struck by windborne debris risk injury and possible 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 possible 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 possible death. Many trees will be 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 is 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 (built in any year). 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.

The Atlantic hurricane season begins on June 1 and runs through November 30 of each year. This is the time period when the environmental conditions are most favorable for a tropical cyclone to develop. The greatest risk of a hurricane impacting New England within this six-month period is from late August to mid-October.

Connecticut’s Tropical Cyclone (Hurricane & Tropical Storm) History

Connecticut and New England are no strangers to tropical cyclone systems. The three figures below (Figures 2-6 through 2-8) show historic tracks for Category 1,

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 63 ~

2 and 3 hurricanes within 65 nautical miles that have impacted Connecticut over the years.8 To date, a Category 3 hurricane was the most severe tropical cyclone that impacted Connecticut. However, many Category 3 hurricanes which have come up the Atlantic coast into the cooler waters off New England were downgraded to a Category 2 hurricane or lower when they made landfall in/near Connecticut.

Figure 2-6: Category 1 Hurricanes That Have Impacted Connecticut

Figure 2-7: Category 2 Hurricanes That Have Impacted Connecticut

8 Source: NOAA website, interactive mapping tool.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 64 ~

Figure 2-8: Category 3 Hurricanes That Have Impacted Connecticut

Charles Neumann of NOAA developed a series of hurricane return periods for the northeast based on historical data of events within 65 nautical miles of the storm tracks (Figures 2-9 through 2-11).9

9 Source: NOAA website. Information excerpted from the website is as follows, “Hurricane return periods are the frequency at which a certain intensity or category of hurricane can be expected within 75 nm (86 statute miles) of a given location. In simpler terms, a return period of 20 years for a Category 3 or greater hurricane means that on average during the previous 100 years, a Category 3 or greater hurricane passed within 75 nm (86 miles) of that location about five times. We would then expect, on average, an additional five Category 3 or greater hurricanes within that radius over the next 100 years. The basic idea is that a population of tropical cyclones falling within the 65 nm (75 miles) circle is obtained from the best- track file. For that set of storms, the maximum wind within the circle is found. Then, a count is conducted to find how many systems had winds of 30-34 kt, 35-39 kt etc. Once the count is known, a function is used to "fit" the distribution. Since there are only a few intense tropical cyclones typically in the 100-year record for a particular site, the mathematical function helps to smooth this out and "fill in the holes". The smooth function is then used to estimate the number of systems that would occur over a longer time period.”

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 65 ~

Figure 2-9: Return Period for a Category 1 Hurricane in the Northeast

The National Weather Service reports that:

“Since 1900, forty-nine tropical systems have impacted Southern New England. Twenty-five were hurricanes, while 18 were of tropical storm strength. Any tropical storm or hurricane is capable of bringing a combination of high winds, large storm surges, and severe inland flooding along area rivers and streams.

Of the 25 hurricanes, 9 made landfall along the Southern New England coast. Of those 9 landfalling hurricanes, 7 were either of a Category 2 or 3 intensity based on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. Through the primary threat to New England is during August and September, the region has been affected as early as June and as late as mid-October.” 10

10 Source: National Weather Service Forecast Office, Boston, MA.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 66 ~

Figure 2-10: Return Period for a Category 2 Hurricane in the Northeast

Figure 2-11: Return Period for a Category 3 Hurricane in the Northeast

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 67 ~

Table 2-10 below shows a list of the 12 most significant tropical cyclones to impact Southern New England.11

Table 2-10: List of Significant Tropical Cyclones to Impact Southern New England from 1900 to 1999 Name Date Intensity Forward Motion (km/hr) Unnamed 7/21/1916 Cat 1 29 Unnamed 9/21/1938 Cat 3 82 Unnamed 9/14-15/1944 Cat 3 47 Carol 8/31/1954 Cat 3 56 Edna 9/11/1954 Cat 3 74 Connie & Diane 8/11-12 and 18-20/1955 TS 24 Donna 9/12/1960 Cat 2 39 Belle 8/9-10/1976 Cat 1 32 Gloria 9/27/1985 Cat 2 72 Bob 8/19/1991 Cat 2 51 Bertha 7/12-13/1996 TS 48 Floyd 9/18/1999 TS 56

The most intense hurricane to strike Connecticut occurred on September 21, 1938 (unofficially known as the Great New England Hurricane of 1938, or the Long Island Express).12 This Category 3 Hurricane made landfall in Connecticut in Milford, with the eye of the hurricane observed in New Haven Connecticut. Sustained winds of 91 mph with gusts of 121 mph were reported on Block Island, Rhode Island. The storm downed power lines in many areas of Connecticut and resulted in catastrophic fires in New London and Mystic, CT. Low pressures of 28.00 inches and 28.04 inches were reported in Middletown and Hartford, respectfully. Storm tides of 14 to 18 feet were reported along the Connecticut coast with 18 to 25 foot tides reported from New London, Connecticut to Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

Inland flooding was another result of the hurricane and a substantial amount of rain which occurred several days prior to the hurricane. Three to six inches of rain fell throughout most of Connecticut with 14 to 17 inches reported in Central Connecticut, resulting in severe flooding of rivers and streams and roadways and rail lines being washed out. In Hartford the Connecticut River reached 35.4 feet, which was 19.4 feet above flood stage.

Impacts on Southern New England from this storm were: 8,900 homes/cottages and buildings were destroyed, and 15,000 structures were damaged; An estimated $38,000,000 (in 1938 dollars) in damages to property in Connecticut; 564 deaths and 1,700 injuries; and 2,605 vessels destroyed and 3,369 vessels damaged.

11 Source: NWS Forecast Office, Boston, MA. 12 Source: NWS, Boston Office; information describing this event was taken from the NWS Boston website. Pictures are from the Connecticut State Library online archives.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 68 ~

Figure 2-12: Bedford Street Looking South Towards Broad Street, Stamford CT (9/38)

Figure 2-13: Ludlow Street, Stamford CT (9/38)

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 69 ~

Figure 2-14: Great Gordon Tire Works, Connecticut Boulevard, East Hartford, CT (9/38)

Another severe hurricane affected Connecticut on September 14 - 15, 1944 (unofficially known as the Great Atlantic Hurricane). This particular hurricane made landfalls at Cape Hatteras NC, Long Island NY and Point Judith RI. Despite being located approximately forty miles from the coast, Hartford Connecticut reported wind gusts of 109 mph and rainfall totals for the storm ranged from 6 to 11 inches. The system weakened during landfall in NC but reenergized afterwards, indicating that these systems can cycle through higher and lower periods of intensity during their lives.

The next hurricane to strike Connecticut occurred on August 31, 1954. Hurricane Carol (naming of hurricanes began in 1950) tracked across the southeastern corner of the State. It was reported that 48 people lost their lives and property damages and losses totaled at least one billion dollars (in 1954 dollars) for the Northeast.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 70 ~

Figure 2-15: Stamford Gas & Electric Company, 1954 Flood Hurricane Carol13

Figure 2-16: East Meadow Street Looking South, Stamford Connecticut 1954 Flood, Hurricane Carol

In 1955 two hurricanes impacted Connecticut within a week apart. On August 11-12, Hurricane Connie (downgraded to a tropical storm when it passed by New England) produced four to six inches of rain throughout Connecticut. On August 18-20, 1955 Hurricane Diane (also downgraded to a tropical storm by the time it reached New England) struck and produced another ten to twenty inches of rain.

13 Source of pictures: Connecticut State Library online picture archive.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 71 ~

Severe flooding occurred throughout Connecticut as a result of these two back- to-back storms and included extreme damage such as road/bridge washouts, loss of drinking water, severe damage to utility and communication infrastructures. It has been reported that the two hurricanes and subsequent flooding cost Connecticut the following:14 91 people dead and 12 others presumed missing or dead; 86,000 people unemployed; More than 1,100 families left homeless, and another 2,300 required temporary shelter; 20,000 families suffered flood damage; and Sixty-seven of Connecticut’s 169 communities were affected by flooding; Damage to property and businesses was estimated to be at least 1.5 billion dollars (1955 dollars).

Figure 2-17: Church Street Bridge, Torrington, 1955 Hurricanes

14 Source: Connecticut State Library, The Connecticut Floods of 1955: A Fifty-Year Perspective.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 72 ~

Figure 2-18: Naugatuck, 1955 Hurricanes

Figure 2-19: Winsted, 1955 Hurricanes

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 73 ~

During the 1960's Connecticut was indirectly affected by several tropical storms and hurricanes. Connecticut was hit by Hurricane Belle, a Category I hurricane, in 1976. Belle caused five fatalities and some minor shoreline damage.

On September 27, 1985, Hurricane Gloria struck Connecticut, felling thousands of trees and causing minor structural damage. Gloria, a Category 2 hurricane when it made landfall in the Westport area, did not cause substantial flooding due to relatively light rain accompanying the storm. The amount and spread of debris and loss of power were the major impacts from this hurricane.

On August 19, 1991 Hurricane Bob made landfall as a strong Category 2 hurricane in Newport, R.I. Bob moved quickly through Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Tree damage in Connecticut was very light in western areas and light to moderate in eastern and central areas of the State. Flooding was also minor due to the fast forward speed of Bob and the short duration of heavy rainfall. Despite the low to moderate damages sustained in the state, the six deaths that resulted from this storm were all from Connecticut. In addition, it is estimated that the resulting damage totaled 680 million dollars (1991 dollars) for Southern New England.

On September 15, 1999, Connecticut was affected by the remnants of Tropical Storm Floyd. Damage from Floyd was greatest in the Danbury area of western Connecticut, and resulted from extraordinary rainfall. Total rainfall from September 15 – 16 was approximately eleven inches in Danbury. Rainfall amounts on average ranged from four to eight inches across most of the State.

Flood elevation analysis indicates that the flooding along a large portion of the Still River in Danbury had a level above the 100-year flood levels published by FEMA. President Clinton signed a disaster declaration for both Public Assistance (PA) and Individual Assistance (IA). The total of Public Assistance (PA) damages from Tropical Storm Floyd was 2.2 million dollars

Damages caused by Tropical Storm Floyd were mitigated due to actions the State performed previously, which included: The installation of an Automated Flood Warning system in 1986, and its subsequent expansions in 1992, 1996, and 1998, to include the State’s most flood prone rivers; The performance of several structural mitigation projects including home elevations to prevent tidal flooding from hurricanes and winter storms, and the removal of 13 homes from the floodplain of the Yantic River in Norwich in 1995. DEP has also repaired over 60 high hazard state- owned dams since 1982; The creation of a state-of-the-art weather warning dissemination system using email updates. Performance of a post-disaster survey, conducted by the U.S. National Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS). The survey indicated that NRCS flood control projects in Connecticut prevented 25.2 million dollars (2004) in flood damages. NRCS projects that prevented the most damage included the North and South Branches of the Park River in Hartford

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 74 ~

($16.7 million), the Blackberry River ($4.6 million), and the Norwalk River dams ($2.4 million).

Potential Future Tropical Cyclone Risk

In general it is impossible to predict when and where a hurricane will occur. Some researchers such as Klotzbach and Gray15 develop forecasts and probabilities of landfall strikes for the annual Atlantic hurricane season. However, this forecast is revised throughout the season. Other researchers and Federal agencies like NOAA do not make such landfall predictions. NOAA states that, “Hurricane landfalls are largely determined by the weather patterns in places the hurricane approaches, which are only predictable when the storm is within several days of making landfall.” NOAA does issue a seasonal hurricane outlook that, “provides a general guide to the expected overall nature of the upcoming hurricane season.” The outlook combines the impacts of three climate factors to analyze an expected level of activity for the season: The tropical multi-decadal signal; The El Niño/La Niña (ENSO – El Niño Southern Oscillation) cycle; and The tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures.

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 which can accompany this hazard.. According to the NOAA return periods previously presented, a Category 1 hurricane can be expected to make landfall in/near Connecticut once every ten to fifteen years. A Category 2 hurricane could be expected to make landfall in/near Connecticut once every twenty-three to thirty years, and a Category 3 hurricane has a calculated return period of forty-six to seventy-four years. With the last major hurricane (Hurricane Bob, Category 2,) to impact Connecticut occurring in 1991, we can expect the occurrence of another hurricane to impact the state within the foreseeable future.

Researchers have recently analyzed data that has indicated that the intensity of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons) has increased over the last thirty-five years. At present there differing opinions in the scientific community on the connection between hurricanes and climate change. Many researchers such as Emanuel (2005, 2008) assert there is a connection. In contrast, the Pew Institute indicates that there is still a large debate as to whether the number of hurricanes is increasing due to climate change factors. It notes that, “there is an average of about 90 tropical storms every year.” According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. However the IPCC does state that the probability of the existence of a link between climate change and more tropical cyclones is “more likely than not.”

There are many factors which need to be taken into consideration when studying this issue and as Roth states and others have concurred, “Most climate

15 Philip J. Klotzbach and William M. Gray run the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University. Information about and the actual hurricane season forecasts can be downloaded from http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 75 ~

simulations agree that greenhouse warming enhance the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and typhoons in the coming century. But models’ abilities to accurately represent the dynamics of tropical storms and other elements of the climate system are still compromised by resolution and computational limits.”16

Given the past history of major storms and a reasonable estimate of likely future scenarios, it would be prudent for Connecticut to expect that there will be forthcoming hurricanes which make landfall in or near Connecticut and they will be of a greater intensity and longer duration than in the past. This may mean a potential increase in all categories of hurricanes normally experienced in New England (e.g., tropical storm, category 1, category 2, a category 3 (the maximum strength hurricane known historically to strike New England)).

Future Tropical Cyclone Vulnerability17

Factors that may lead to vulnerability of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and tropical storms) include: Increasing in population within coastal communities; Local zoning and development patterns in highly vulnerable areas of the community; and, Building codes currently in place and the age/number of structures located within highly vulnerable areas of a community.

Most of the existing housing stock in Connecticut was built before 1990 and is unaffected by the code changes. Since much of the existing housing stock predates recent building code updates,18 many structures are highly susceptible to roof and window damage from high winds. In addition, homes located within FEMA designated significant flood hazard areas (SFHAs) are at risk from flooding as a result of heavy rain and storm surges from these types of major storms.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s middle series estimate Connecticut’s population is projected to increase from to 3,688,630 by 2030. All areas of growth and development increase the State’s vulnerability to natural hazards such as hurricanes.

Tables 2-11 through 2-13 show the population changes and coastal community populations which would be vulnerable to a Category 1-2 hurricane and a Category 3-4 hurricane. The original work from which these tables are based upon was developed by USACE 1994 Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) Study and accompanying maps. Through this study, the USACE created inundation maps for all of Connecticut’s coastal communities. These inundation maps are located in Appendix [number]. Many coastal

16 Curry, Ruth Gorski, Bigger Hurricanes: A Consequence of Climate Change? Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. 17 The supporting appendix H has not been provided for general public distribution due to security reasons. Requests for this information may be submitted either to the CTDEMHS or CT DEP. 18 More information regarding Connecticut’s building codes can be found at the following websites: www.reedconstructiondata.com/building-codes/connecticut, and www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?a=2148&Q=305412.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 76 ~

communities’ total population and housing stock would be vulnerable to a Hurricane 1-2 strike. Furthermore an estimated 61% of the total coastal population in Connecticut and 62% of the total housing units within all the coastal communities would be vulnerable to a Category 1-2 landfall strike. These numbers increase to an estimated 67%of the total coastal population of the state and 68% of the total housing stock of coastal communities if a Category 3-4 were to make landfall along the Connecticut coast. Thus knowledge about a community’s residential demographics and emergency management needs is vital for individual communities.

It should be noted that the inland effects of future hurricanes will also be significant for several reasons including age of housing stock, amount of development within floodplain areas, and population demographics.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 77 ~

Table 2-11: Coastal Connecticut Total Population Change 1970 - 2000

Total Total Population Population Year 1970 Year 2000 Change Change Fairfield County Bridgeport 156,542 139,529 -17,013 -10.87% Darien 20,336 19,607 -729 -3.58% Fairfield 56,487 57,340 853 1.51% Greenwich 59,755 61,101 1,346 2.25% Norwalk 79,288 82,951 3,663 4.62% Stamford 108,798 117,083 8,285 7.62% Stratford 49,775 49,976 201 0.40% Westport 27,318 25,749 -1,569 -5.74% Non-Coastal Communities 234,515 329,231 94,716 40.39% Total Population Fairfield County 792,814 882,567 89,753 11.32% New Haven County Branford 20,444 28,683 8,239 40.30% East Haven 25,120 28,189 3,069 12.22% Guilford 12,033 21,398 9,365 77.83% Madison 9,768 17,858 8,090 82.82% Milford 50,858 52,305 1,447 2.85% New Haven 22,194 23,035 841 3.79% West Haven 52,851 52,360 -491 -0.93% Non-Coastal Communities 551,680 600,180 48,500 8.79% Total Population for New Haven County 744,948 824,008 79,060 10.61% Middlesex County Clinton 10,267 13,094 2,827 27.53% Old Saybrook 8,468 10,367 1,899 22.43% Westbrook 3,820 6,292 2,472 64.71% Non-Coastal Communities 92,463 125,318 32,855 35.53% Total Population for Middlesex County 115,018 155,071 40,053 34.82% New London County East Lyme 11,399 18,118 6,719 58.94% Groton 38,244 39,907 1,663 4.35% New London 31,630 25,671 -5,959 -18.84% Old Lyme 4,964 7,406 2,442 49.19% Stonington 15,940 17,906 1,966 12.33% Waterford 17,227 19,152 1,925 11.17% Non-Coastal Communities 111,250 130,928 19,678 17.69% Total Population for New London County 230,654 259,088 28,434 12.33% Total CT Coastal Communities Population Change 1970 To 2000 893,526 935,077 41,551 4.65%

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 78 ~

Table 2-12: Estimated Population and Areas of Inundation by a Category 1&2 Hurricane Percentage Total Percentage of Total Total Housing of Total Housing Population Units Population Units Located in Located in Residing in Located in Total Potential Potential the Potential the Potential Total Housing Inundation Inundation inundation inundation Community Population Units Area Area Area Area Ansonia 18,554 7,937 10,772 4,774 58.06% 60.15% Branford 28,683 13,342 22,819 10,868 79.56% 81.46% Bridgeport 139,529 54,367 53,477 20,889 38.33% 38.42% Chester 3,743 1,613 3,743 1,613 100.00% 100.00% Clinton 13,094 5,757 13,094 5,757 100.00% 100.00% Darien 19,607 6,792 7,449 2,744 37.99% 40.40% Deep River 4,610 1,910 4,610 1,910 100.00% 100.00% Derby 12,391 5,568 12,391 5,568 100.00% 100.00% East Haddam 8,333 4,015 8,333 4,015 100.00% 100.00% East Haven 28,189 11,698 16,427 7,166 58.27% 61.26% East Lyme 18,118 7,459 18,118 7,459 100.00% 100.00% Essex 6,505 2,977 6,505 2,977 100.00% 100.00% Fairfield 57,340 21,029 28,968 10,781 50.52% 51.27% Greenwich 61,101 24,511 44,409 18,590 72.68% 75.84% Groton 39,907 16,817 32,466 14,350 81.35% 85.33% Guilford 21,398 8,724 12,869 5,560 60.14% 63.73% Hamden 56,913 23,464 11,239 5,223 19.75% 22.26% Killingworth 6,018 2,283 6,018 2,283 100.00% 100.00% Ledyard 14,687 5,486 7,222 2,722 49.17% 49.62% Lyme 2,016 989 2,016 989 100.00% 100.00% Madison 17,858 7,386 17,858 7,386 100.00% 100.00% Milford 52,305 21,962 52,305 21,962 100.00% 100.00% Montville 18,546 6,805 8,122 2,690 43.79% 39.53% New Haven 123,626 52,941 80,023 34,997 64.73% 66.11% New London 25,671 11,560 16,086 7,335 62.66% 63.45% North Haven 23,035 8,773 23,035 8,773 100.00% 100.00% Norwalk 82,951 33,753 26,433 10,710 31.87% 31.73% Norwich 36,117 16,600 9,972 4,678 27.61% 28.18% Old Lyme 7,406 4,570 7,406 4,570 100.00% 100.00%

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 79 ~

Table 2-12: Estimated Population and Areas of Inundation by a Category 1&2 Hurricane Continued Percentage Total Percentage of Total Total Housing of Total Housing Population Units Population Units Located in Located in Residing in Located in Total Potential Potential the Potential the Potential Total Housing Inundation Inundation inundation inundation Community Population Units Area Area Area Area Old Saybrook 10,367 5,357 10,367 5,357 100.00% 100.00% Orange 13,233 4,870 5,418 2,009 40.94% 41.25% Preston 4,688 1,901 4,688 1,901 100.00% 100.00% Shelton 38,101 14,707 18,936 7,334 49.70% 49.87% Stamford 117,083 47,317 45,670 17,562 39.01% 37.12% Stonington 17,906 8,591 17,906 8,591 100.00% 100.00% Stratford 49,976 20,596 28,226 11,752 56.48% 57.06% Waterford 19,152 7,986 15,921 6,816 83.13% 85.35% West Haven 52,360 22,336 45,689 19,550 87.26% 87.53% Westbrook 6,292 3,460 6,292 3,460 100.00% 100.00% Westport 25,749 10,065 25,749 9,065 100.00% 90.06%

Grand Totals 1,303,158 538,274 789,047 332,736 60.55% 61.82%

Table 2-13: Estimated Population and Areas of Inundation by a Category 3&4 Hurricane Percentage of Percentage of Total Total Total Housing Population Total Housing Population Units Located Located in Units Located Residing in in the Total Potential in Potential the Potential Potential Total Housing Inundation Inundation inundation inundation Community Population Units Area Area Area Area Ansonia 18,554 7,937 13,999 6,242 75.45% 78.64% Branford 28,683 13,342 28,683 13,342 100.00% 100.00% Bridgeport 139,529 54,367 72,861 28,181 52.22% 51.83% Chester 3,743 1,613 3,743 1,613 100.00% 100.00% Clinton 13,094 5,757 13,094 5,757 100.00% 100.00% Darien 19,607 6,792 10,827 3,870 55.22% 56.98% Deep River 4,610 1,910 4,610 1,910 100.00% 100.00% Derby 12,391 5,568 12,391 5,568 100.00% 100.00% East Haddam 8,333 4,015 8,333 4,015 100.00% 100.00% East Haven 28,189 11,698 19,636 8,406 69.66% 71.86% East Lyme 18,118 7,459 18,118 7,459 100.00% 100.00% Essex 6,505 2,977 6,505 2,977 100.00% 100.00% Fairfield 57,340 21,029 34,628 12,933 60.39% 61.50% Greenwich 61,101 24,511 47,844 19,677 78.30% 80.28% Groton 39,907 16,817 32,466 14,350 81.35% 85.33% Guilford 21,398 8,724 12,869 5,560 60.14% 63.73% Hamden 56,913 23,464 11,239 5,223 19.75% 22.26% Killingworth 6,018 2,283 6,018 2,283 100.00% 100.00%

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 80 ~

Table 2-13: Estimated Population and Areas of Inundation by a Category 3&4 Hurricane Continued Percentage of Percentage of Total Total Total Housing Population Total Housing Population Units Located Located in Units Located Residing in in the Total Potential in Potential the Potential Potential Total Housing Inundation Inundation inundation inundation Community Population Units Area Area Area Area Ledyard 14,687 5,486 14,636 5,468 99.65% 99.67% Lyme 2,016 989 2,016 989 100.00% 100.00% Madison 17,858 7,386 17,858 7,386 100.00% 100.00% Milford 52,305 21,962 52,305 21,962 100.00% 100.00% Montville 18,546 6,805 8,122 2,690 43.79% 39.53% New Haven 123,626 52,941 84,988 37,003 68.75% 69.89% New London 25,671 11,560 19,379 8,802 75.49% 76.14% North Haven 23,035 8,773 23,035 8,773 100.00% 100.00% Norwalk 82,951 33,753 41,163 16,783 49.62% 49.72% Norwich 36,117 16,600 21,271 10,242 58.89% 61.70% Old Lyme 7,406 4,570 7,406 4,570 100.00% 100.00% Old Saybrook 10,367 5,357 10,367 5,357 100.00% 100.00% Orange 13,233 4,870 5,418 2,009 40.94% 41.25% Preston 4,688 1,901 4,688 1,901 100.00% 100.00% Seymour 15,454 6,356 7,750 3,119 50.15% 49.07% Shelton 38,101 14,707 18,936 7,334 49.70% 49.87% Stamford 117,083 47,317 62,264 26,509 53.18% 56.02% Stonington 17,906 8,591 17,906 8,591 100.00% 100.00% Stratford 49,976 20,596 32,224 13,333 64.48% 64.74% Wallingford 43,026 17,306 4,012 1,840 9.32% 10.63% Waterford 19,152 7,986 15,921 6,816 83.13% 85.35% West Haven 52,360 22,336 45,689 19,550 87.26% 87.53% Westbrook 6,292 3,460 6,292 3,460 100.00% 100.00% Westport 25,749 10,065 25,749 9,065 100.00% 90.06% Grand Totals 1,361,638 561,936 907,259 382,918 66.63% 68.14%

HAZUS- MH simulations generated for this plan were run for several historical storms and their associated storm tracks. The results of these simulations help to estimate potential maximum damages that would occur in the present day given the same track and characteristics of an individual event. HAZUS-MH utilizes Census 2000 data to perform its analysis of various damage estimates. HAZUS-MH simulations were run to obtain statewide impacts from each of the historic scenarios. It should be noted that HAZUS-MH only considers wind damage for its hurricane simulation and does not account for rain and flooding effects. This is important to note because much of the historic impacts of hurricanes experienced by the state have come in the form of severe rain and flooding. Thus the damage estimations and shelter/displacement estimates have the potential of being higher for each scenario when one considers the potential threat of flooding that is associated with hurricanes.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 81 ~

Figures 2-20 through 2-24 show the peak wind gust and historic tracks for each of the storm scenarios ran for this plan. HAZUS-MH performs all hazard analysis down to the census tract level, therefore it is possible that some municipalities shown in Figures [numbers] have multiple peak wind gusts for different geographic areas of the community.

Figure 2-20: Peak Wind Gust and Hurricane Track for the 1938 Hurricane

Figure 2-21: Peak Wind Gust and Hurricane Track for the 1944 Hurricane

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 82 ~

Figure 2-22: Peak Wind Gust and Hurricane Track for Hurricane Carol

Figure 2-23: Peak Wind Gust and Hurricane Track for Hurricane Donna

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 83 ~

Figure 2-24: Peak Wind Gust and Hurricane Track for Hurricane Gloria

Table 2-14 shows the estimated tonnage of debris that would be generated by wind damage for each storm scenario, based on Census 2000 structure data and other sources of data in HAZUS-MH. Table 2-15 shows storm debris for the three counties that were projected to generate the most wind damage debris for a given storm scenario. If one compares the figures showing peak wind gusts and hurricane track with these tables, one will see a correlation between the track and the counties which would be hardest hit by a potential storm scenario.

Table 2-14: Estimated Debris from Wind Damage by Material Type per Storm Scenario

Brick, Wood Reinforced Eligible and Concrete Tree Storm Other (in and Steel Debris Total (in Scenario tons) (in tons) (in tons) tons) 1938 Unnamed 1,359,888 8,667 1,201,839 2,570,394 1944 Unnamed 207,097 1,269 196,149 404,515 Carol 574,700 6,102 464,024 1,044,826 Donna 320,249 1,861 295,907 618,017 Gloria 626,349 2,076 598,782 1,227,207 Totals 3,088,283 19,975 2,756,701 5,864,959

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 84 ~

Table 2-15: Counties Estimated to Generate the Greatest Amount of Debris For Hurricane Scenarios Based on Historical Storms

3 Counties Total Amount Percentage of Total with (in tons) for 3 Total Tonnage Amount (in Percentage of Greatest Counties for for Wood, tons) for 3 Total Storm Amount of Wood, Brick, Brick and Counties for Tonnage for Scenario Debris and Other Other Tree Debris Tree Debris Hartford, 1938 New Haven, Unnamed New London 934,633 69% 744,558 62% New London, 1944 Windham, Unnamed Middlesex 179,430 87% 157,319 80% New London, Windham, Carol Middlesex 506,889 88% 368,996 80% New London, New Haven, Donna Middlesex 261,145 82% 213,978 72% Hartford, New Haven, Gloria New London 421,288 67% 376,940 63%

It is interesting to note that for certain storm scenarios, HAZUS-MH has shown that often times one county will generate the majority of all estimated damage. This most likely is a result of the potential tracks that were used in the simulations for historic storms when they made landfall in Connecticut.

Table 2-16: County with Greatest Percentage of Total Estimated Tonnage - Brick, Wood and Other

County/ Brick, Wood County/ Storm Scenario and Other Tree Debris Hartford 1938 Unnamed Hartford 32% 34% New London 1944 Unnamed New London 70% 59% New London Carol New London 56% 47% New Donna New London 56% London

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 85 ~

48% Hartford Gloria New Haven 29% 28%

The state as a whole is vulnerable to the property and economic losses resulting from hurricane strikes. Tables 2-17 through 2-20 show various estimates statewide for property damages, economic losses, and sheltering needs of state residents as a result of a similar hurricane making landfall in Connecticut, as in the past. Again, the counties with the greatest need for sheltering, hospital needs, emergency food and water requirements, and property damage (both in estimated values and total number of structures damaged) coincide with the figures showing the peak wind gusts and hurricane storm tracks. As stated previously, the damage estimates from HAZUS-MH are based on wind damage by a hurricane and do not include damages and shelter needs from damages and property losses by flooding. This is important because depending on the characteristics of a potential hurricane (i.e., does it make landfall at low or high tide, does if pick up strength at the last moments before landfall, is there a stalled weather pattern and the storm produces more rain than anticipated, etc.), state and local officials will need to be aware and anticipate potential flooding that may accompany such a storm event.

Table 2-17: Total Estimated Building Damages per Storm Scenario Statewide (number of structures) Storm Scenario None Minor Moderate Severe Destruction 1938 Unnamed 719,666 240,395 71,933 8,888 6,098 1944 Unnamed 995,184 38,999 10,431 1,409 956 Carol 937,748 69,535 28,529 6,502 4,665 Donna 969,893 58,683 14,977 2,033 1,393 Gloria 876,140 138,006 29,057 2,244 1,531

Table 2-18: Estimated Sheltering Needs For Historic Storm Simulations County with the Total Number Greatest Number Total number of of People Displace Households Storm Displaced Requiring Short and People Requiring Scenario Households Term Shelter Shelter Hartford (7,189 households, 1,877 1938 people needing temp. Unnamed 21,034 5,241 shelter) New London (2,445 households, 567 1944 people needing temp. Unnamed 2,729 630 shelter)

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 86 ~

New London (7,434 households, 1,704 people needing temp. Carol 11,372 2,587 shelter) New London (3,136 households, 729 people needing temp. Donna 3,984 933 shelter) New Haven (2,281 households, 616 people needing temp. Gloria 7,213 1,839 shelter)

Table 2-19: Total Estimated Building Related Losses Statewide per Storm Scenario19(2009 dollars) Category of Loss 1938 Unnamed 1944 Unnamed Carol Donna Gloria

Property Damage Residential $8,466,391 $1,327,335 $ 4,058,909 $ 2,051,280 $ 3,576,795 Commercial $1,181,470 $143,386 $526,828 $217,775 $401,521 Industrial $603,501 $64,036 $268,968 $90,580 $201,937 Others $285,024 $45,783 $175,094 $68,239 $100,224 Total Estimated Property Damage $10,536,386 $1,580,540 $5,029,799 $2,427,874 $4,280,477

Business Interruption Loss Residential $996,421 $148,195 $486,017 $224,726 $366,386 Commercial $385,027 $47,798 $186,997 $71,335 $157,651 Industrial $39,664 $4,197 $16,794 $5,654 $13,338 Others $116,416 $17,635 $44,982 $23,466 $54,685 Total Estimated Business Interruption Loss $1,537,528 $217,825 $734,790 $325,181 $592,060 Total Estimated Losses $12,073,914 $1,798,365 $5,764,589 $2,753,055 $4,872,537

19 Note Property damage loss estimates include the subcategories of building, content, and inventory. Business interruption loss estimates include the subcategories of income, relocation, rental and wages. The direct property damage losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. The business interruption losses are the losses associated with the inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the hurricane. Business interruption losses also include the temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the hurricane.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 87 ~

Table 2-20: Estimated Direct Economic Losses for Buildings Statewide.20(2009 dollars) Capital Total Storm Stock Income Estimated Scenario Losses Losses Losses 1938 Unnamed $10,536,386 $1,537,527 $12,073,913 1944 Unnamed $1,580,539 $217,826 $1,798,365 Carol $5,029,799 $734,791 $5,764,590 Donna $2,427,875 $325,180 $2,753,055 Gloria $4,280,478 $592,060 $4,872,538

Hurricanes are a very real and costly hazard to Connecticut. Based on historic event and storm scenario simulations generated with HAZUS-MH for this plan, the information shows that the entire state of Connecticut is vulnerable to the impacts of such an event. These impacts can be physical, emotional, and/or economic in nature. Hurricanes can disrupt the individual lives of Connecticut residents and create costly interruptions to businesses and commerce within the state. Past history has shown, and current evidence implies, that it is vital for state and local officials to plan and prepare for such events, and to implement effective mitigation procedures and post-event procedures to reduce, to the extent possible, loss of life and property.

Winter Storms

Blizzard – Includes winter storm conditions of sustained winds or frequent gusts of 35 mph or more that cause major blowing and drifting of snow, reducing visibility to less than one-quarter mile for three or more hours. Extremely cold temperatures often are associated with dangerous blizzard conditions.

Freezing Rain – Rain that freezes on objects such as trees, cars or roads, and forms a coating or glaze of ice. Temperatures at higher levels are warm enough for rain to form, but surface temperatures are below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, causing the rain to freeze on impact.

Ice Storm – Liquid rain that falls and freezes on contact with cold objects creating ice build-ups of one-quarter inch or more that can cause severe damage.

Nor’easter – A low-pressure disturbance forming along the South Atlantic coast and moving northeast along the Middle Atlantic and the New England coasts to

20 Note: Capital Stock Losses include the subcategories of building damages, contents damages, and inventory losses. Income losses include the subcategories of relocation costs, capital related losses, wage losses, and rental income losses. Loss estimates only consider costs and damages due to wind and due to the limitations of the HAZUS_MH hurricane model, do not calculate estimates for damages and losses for flooding, which can be a major impact from a hurricane.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 88 ~

the Atlantic Provinces of Canada. It usually causes strong northeast winds with rain or snow. It is also referred to as a Northeaster or Coastal Storm. Nor’easters normally occur between November 1 and April 1, however it is not highly unusual for a Nor’easter to occur during the mid to latter part of April (early spring).

Sleet – Rain drops that freeze into ice pellets before reaching the ground. Sleet usually bounces when hitting a surface and does not stick to objects. However, it can accumulate like snow and cause a hazard to motorists.

Snow - Frozen precipitation composed of ice particles in complex hexagonal patterns. Snow forms in cold clouds by the direct transfer of water vapor to ice.

Winter Storm – A heavy snow event which has a snow accumulation of more than six inches in twelve hours, or more than twelve inches in twenty-four hours.21

Connecticut, like the rest of New England, has the unique opportunity to enjoy the benefits and experiences of all the four seasons – winter, spring, summer and autumn. However, especially in the winter season, impacts from severe winter weather can become dangerous and a threat to people and property. Winter weather generally includes the occurrence of snow, sleet, freezing rain and cold temperatures. Figures 2- 25 through 2-27 show a diagram of how snow, sleet and freezing rain are created.22 Three elements are needed to create any type of winter precipitation as shown in Figures 2-25 through 2-27: Cold air – below freezing temperatures in the clouds and near the ground; Lift – something to raise the moist air to form the clouds and cause precipitation; and Moisture – needed to form clouds and precipitation.23

According to the Northeast States Emergency Consortium (NESEC), winter weather can occur from late September through late April. The most severe storms and weather conditions usually occur within the time period of December through March.24 Severe winter weather events may include ice storms, Nor’easters with coastal flooding, blizzards, and snow storms with large accumulations.

21 Source of definitions: online weather glossary from the National Weather Service Boston Office website, www.erh.noaa.gov/box/glossary2.shtml. 22 Source: Pictures are from NOAA’s severe winter weather webpage, www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer. 23 Source: NOAA’s severe weather primer located at www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/winter/ww_basics.html. 24 Source NESEC website, www.nesec.org/hazards/winter_storms.cfm.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 89 ~

Figure 2-25: Development of Snow

Figure 2-26: Development of Freezing Rain

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 90 ~

Figure 2-27: Development of Sleet

Forecasters use a number of tools to assist them in forecasting severe winter weather including: Computer models; Radar imagery (e.g., Doppler radar, Brightband, etc.); and Satellite and upper air observations.25

Figure 2-28 shows an example of the detailed imagery and information which satellites can provide to weather forecasters.

25 Source: www.weather.com/encyclopedia/winter/forecast.html.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 91 ~

Figure 2-28: A Satellite Picture of a Snow Storm that Occurred in February 2003.

Forecasters also have the ability of measuring the severity of a winter storm. The Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS), as seen in Table 2-21, similar in effect to the Fujita (earthquake) and Saffir –Simpson (hurricane) Scales in that it measures the severity of a given winter storm based on an algorithm, shown in Figure 2-29. As stated on the NOAA webpage:

“The index differs from other meteorological indices in that it uses population information in addition to meteorological measurements. Thus NESIS gives an indication of a storm's societal impacts. This scale was developed because of the impact northeast snowstorms can have on the rest of the country in terms of transportation and economic impact.

NESIS scores are a function of the area affected by the snowstorm, the amount of snow, and the number of people living in the path of the storm. The diagram below illustrates how NESIS values are calculated within a geographical information system (GIS). The aerial distribution of snowfall and population information are combined in an equation that calculates a

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 92 ~

NESIS score which varies from around one for smaller storms to over ten for extreme storms.”26

Table 2-21: NESIS Scale27

Category NESIS Value Description 1 1 – 2.499 Notable 2 2.5 – 3.99 Significant 3 4 – 5.99 Major 4 6 – 9.99 Crippling 5 10+ Extreme

Figure 2-29: Algorithm to Determine NESIS Category of Severity and Example of Results28

26 Source: NOAA webpage , www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/nesis.php. 27 Source: NOAA webpage, www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/nesis.php. In addition, two articles that provide additional information regarding the use of this scale can be accessed from this webpage. The articles are: Kocin, Paul J. and Louis W. Uccellini, A Snowfall Impact Scale Derived From Northeast Storm Snowfall Distributions; and Squires, Michael F. and Jay H. Lawrimore, Development of an Operational Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale. 28 Source: NOAA webpage, www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/nesis.php. In addition, an article written by the creators of the formula and associated scale can be found at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/docs/kocin- uccellini.pdf.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 93 ~

Approximately 33 of the most notable historic winter storms to impact the North and Northeast United States have been analyzed and categorized with respect to the NESIS. Many of these winter storms have impacted Connecticut to some extent.

History of Winter Storms in Connecticut

Being geographically located in the northeast portion of the United States, Connecticut residents can expect at least two or more severe winter weather events per winter season. These events include heavy snow storms, potential blizzards, Nor’easters, and potential ice storms (especially in the northern portion of the state). Tables 2-22 through 2-24 prove historic information on number of severe winter weather events that impacted the state and average one to six day snow averages.

Table 2-22: Connecticut Snowfall and Snow Depth Extremes Table (last updated 12/3/07)29

Location Number of Snow Years of Data Ending Amount COOP Non- Period Date (inches) Station Station Name State Missing Analyzed Number Data MIDDLETOWN 4 Greatest daily snowfall 28 064767 CT 01/28/1897 61 1890-1997 W Greatest 2-day snowfall 30 062658 FALLS VILLAGE CT 02/06/1920 59 1916-2003 (snowed both days) Greatest 3-day snowfall 34 062658 FALLS VILLAGE CT 02/07/1920 59 1916-2003 (snowed all 3 days) Greatest 4-day snowfall 32.7 065445 NORFOLK 2 SW CT 12/08/1996 65 1884-2006 (snowed all 4 days) Greatest 5-day snowfall 32.7 065445 NORFOLK 2 SW CT 12/08/1996 65 1884-2006 (snowed all 5 days) Greatest 6-day snowfall 26.4 065445 NORFOLK 2 SW CT 12/17/1970 65 1884-2006 (snowed all 6 days) Greatest 7-day snowfall 27.6 065445 NORFOLK 2 SW CT 12/18/1970 65 1884-2006 (snowed all 7 days) Greatest monthly snowfall 73.6 065445 NORFOLK 2 SW CT 03/1956 60 1886-2006 total Greatest daily Snow Depth 55 065445 NORFOLK 2 SW CT 02/05/1961 57 1942-2006

29 Source: NOAA webpage, www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ussc/USSCAppController?action=extremes&state=06.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 94 ~

Table 2-23: Connecticut Record 1-Day, 2-Day, and 3-Day Snowfall for Winter (stations sorted by County)30 County 1-Day 2-Day 3-Day Station name NYRS name Snowfall Snowfall Snowfall FAIRFIELD BRIDGEPORT WSO ARPT 16.0 16.0 16.0 53 FAIRFIELD DANBURY 24.0 24.0 24.0 63 FAIRFIELD EASTON RESERVOIR 18.0 18.0 18.0 26 FAIRFIELD NORWALK GAS PLANT 16.0 17.5 17.5 29 FAIRFIELD STAMFORD 5 N 18.0 21.5 21.5 48 HARTFORD BURLINGTON 20.0 20.0 20.0 40 HARTFORD COLLINSVILLE 1 S 17.5 25.0 25.0 36 HARTFORD BRAINARD HARTFORD 16.2 17.0 21.6 67 FLD HARTFORD WSO HARTFORD 21.9 21.9 21.9 48 AIRPORT SHUTTLE MEADOW HARTFORD 19.0 21.5 21.5 58 RESVR HARTFORD WHIGVILLE RESERVOIR 20.0 21.5 21.5 26 LITCHFIELD CREAM HILL 18.0 25.0 25.0 65 LITCHFIELD FALLS VILLAGE 24.0 30.0 34.0 68 LITCHFIELD NORFOLK 2 SW 25.7 27.9 31.7 67 LITCHFIELD SALISBURY 17.0 19.0 19.0 33 LITCHFIELD SHEPAUG DAM 20.0 22.5 23.0 53 LITCHFIELD WIGWAM RESERVOIR 16.0 17.0 17.0 46 LITCHFIELD WOODBURY 20.0 20.0 20.0 40 COCKAPONSET RANGER MIDDLESEX 19.8 20.1 20.1 48 STATION MIDDLESEX MIDDLETOWN 4 W 28.0 28.0 28.0 65 MIDDLESEX WESTBROOK 17.0 23.5 23.5 39 NEW HAVEN MOUNT CARMEL 19.4 23.6 23.8 63 NEW HAVEN WOLCOTT RESERVOIR 17.0 18.0 19.0 26 NEW COLCHESTER 2 W 24.0 24.0 24.0 78 LONDON NEW GROTON 14.4 17.2 17.2 57 LONDON NEW NEW LONDON 14.0 23.0 26.0 56 LONDON TOLLAND COVENTRY 14.0 18.0 18.0 36 MANSFIELD HOLLOW TOLLAND 23.0 24.0 24.0 53 LAKE TOLLAND STORRS 15.0 17.0 17.2 93 WINDHAM BROOKLYN 12.3 15.0 15.0 31 WINDHAM PUTNAM 26.0 27.0 27.0 27 WINDHAM WEST THOMPSON LAKE 20.0 24.0 24.0 35

30 Source: data downloaded from NOAA webpage, www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ussc/USSCAppController.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 95 ~

Table 2-24: Severe Weather Events Affecting Connecticut and its Counties From 1/1/1950 to 5/31/200931

Total Number of Events Connecticut (state) 255 Fairfield 62 Hartford 67 Litchfield 88 Middlesex 45 New Haven 58 New London 44 Tolland 67 Windham 61

The most significant blizzard to impact Connecticut was in 1888. The blizzard occurred on March 11 through 14, 1888 and was named the Great White Hurricane.32 Snowfall in Connecticut from this event was estimated at forty-five to fifty plus inches. Significantly high snow drifts were created (some areas of the northeast reported up to 50 foot snow drifts) and the storm literally shut down major cities throughout the Northeast states. It is recorded that over 400 hundred people along the east coast died as a result of the blizzard. Total damages were estimated at over 20 million dollars (1888 dollars).33

31 Note: Severe winter weather includes the following categories: snow, heavy snow, blizzard, ice storm, freezing rain/glaze, winter storm and winter weather. State total will be less than county totals combined due to the fact that a single weather event counted once for the state may actually affected one or more individual counties. This event is counted by each individual county affected. 32 Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Blizzrd_of_1888, www.erh.noaa.gov/aly/Past/WINTER.htm, www.nesec.org/hazards/winter_storms.cfm. 33 Source: Connecticut Historical Society, Connecticut History Online webpage, www.cthistoryonline.org/cdm- cho/cho/journeys/j_infra_disast_1888.html. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Blizzard_of_1888.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 96 ~

Figure 2-30: Asylum Street in Hartford, Connecticut, after the Blizzard of 188834

Figure 2-31: Bank Street in Waterbury, Connecticut, after the Blizzard of 1888.35

34 Source: Connecticut Historical Society, Connecticut History Online webpage, www.cthistoryonline.org/cdm- cho/cho/journeys/j_infra_disast_1888.html. Photo CD number 2824 image 0085.pcd. This photograph, taken by John Orgill, looks east from Trumbull Street. Graphics Collection. 35 Source: Connecticut Historical Society, Connecticut History Online webpage, www.cthistoryonline.org/cdm- cho/cho/journeys/j_infra_disast_1888.html. Photo CD number 2824 image 0098.pcd . This view of Bank Street in Waterbury, Connecticut, was taken after the Blizzard by Adt & Brothers (Adt, Alfred A.;Adt, Leo F.;Adt & Brother.). Graphics Collection.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 97 ~

Since the 1888 blizzard, there have been numerous major winter storms which have impacted Connecticut to some degree. Some of these storms have claimed lives and produced damages in the millions of dollars. Some of the most notable winter storms in recent history that impacted Connecticut include: Ice Storm Felix - Connecticut's most severe ice storm occurred on December 18, 1973 and resulted in two deaths and caused widespread power outages, lasting several days. Blizzard of 1978 – Occurred on February 5, 1978, record snowfall amounts were recorded in several areas of Connecticut. The State of Connecticut was essentially shut down for three days when Governor Grasso ordered all roads closed except for emergency travel.36 Nor’easter of 1992 – Occurred on December 10-13, 1992. Three people were killed as a result of the storm and twenty-six homes were destroyed. Tides in Long Island Sound were stacked up by the continued strong east/northeast winds reaching 55 mph. This "stacking" of water resulted in the third highest tide (10.16 Feet NGVD as measured at Bridgeport, CT) ever recorded in Long Island Sound and caused over 4.3 million dollars (1992) in damages to over six thousand homes. Inland areas received up to four feet of snow in northeastern Connecticut. The heavy wet snow snapped tree limbs and power lines cutting power to 50,000 homes. Winter Storm Ginger - Occurred on January 8-9, 1996 with snowfall totals up to twenty-seven inches recorded in Connecticut. The storm forced the State to shut down for twenty-four hours, with all roads shut except for emergency travel. December 5-7, 2003 - Heavy snowfall amounts were recorded in parts of Connecticut including as much as twenty inches in Windham County, nineteen inches in Hartford County, and eighteen inches in Fairfield, New London, and Tolland Counties. This event received a Presidential Emergency Declaration. January 22-23, 2005 Blizzard - Connecticut received a Presidential Emergency Declaration for this storm event. NOAA analyzed this storm and ranked it a Category 4 – Crippling event on its Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale. February 11-12, 2006 Nor’easter – Connecticut received record snowfall in parts of the state from this storm (second largest snowfall recorded since 1906)37, and received a Presidential Emergency Declaration. This storm is also known as the North American Blizzard of 2006. Governor M. Jodi Rell ordered state highways shut down to help facilitate efficient snow removal by State Department of Transportation snow removal crews. Figure 2-32 shows the recorded snowfall amounts and the NESIS rating for this storm.

36 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeastern_United_States_blizzard_of_1978. 37 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_blizzard_of_2006.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 98 ~

Figure 2-32: NESIS Analysis Results and Rating of the February 12-13, 2006 Winter Storm.

Potential Future Risk of Major Winter Storms

At the present time, Connecticut residents can expect to experience at least two or more major snow storms per winter season. Due to the nature of the winter season in New England, these winter weather events are automatically expected by New Englanders. However, due to climate change effects which will increase by mid to late century, the number of major snow storms and snow covered days may decrease. In general, recent climate change studies have projected a shorter winter season for Connecticut (as much as 2 weeks), and less snow- covered days with a decreased overall snowpack. In addition, climate models have indicated that fewer but more intense precipitation events that will occur during the winter period with more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow.38

38 Sources: U.S. Global Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, 2009; Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment Group, Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast, 2007; and U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate, 2008.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 99 ~

This change in winter precipitation could result in less frequent but more intense snow storms with heavier (denser) snow. NOAA’s Snowfall/Meltwater Table39 shows that as temperatures increase the amount and weight of snowfall decreases. For example, 1 inch of meltwater at 34o-28o F is generally equal to ten inches of snow. This same amount of meltwater is generally equal to forty inches of snow at 9o – 0o F.

In addition, the increasing change in type of winter precipitation may also decrease major snow storms experienced, but increase potential ice storms occurring. This is an important issue that requires further study since a change in snow density or changeover to more freezing rain/ice could have a large impact on managing future winter storms, the impact on such storms on the residents of Connecticut (including travel and utility services).

Future Vulnerability To Major Winter Storms

As Connecticut’s population increases and more people move out of highly urban areas into more suburban and rural areas of the state, Connecticut and its residents will become more vulnerable to the effects of major winter storms due to the impacts these events have on utility services and the state’s transportation infrastructure. People living in the more rural areas of the state are vulnerable to potential power losses and property damages which major winter storms can generate. In addition, Connecticut’s elderly population is also very vulnerable to the impacts created by winter storms due to resource needs (heat, power loss, safe access to food stores, etc.).

Furthermore it is anticipated that severe transportation gridlock during winter storms will continue to occur at times in the future. Severe traffic congestion can occur from a winter storm in two ways: 1. Rapid onset of heavy snow over urban areas; and 2. Icing of roadways as a result of lighter snow events that lead to freezing of water on roadways or the occurrence of freezing rain or ice storms that begin prior to rush hour traffic (morning and/or evening).

The traffic congestion and safe travel of people to and from work can be mitigated by the use of staggered timed releases from work, pre-storm closing of schools, and later state times for companies. Almost all employers and school districts already implement such practices. However the costs associated with transportation disruptions and the loss of work and school time will continue to increase.

39 Source: NOAA website, www.erh.noaa.gov/box/tables/snowfall-meltwater.html. The amounts listed in the table are general estimates and are noted to vary greatly between snowstorms, given the specific characteristics per storm event.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 100 ~

Flooding

Flood – Any high flow, overflow, or inundation by water which causes or threatens damage.40

Flooding is the most frequently occurring natural hazard that impacts Connecticut. The occurrence of other natural hazards can result in flooding within the state including hurricanes, coastal storms, severe rains, occurrence of ice jams and dam failures. There are several different types of flooding including: Riverine Flooding – (also considered Overbank Flooding), occurs when water channels receive more rain or snowmelt from their watershed than normal, or the channel becomes blocked by an ice jam or debris. Excess water overloads the channel and flows out into the channel’s floodplain area.41 Coastal Flooding – can occur as a result of coastal storms which produce storm surges, destructive waters, and erosion of coastal areas. 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 (especially in hilly areas) within a very short period of time. Flash floods can occur with very little warning.42 Shallow Flooding – occur in flat areas where a lack of a water channel results in water which cannot drain away from an area easily.43There are three types of shallow flooding: o Sheet Flow – water spreads out over a large area at a uniform depth; o Ponding – runoff collects in depressions and cannot drain out; and o Urban Flooding – when a drainage system, consisting of manmade features, is overloaded by a larger amount of water than the system was designed to accommodate.

Flood events can cause extensive damage to property and risk of injury and loss of life. FEMA categorizes the potential damage which flooding can cause into five categories:44 1. Hydrodynamic forces - damage created by moving waters. There are three ways in which hydrodynamic forces can damage a structure’s walls: by frontal impact to the walls (water striking the walls of a structure); drag effect (water running along side of a structure’s walls); and, eddies or negative pressure (water passing the downstream side of a structure). 2. Debris Impact - includes damage by direct impact of any object that flood waters can pick up and move to another location. 3. Hydrostatic Forces – the pressure, both downward and sideways which standing water exerts on a structure’s floor and walls. Hydrostatic pressure can also cause damage to structures due to buoyancy and flotation which can occur in flood waters.

40 Source: NOAA’s NWS glossary, http://www.weather.gov/glossary/index.php?letter=f. 41 Source: FEMA publication FEMA-480, Floodplain Management Requirements: A Study Guide and Desk Reference for Local Officials, Chapter 1. FEMA considered rivers, creeks, stream, or ditches as water channels. 42 Source FEMA publication FEMA-480 and NOAA’s severe weather primer website: http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/flood/fld_basics.html. 43 Source: FEMA publication FEMA-480. 44 Source: FEMA publication FEMA-480.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 101 ~

4. Soaking – the warping, swelling and changes in a material’s form and structure resulting from being submerged in flood waters. 5. Sediments and Contaminants – the sand, sediments, chemicals, and biological contaminants (such as untreated sewage) that flood waters can move and leave behind after the flood waters subside.

Though it is nearly impossible to project when and where specifically a flood will occur, especially over a long period of time, forecasters do use a number of tools to help forecast the development of potential flood conditions and relative length of time a flood will last. These tools include:45 Satellite Imagery – can indicate the presence of larger and smaller-scale systems associated with heavy rainfall; Lightning Detection Systems – can indicate the presence of deep moisture convection; Radar – can show the location of the intense rainfall cores associated with deep moisture convection, estimate the duration of rainfall, and track the evolution of convective systems over time; and Rain Gauges – can provide the most accurate measurement of rainfall at a given geographic point and can assist with determining the accuracy of radar estimates for a specific location.

Flooding is a natural part of the overall hydrologic cycle. However, due to past and future increased development and populations residing along and near water bodies, flooding continues to be the most frequent and costly natural hazard for Connecticut. FEMA estimates that the average per year spent on flooding and flood related damage in Connecticut is eighty-five to one hundred fifty-six million dollars.46 The history of flooding in Connecticut, as discussed in the next section, shows that various areas of the state may experience different types of flooding (riverine, coastal, shallow, flash flooding), but no area of the state is immune to the impacts of this natural hazard.

History of Flooding In Connecticut

Flooding is the most prevalent and frequent natural hazard that impacts the state. Though there is no distinct flood season in Connecticut and major river flooding can occur in any month of the year, NOAA has studied a number of past floods from the 1990’s to 200047 and has noted three times of the year of particular importance with regard for the potential of flood activity to occur: Late winter/spring melt; Late summer/early fall; and Early winter.

According to FEMA’s records, Connecticut has had eleven major disaster declarations that resulted in severe flooding since 1954. In addition, Connecticut has been impacted by at least eight of the most significant flood events that

45 Source: excerpted from NOAA’s Severe Weather Primer webpage: http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/flood/fld_detecting.html. 46 Source: FEMA website: Are You Ready? www.fema.gov/areyouready/flood.shtm. 47 Source: NOAA, A river and Flash Flood Climatology of Southern New England: Results From 1994-2000, website: http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/flood%20climatology.htm.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 102 ~

occurred between 1978 to June 2009.48 Five of the most notable flood disaster to affect Connecticut in the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first centuries are: The Flood of 1936; The Flood of 1955 (discussed in the Hurricane Hazard Section of this chapter) The Flood of 1982; The Flood of October 2005; and The Flood of April 2007.

The Flood of 1936

The "Great Connecticut River Flood" of March 1936 was the result of a combination of melting snow and moderately heavy rains over a 13-day period. Rainfall amounts of six to eight inches occurred in Connecticut. Combined with melting snow a total of ten to thirty inches of water flowed into rivers across the entire Northeast from Ohio to Maine and south to Virginia.

Three major rivers were affected in Connecticut: the Connecticut River; the Housatonic River; and the Thames River. Each of these rivers reached record flood heights. The Connecticut River rose 8.6 feet higher than had been historically observed in the recorded 300-year recorded history of the river. According to CT DOT maps, the flood along the Connecticut River was estimated to be a 500-year flood.49

The floodwaters left an estimated 14,000 people homeless and several people died as a result of this event. Epidemic disease from contaminated flood waters also threatened the population of Connecticut. In Connecticut, the flood resulted in an estimated twenty million dollars (1936 dollars) in property damage. Figures 2-33 and 2-34 show examples of the damage resulting from this flood event.

48 Source: FEMA website, www.fema.gov. 49 Source: Section 6, Appendix E of CT DOT’s May 2002 Drainage Manual. Flood maps and the estimated flood level were created for the : November 1927 Flood; March 1936 Flood; September 1938 Flood; January 1949 Flood; August 1955 Flood; October 1955 Flood; January 1978 Flood; January 1979 Flood; June 1982 Flood; June 1984 Flood; and June 1992 Flood. A copy of this appendix can be found in Appendix [number] of this Plan.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 103 ~

Figure 2-33: Flood of 1936, Bushnell Park and State Capital Building50

Figure 2-34: Streets of Hartford After the 1936 Flood51

50 Source: www.cthistoryonline.org. 51 Source: www.cthistoryonline.org.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 104 ~

The Flood of 1982

From June 4 - 7, 1982 heavy rains totaling three to sixteen inches fell over most of Connecticut. The hardest hit area was south-central Connecticut, where flood frequencies between 200 and 500 year plus intervals were recorded.52 Appendix E contains a set of flood maps for several flood events including the 1982 flood. The maps show the hardest hit areas of the state and the estimated flood interval for particular sections of the state for each flood event. The maps were created by CT DOT for its 2002 Drainage Manual.

The precipitation from this event occurred after a prior week of prolonged rainfall that had saturated the ground. Dam failures in the hardest hit area around the mouth of the Connecticut River occurred in the towns of Chester, Haddam, Deep River, and Essex. A total of 30 dams failed or were partially breached during the storm. Figure 2-35 show a map of the rainfall for June 4-7, 1982.

Figure 2-35: 6/4-7/82 Rainfall

Damages from the 1982 storm were estimated at more than $276 million dollars (1982 dollars). Eleven deaths were recorded as a result of this event. Over 15,000 homes were damaged (mostly by minor flooding) with 1,500 homes considered moderately damaged, and thirty-seven

52 Sources: Information for this narrative section was excerpted from Realizing the Risk: A History of the June 1982 Floods in Connecticut, prepared for the CT DEP by L. R. Johnston Associates, 1983. In addition, NOAA was the source for the rainfall map for the 1982 flood, website www.erh.noaa.gov/nerfc/historical/june82.htm. June 1982 Flood map from CTDOT 2002 Drainage Manual.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 105 ~

homes destroyed by the flood. In addition, over 400 commercial and industrial establishments were damaged. The flood also resulted in damages to state and local roads, bridges, dams, personal property, and utility infrastructure.

As a result of the storm, an automated flood warning system in the State of Connecticut was developed, installed, and operational by 1986. More details regarding the ALERT system are located in Chapter 3.

The Flood of October 2005

On October 8-9 and 13-15, 2005, a total of nine to sixteen inches of rainfall resulted in major flooding in several basins in Hartford and Tolland Counties.53 Flooding was minor during the October 7-9 event due to very dry soil and river conditions prior to the storm. This first rain event resulted in saturated soils and river basins measuring one half to three- quarters bank full conditions. This situation allowed for increased flood conditions to occur during the rains of October 13-15. Table 2-25 shows the peak flow and flood recurrence interval information for the affected river basins as calculated by USGS.

Table 2-25: U.S. Geological Survey Connecticut Water Science Center, Peak Flows, Peak River Stages, and Recurrence Intervals for Floods of October 9-25, 2005 (updated 10/25/2005) Station Station name Date of Time Peak Peak Recurre number Peak of Flow Stag nce Peak (cubic e Interval (hour feet (feet for s) per ) Storm secon Event d) Southeastern Coastal 10/15/20 1118300 PENDLETON HILL BROOK NEAR CLARKS FALLS, CT. 05 5:45 290 6.58 20 YR 10/25/20 1119040 POQUONOCK RIVER NEAR GROTON, CT. 05 13:25 Tidal 4.79 Thames River Basin 1119500 WILLIMANTIC RIVER NEAR COVENTRY, CT 10/15/20 12:45 12,300 14.6 100 YR 05 1 1121000 MOUNT HOPE RIVER NEAR WARRENVILLE, CT. 10/15/20 5:15 5,120 10.1 > 100 05 5 YR 10/18/20 1122000 NATCHAUG RIVER AT WILLIMANTIC, CT. 05 16:15 2,820 8.08 1122500 SHETUCKET RIVER NEAR WILLIMANTIC, CT. 10/15/20 21:45 13,100 13.5 05 5 10/15/20 1123000 LITTLE RIVER NEAR HANOVER, CT. 05 12:30 1,080 5.53 5 YR 10/15/20 10.8 1124000 QUINEBAUG RIVER AT QUINEBAUG, CT. 05 8:15 7,360 8 10/15/20 1125500 QUINEBAUG RIVER AT PUTNAM, CT 05 16:15 5,070 9.56 11270 10/16/2 00 QUINEBAUG RIVER AT JEWETT CITY, CT. 005 1:00 14,100 17.84 11275 YANTIC RIVER AT YANTIC, CT. 10/15/2 7:00 2,920 8.72 5 YR

53 Sources: Information for this event was derived from USGS website: http://ct.water.usgs.gov/data/octflood/floodindex.html, FEMA website http://www.fema.gov, and a draft report from the CT DEP entitled Heavy Rains and Flooding of Sub-Regional Drainage Basins: October 7-15, 2005.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 106 ~

00 005

Connecticut River Basin 11720 CONNECTICUT R AT INTERSTATE 391 BRIDGE 10/15/2 10 AT HOLYOKE, MA 005 11840 10/10/2 00 CONNECTICUT RIVER AT THOMPSONVILLE, CT. 005 0:15 114,000 17.18 2 TO 5 YR 11841 10/15/2 00 STONY BROOK NEAR WEST SUFFIELD, CT. 005 4:00 1,700 5.82 40 YR 11844 BROAD BROOK AT BROAD BROOK, CT. 10/15/2 not available >100 YR 90 005 11860 WEST BRANCH FARMINGTON RIVER AT 10/15/2 00 RIVERTON, CT 005 0:00 746 5.31 11865 STILL RIVER AT ROBERTSVILLE, CT. 10/15/2 3:00 4,120 7.61 00 005 11880 BURLINGTON BROOK NEAR BURLINGTON, CT. 10/14/2 22:00 1,810 > 100 YR 00 005 9.31 11880 10/15/2 90 FARMINGTON RIVER AT UNIONVILLE, CT. 005 2:00 16,200 14.63 11899 10/15/2 95 FARMINGTON RIVER AT TARIFFVILLE, CT. 005 9:15 10,400 8.62 11900 10/10/2 70 CONNECTICUT RIVER AT HARTFORD, CT. 005 16:00 98,200 20.9 2 TO 5 YR 11925 10/15/2 00 HOCKANUM RIVER NEAR EAST HARTFORD, CT. 005 6:15 3,140 12.03 25 YR 11928 10/15/2 83 COGINCHAUG RIVER AT MIDDLEFIELD, CT 005 14:30 1,640 11.42 10 YR 11930 10/17/2 00 CONNECTICUT RIVER AT MIDDLETOWN, CT. 005 13:45 100,000 12.26 2 TO 5 YR 11935 10/15/2 00 SALMON RIVER NEAR EAST HAMPTON, CT. 005 4:00 5,170 8.09 5 to10 YR 11945 EAST BRANCH EIGHTMILE RIVER NEAR NORTH 10/15/2 00 LYME, CT. 005 12:45 639 4.98 2 YR 11947 10/12/2 96 CONNECTICUT RIVER AT OLD LYME, CT 005 18:05 Tidal 4.79 11951 10/15/2 00 INDIAN RIVER NEAR CLINTON, CT. 005 3:15 329 4.57 5 YR Quinnipiac River Basin 11954 10/15/2 90 QUINNIPIAC RIVER AT SOUTHINGTON, CT. 005 9:15 837 9.56 20 YR 11965 10/15/2 00 QUINNIPIAC RIVER AT WALLINGFORD, CT. 005 5:45 3,940 11.24 10 YR Housatonic River Basin 11990 10/10/2 00 HOUSATONIC RIVER AT FALLS VILLAGE, CT. 005 16:45 10,300* 10.57 10 YR 11990 10/9/20 50 SALMON CREEK AT LIME ROCK, CT. 05 4:30 2,020* 6.31 20 YR 12000 10/15/2 00 TENMILE RIVER NEAR GAYLORDSVILLE, CT 005 5:15 7,380 9.8 10 to 20 YR 12005 HOUSATONIC RIVER AT GAYLORDSVILLE, CT. 10/15/2 2:15 20,700 12.24 10 YR 00 005 12014 STILL RIVER AT ROUTE 7 AT BROOKFIELD 10/15/2 87 CENTER, CT. 005 8:30 1,820 14.64 12025 SHEPAUG RIVER AT PETERS DAM AT 10/15/2 01 WOODVILLE, CT 005 2:45 not available 6.25 12036 NONEWAUG RIVER AT MINORTOWN, CT. 10/14/2 23:45 3,250 6.24 10 YR 00 005 12038 WEEKEEPEEMEE RIVER AT HOTCHKISSVILLE, 10/15/2 05 CT 005 0:00 about 3,300 8.55 10 YR 12040 10/15/2 00 POMPERAUG RIVER AT SOUTHBURY, CT. 005 5:45 4,490 10.57 5 YR 12055 10/15/2 00 HOUSATONIC RIVER AT STEVENSON, CT. 005 8:15 40,900 18.09 5 YR 12069 10/17/2 00 NAUGATUCK RIVER AT THOMASTON, CT. 005 14:15 2,120 5.07 12085 10/15/2 00 NAUGATUCK RIVER AT BEACON FALLS, CT. 005 0:30 9,360 10.42

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 107 ~

Southwestern River Basin 12089 10/15/2 50 SASCO BROOK NEAR SOUTHPORT, CT. 005 0:30 252 3.56 2 YR 12089 10/14/2 90 SAUGATUCK RIVER NEAR REDDING, CT. 005 22:30 487 3.95 < 2 YR 12097 10/14/2 61 FIVEMILE RIVER NEAR NEW CANAAN, CT. 005 23:30 55 3.37 12099 RIPPOWAM RIVER AT STAMFORD, CT. 10/14/2 22:45 910 4.08 01 005

Recurrence intervals not determined for stations with flood control regulation, tidally affected, or with record lengths less than 10 years. A 5-year flood has a one in five chance of occuring in any one year; a 100-year flood has a one in one hundred chance of occuring in any one year.

A total of 14 dams completely or partially failed. Another 30 dams were damaged throughout Connecticut. Several bridges failed and several dozen roads were washed out or undermined. The total damages to state, municipal and non-profit properties was estimated at $6.1 million, damages to businesses were estimated at $6.9 million, and damages to private residences were estimated at $29.6 million. Figures 2-36 and 2- 37 show examples of the damages sustained by the combined flood events.

Figure 2-36: Flooding in Enfield Connecticut

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 108 ~

Figure 2-37: Road Damage as a Result of the 2005 Flood, Miller Road, South Windsor Connecticut

A Presidentially Declared Disaster was issued for the events of October 14-15, 2005. FEMA designated the counties of Litchfield, New London, Tolland, and Windham as being affected by the floods. FEMA amended the disaster declaration to Hartford County on February 9, 2006. All Counties of the state were eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The Floods of April 2007 (also known as the 2007 April Nor’easter)

The last presidentially declared disaster to affect Connecticut occurred in April 2007. A tropical low-pressure system formed in the Atlantic Ocean off the Carolinas on Sunday, April 15, 2007 and moved slowly northward towards New England. In anticipation of this developing storm, the National Weather Service (NWS) had issued flood watches on Saturday, April 14, for all of Connecticut, and coastal flood warnings for coastal western Connecticut on April 15 and 16. High wind warnings were also posted for southeastern coastal Connecticut on April 15.

Rain began on April 15, and intensified throughout the day and throughout April 16. Portions of Connecticut received up to eight inches of rain within a twenty-four hour period. Highest tides occurred between 8:30 and 10:30 p.m. on Sunday, April 15, resulting in some moderate coastal flooding along the western reaches of the Connecticut shoreline. Winds gusts reached 60 miles per hour and downed numerous trees and power lines. In the northwestern part of the state, heavy frozen precipitation accumulated on roads during the day on Sunday before changing completely over to rain.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 109 ~

By early morning April 16, floodwaters, as well as downed trees and powerlines, had caused numerous state highway and local road closures. Over 44,000 customers lost electricity Monday, April 16th. Figures 2-38 and 2-39 show snapshots of the precipitation which occurred on April 15 and 16.54

Figure 2-38: 1-Day Observed Precipitation for Connecticut on 4/15/07

Figure 2-39: 1-Day Observed Precipitation for Connecticut on 4/16/07

54 Source: USGS publication Flood of April 2007 and Flood –Frequency Estimates At Streamflow-Gaging Stations in Western Connecticut; Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5108.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 110 ~

Most rivers were receding slowly by April 17th. The only river still rising by April 17th was the Connecticut River at Hartford and Middletown. The Connecticut River at Hartford crested at 21.9 feet (5.9 feet above flood stage) at 2 a.m. Wednesday morning, flooding fields and some low lying roads. The Connecticut River at Middletown crested at 15.9 feet (7.9 feet above flood stage – major flooding) at 2 p.m. Wednesday afternoon. Flooding continued on the Connecticut River at Middletown through Friday, April 27, 2007. The storm resulted in major river flooding in central and western Connecticut. Some rivers recorded return frequencies of 20 – 50 years, according to USGS. Table 2-26 shows a summary of peak stages, discharges, and recurrence intervals that were calculated by USGS.55

55 Source: USGS publication Flood of April 2007 and Flood –Frequency Estimates At Streamflow-Gaging Stations in Western Connecticut; Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5108. Tables 3 and 6 were combined for the information presented in this Plan.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 111 ~

Table 2-26: Summary of Peak Stages and Peak Discharges During the April 2007 Flood and Recurrence Intervals of the April 2007 Flood

USGS Station FIS FIS Drain Flood of April 15–16, 2007 Recurrence station name communi report age interval of numbe ty date area April 2007 r (mi2) (yrs) Peak Peak Peak Date Based Bas stage discha disch on ed , rge arge frequen on local (ft3/s) (ft3/s/ cy FIS datu mi2) analyse m (ft) s using data water year 2007 Farmington River Basin 118600 West Branch Barkhams 8/17/19 131 8.13 3,040 23 4/24/20 25 50 0 Farmington ted 81 07 River at Riverton 118650 Still River at Winchest 1/1/197 85 9.7 8,130 96 4/16/20 50 ~100 0 Robertsville er 8 07 South-Central Coast 119549 Quinnipiac Hartford 9/26/20 17.4 10.47 949 55 4/16/20 10 10 0 River at 08 07 Southington 119650 Quinnipiac Wallingfor 3/18/19 115 11.51 4,220 37 4/16/20 10 10 0 River at d 99 07 Wallingford 119662 Mill River Hamden 12/1/19 24.5 5.2 1,940 79 4/15/20 10 > 0 near Hamden 78 07 100 Housatonic River Basin 119900 Housatonic Canaan 9/2/198 634 10.93 10,900 17 4/18/20 10 10 0 River at Falls 8 07 Village 119905 Salmon Salisbury 1/5/198 29.4 5.18 1,400 48 4/16/20 10–25 10 0 Creek at 9 07 Lime Rock 120050 Housatonic Sherman 6/18/19 996 12.97 23,400 23 4/16/20 10–25 10 0 River at 87 07 Gaylordsville Still River at Brookfield 12/1/19 62.3 18.69 3,580 57 4/16/20 10–25 ~10 Route 7 at 78 07 and Brookfield 50 Center4 120250 Shepaug Litchfield 1/2/199 38.1 6.51 4,160 109 4/16/20 -- -- 1 River at 2 07 Peters Dam at Woodville 120300 Shepaug Roxbury 12/3/19 132 10.37 8,000 61 4/16/20 10 -- 0 River near 87 07 Roxbury 120350 Pootatuck Newtown 4/16/20 15.5 7.6 e3,000 194 4/16/20 -- >100 55 River at 03 07 Berkshire

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 112 ~

120351 Pootatuck Newtown 4/16/20 24.8 10.05 4,090 165 4/16/20 50 100 0 River at 03 07 Sandy Hook 120360 Nonewaug Woodbury 3/1/197 17.7 6.83 4,320 244 4/16/20 10~25 ~10 0 River at 7 07 and Minortown 50 120380 Weekeepeem Woodbury 3/1/197 26.8 9.19 3,670 137 4/16/20 10 ~10 5 ee River at 7 07 and Hotchkissville 50 120400 Pomperaug Southbury 9/1/197 75.1 13.85 7,350 98 4/16/20 10–25 ~10 0 River at 9 07 and Southbury 50 120550 Housatonic Oxford 3/18/19 1,544 19.96 50,300 33 4/16/20 10 ~10 0 River at 91 07 and Stevenson 50 120690 Naugatuck Thomasto 1/5/198 99.8 5.91 3,210 32 4/20/20 5 10 0 River at n 2 07 Thomaston 120850 Naugatuck Beacon 9/1/197 260 12.1 13,300 51 4/16/20 25 ~10 0 River at Falls 8 07 and Beacon Falls 50 Southwest Coast Basin 120887 Rooster River Fairfield 10/6/19 10.6 10.08 1,730 163 4/15/20 10–25 ~10 3 at Fairfield 98 07 and 50 120892 Mill River Fairfield 10/6/19 28.6 6.99 3,010 105 4/16/20 25 10 5 near Fairfield 98 07 120895 Sasco Brook Fairfield 10/6/19 7.38 6.28 1,300 176 4/15/20 25 10 0 near 98 07 Southport5 120899 Saugatuck Redding 12/15/1 21 6.01 2,280 109 4/16/20 25 ~10 0 River near 981 07 and Redding6 50 120954 Ridgefield Ridgefield 8/23/19 3.39 5.21 373 110 4/16/20 -- 125 93 Brook at 99 07 Shields Lane near Ridgefield 120970 Norwalk Wilton 2/18/19 30 8.37 3,490 116 4/16/20 50 ~10 0 River at 98 07 and South Wilton 50 7 120976 Fivemile New 6/4/199 1 -- e200 -- 4/16/20 -- 150 1 River near Canaan 0 07 New Canaan 120990 Rippowam Stamford 11/17/1 34 7.85 2,490 73 4/16/20 25 10 1 River at 993 07 Stamford USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NWS, National Weather Service; mi2, square miles; ft, feet; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; ft3/s/mi2, cubic feet per second per roads and or damage man-made features and generally applies to a localized point. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; FIS, Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Study; NGVD29; National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; mi2, square miles; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; yr, years; e, estimated; --, not determined; ~, approximately; >, greater than.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 113 ~

Governor M. Jodi Rell directed the implementation of the State Emergency Operations Plan and activated the State Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in Hartford on April 15, 2007. The State EOC was staffed by the Governor’s Office, DEMHS, DPS, DOT, DEP, the Connecticut National Guard, the American Red Cross, and Connecticut Light and Power through 12:00 AM on Tuesday, April 17, 2007. Thereafter, the DEMHS continued to monitor flooding from the EOC and receive local situation reports through Friday, April 20, 2007.

State officials conducted emergency operations associated with maintaining state roadways, and also supported local response operations by coordinating the delivery of services and equipment to local officials including bridge and dam inspectors, sandbags, pumps, barriers, and evacuation vehicles and drivers. DOT established a temporary bus service to transport passengers unable to use the Danbury Branch line of the Amtrak rail service, which was lost for a day due to track washouts in three locations. On April 16, the Governor conducted a statewide conference call with municipal officials to discuss storm impacts, continuing threats and other response issues.

Local officials opened local emergency operations centers, conducted evacuations and rescues, opened emergency shelters, monitored and inspected local dams and bridges, barricaded unsafe roads, detoured traffic, pumped basements, and towed vehicles swamped by flood waters.

Bridges were washed out in Torrington and Weston, causing a potential increase in response times for emergency service vehicles covering sections of those municipalities. In New Haven and Bridgeport, many parks sustained damage; use of these facilities were limited until repairs are performed. Erosion along road shoulders in many municipalities required immediate repairs to prevent further erosion and loss of paved surfaces. Many municipalities had to defer capital projects and schedule these repairs of flood damage. Figures 2-40 and 2-41 show a couple of examples of the damages that resulted as a consequence of the flood.

Figure 2-40: Erosion Along the Pomperaug River in Woodbury

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 114 ~

Figure 2-41: Nod Road Adjacent to the Farmington River in Avon

The joint Federal/State Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA) identified $11,978,231 in FEMA-eligible public sector costs of damages resulting from this event. This exceeded FEMA’s statewide eligibility indicator of $4,154,789 for Public Assistance in Connecticut. On May 11, 2007 a Presidential Disaster Declaration was declared for Connecticut. Figure 2- 42 shows the counties affected and type of Federal Assistance that was available for each county.

Figure 2-42: April 2007 Flood, Map of Affected Counties

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 115 ~

Damages to state facilities included: National Guard reported $40,500 in damage to Air National Guard facilities in Orange; CT DEP reported $327,591 to CT DEP facilities statewide; Department of Public Safety reported $313,894 in damages to a firing range in Simsbury; DPW reported $199,298 in storm-related damages to other buildings statewide; and DOT reported $100,000 in damages to non-FEMA eligible bridges in Bristol and Wallingford (both in New Haven County). In addition, the DOT reported $7,500 in costs related to washouts along the Danbury Branch Line of the Amtrak rail.

Over 2,500 residential units statewide were impacted to a degree by flooding. It is estimated that over 200 people were forced to evacuate their residences during these floods. Residential flooding occurred as a result of: Rivers overflowing their banks; storm drainage systems that were overwhelmed or had become blocked by debris; Surface runoff into basements; and groundwater that entered basements and could not be pumped out quickly by sump pumps, either due to power failures experienced by over 44,000 customers or because of the overwhelming volume of rain.

In addition, some communities and neighborhoods experienced sanitary sewer backups.

A joint Federal/State Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA) identified 2,406 primarily owner-occupied, single family residential units that were damaged by flooding. Overall residential damages were estimated at $23,764,550 in the municipalities surveyed by damage assessment teams. Since damage assessment team efforts were concentrated on the most severely impacted municipalities, it is estimated that there were more homes that were affected in other municipalities not surveyed during the PDA. Table 2-27 is a compilation of residential damages by county as determined by FEMA:

Table 2-27: Residential Damages COUNTY Municipalities Destroyed Major Minor Affected Total In Counties Damage Damage Residential Surveyed by Units PDA Impacted Fairfield 13 of 23 0 48 170 1,415 1,633 Hartford 3 of 29 0 7 41 215 263 Litchfield 3 of 26 0 2 10 41 53 Middlesex 3 of 15 0 3 7 1 11 New Haven 9 of 27 0 32 46 368 446 TOTALS 31 of 120 0 92 274 2,040 2,406

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 116 ~

Thirty-nine percent of the residences sustaining major damage and twenty percent of residences that had minor damage were low-income households.56

Only 19 of the 92 residential units with major damage (19%) and 54 of 274 units with minor damage (25%) had flood insurance. In situations where groundwater caused basement flooding, flood insurance did not cover these losses.

Primary concerns related to residential units at the time of the disaster were: Unreported below-grade living spaces, particularly below-grade apartment units in urban areas that may have been flooded and rendered uninhabitable; Furnaces and electrical systems damaged by flooded basements that presented health and safety hazards; Removal of all materials that remained wet for 48 hours or more, including carpeting and sheetrock, particularly in finished basements; Residential wells requiring flushing and disinfecting due to flood waters that bridged septic fields and wellheads; and Extensive soil erosion problems and driveway washouts associated with residential structures.

The joint Federal/State preliminary damage assessment (PDA) identified 179 businesses damaged by flooding, including 19 with major damage and 160 with minor damage, in accordance with criteria used by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA estimated physical damage to businesses at $7,451,000. As with residential units, it is estimated that more businesses were affected in other municipalities were not surveyed during the PDA, since damage assessment team efforts were concentrated on the most severely impacted municipalities.

Table 2-28 shows a breakdown of SBA estimates of business damage by county:

Table 2-28: Business Damages COUNTY # Businesses Estimated Cost of # Businesses With Estimated Cost of With Damage Minor Damage Damage Major Damage Fairfield 5 $958,000 98 $1,953,000 Hartford 4 $479,000 17 $190,000 Litchfield 0 $0 9 $168,000 Middlesex 7 598,000 13 $265,000 New Haven 2 $55,0002 22 $680,000 New London 1 $2,100,000 1 $5,000 TOTALS 19 4,190,000 160 3,261,000

56 Source: Activity assessment, preliminary damage and costs estimates including information on household types affected were received from CT DEMHS.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 117 ~

Federal Disaster Aid funding issued by FEMA to Connecticut for this disaster totaled over $6.4 million dollars and was broken down as follows (Table 2-29):

Table 2-29: Breakdown of Federal Disaster Aid for April 2007 Flood:

Total Total Total Other Registrations Housing Needs County Assistance Assistance $ Fairfield 1,450 $1,489,916 $62,874 Hartford 238 $142,634 $6,875 Litchfield 255 $259,678 $6,364 Middlesex 25 $7,800 $0 New Haven 453 $358,734 $29,175 New London 61 $24,108 $1,419 Windham 21 $19,564 $0 TOTAL 2,503 $2,302,434 $106,707

Public Assistance for Connecticut: Total Project Worksheets 204 Total Obligated $1,977,374

SBA Total Assistance for Connecticut: Total Project Worksheets 204 Total Obligated $1,977,374

March 2010 Severe Storms and Flooding

During the month of March three major rain events that occurred on March 12, 2010, March 23, 2010 and March 29-30, 2010 in combination caused severe flooding throughout Connecticut. The hardest hit area of the state impacted by flooding was southern Connecticut, specifically southeastern Connecticut including New London County. This flood event occurred at the end of the development phase for the draft of this plan update. On April 9, 2010 Governor M. Jodi Rell requested a major disaster declaration from President Obama. The request was made for Fairfield and New London Counties. On April 12, 2010 Governor Rell amended the April 9, 2010 request a major disaster declaration for Middlesex, New Haven and Windham Counties. A complete copy of Governor Rell’s April 12, 2010 Disaster Declaration Request is located in Appendix O of this Plan. An excerpt from this disaster declaration request describing the events of March 12, 2010 and continuing through the end of March is as follows:

The State of Connecticut first experienced heavy rainfall and documented hurricane force wind gusts from March 12, 2010 through March 15, 2010. Many areas of the state received

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 118 ~

between 4 to 5 inches of rainfall in a 24 hour period and winds that gusted up to 75 miles per hour in Fairfield County in Southwestern Connecticut. One example of the heavy rainfall was in the town of Deep River in Middlesex County, which received 5.02 inches. Many municipalities in New London County also received in excess of 4 inches of rainfall. For example, Norwich received 4.7 inches and Old Lyme received 4.26 inches. The areas most affected by both the combined effects of wind and rain were in Fairfield County in Southwestern Connecticut. The coast of Fairfield County is along the North Shore of Western Long Island Sound. Coastal areas from the Bronx, New York East across Southern Westchester County, New York and East across Southern Fairfield County from Greenwich to Southport, Connecticut, experienced East winds sustained at 40-50 miles per hour during this wind event. In addition to the 4.05 inches of rainfall in Greenwich (which completely saturated soils and weakened the root systems of trees), documented wind gusts of 62 miles per hour and 75 miles per hour were recorded at the White Plains Airport and at JFK Airport (The two closest operational NWS Weather Stations) respectively. Local observations in Norwalk, Bridgeport (Success Hill), and Westport in coastal Fairfield County reported documented wind gusts of 65, 60 and 58 miles per hour, respectively.

These wind speeds represent a range from a strong tropical storm to a Category I Hurricane and combined with the saturated soils caused major tree damage in Fairfield County, As discussed below, the severity of the weather can be measured in its impact on communities. In Greenwich, Fairfield County, 400 of 700 roads were impassable due to a combination of fallen trees and energized power lines. Public schools in six towns were closed for a week during the first March event; another seven closed for an extended period of time during the second event.

Next, on March 23, 2010, additional heavy rainfall of 1.5 to 3.2 inches again filled already swollen rivers, streams and saturated the soil in Connecticut. This episode is significant in that it did not allow the state's rivers to recover from the March 12 – 15 episode prior to the next heavy rainfall episode 6 days later. Finally, on March 29, 2010 and March 30, 2010, the state was struck by a third and the most severe of the heavy rain episodes. During a 36- hour period, heavy rainfall totaling from 4 to 10 inches occurred across the state. 'The heaviest rainfall occurred in Southeastern, CT where some locations received up to 10 inches of rain in 36- hours. Preliminary information from the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Connecticut Department of Transportation indicates that the flooding and subsequent damage in New London County, Connecticut ranged from the 25-year to the 500-year event (measured with regard to flooding or water flow) on many rivers and streams. Specifically, in at least 8 different locations in New London County, the Connecticut Department of Transportation

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 119 ~

records indicate that 500-year water flows were reached. Please see the attached "Data from the Connecticut Department of Transportation Re 500-Year Stream Flows As Result of March, 20 10 Rain Event."

According to the April 6, 2010 report "The three successive rainfall episodes during March, 2010 were the result of the same two large scale weather systems (El Nino Jet Stream and an Omega Block) resulting in recording breaking monthly rainfalls for much of Southern New England. This event is not unlike the impact of Hurricanes Connie and Diane, which struck in October, 1955. For these reasons, these three episodes should be considered as one large event during the 18-day period from March 13 -3 1.”

On April 23, 2010 A Presidential Disaster Declaration was issued for Connecticut which included Public Assistance for Fairfield, Middlesex and New London Counties57.

In addition, all counties in the State were eligible to apply for assistance through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. As of the date of this plan update, additional details, other than the information attached to the April 12, 2010 Disaster Declaration Request, concerning impacts, costs, and damages were not available. Once DEMHS makes this information available, the NHMP will be amended to include the information in this sub-section and a detailed report regarding the flooding will be presented in Appendix O.

Potential Future Risk of Flooding

Flooding may occur during any time of the year in Connecticut. Figure 2-43 shows the type of natural hazard associated with flooding, and the months in which Connecticut is especially prone to the occurrence of a particular flood hazard.

Figure 2-43: Annual Cycle of Flood Hazard in Connecticut

57 Information regarding the disaster declaration for this event can be found on FEMA webpage at www.fema.gov.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 120 ~

Connecticut has over 250,000 acres of FEMA mapped special flood hazard areas (SFHAs) within the state (see Appendix E for a breakdown of SFHA acreage per community). Table 2-30 shows the breakdown of total mapped SFHAs per county58. Although SFHAs in an individual community and within a county account for the majority of national flood insurance policies, detailed analysis of this information is best performed on a local level since: homeowners outside of SFHAs in a community participating in the NFIP program can purchase flood insurance therefore a percentage of the total policies shown in Table 2-31 are active for properties located outside SFHAs; and if a property located in a SFHA does not currently have a mortgage or home loan attached to it, the homeowner does not have to purchase and maintain flood insurance on the property. Individual community analysis is also the best way to obtain accurate data and information concerning total number of structures located in local SFHAs compared to total number of structures that have active flood insurance policies for their structures within these same locations. However, on a statewide basis, the general flood insurance policy information as seen in Table 2-31 can provide an overall picture of which counties and their populations are at a higher flood risk in comparison to other counties within the state. As one can see, the coastal counties of Fairfield Middlesex, New Haven and New London, along with Hartford County (due to the location of the Connecticut River within the center of the county), have the highest risk of flooding within the State.

Table 2-30: Estimated Acreage of Special Flood Hazard Areas Per County County Acreage based on Q3 Acreage Based on 2008 Data DFIRM Data Fairfield 34,820.10 N/A Hartford 43,739.10 N/A Litchfield 48,507.60 N/A Middlesex 25,397 32,107.0 New Haven 36,383.70 N/A New London 40,754.90 N/A Tolland 18,401.80 N/A Windham (see footnote 55) N/A

Table 2-31: NFIP Data for Connecticut Counties as of 10/22/09

Total Total Number Claims Amount of Total Total Since Paid Out County Policies Coverage Premiums 1978 Since 1978 Fairfield 14,913 $3,514,819,500 $15,807,768 6,357 $64,568,507 Hartford 3,627 $765,366,700 $2,812,552 1,353 $8,240,675

58 Areas provided based on older FEMA Q3 flood zones for consistency. Where possible (e.g., Middlesex County) newer MapMod zone data are provided on a county-wide basis. There is no data available, Q3 or otherwise, for towns in Windham County.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 121 ~

Litchfield 1,185 $230,047,200 $1,050,745 336 $2,558,898 Middlesex 3,248 $728,501,000 $3,248,391 1,098 $7,115,744 New Haven 9,842 $1,969,155,800 $9,233,639 5,398 $42,926,156 New London 4,000 $919,881,300 $4,233,438 1,017 $3,848,697 Tolland 278 $62,472,500 $251,421 134 $1,496,858 Windham 199 $46,786,600 $184,822 54 $504,399 Total for the State 37,292 8,237,030,600 36,822,776 15,747 131,259,934

Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) Study

Other useful information, especially for flood risk analysis on a regional and local level, are the results from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers’ (USACE) Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges From Hurricanes (SLOSH) Study. The SLOSH computer program is a numerical computer model, developed by the National Weather Service, for the USACE, and designed to forecast the rise in water level caused by the wind and pressure forces of a hurricane. This rise in the water surface, which accompanies a hurricane, is referred to as the storm surge. The SLOSH model computes the storm surge over water and along the coastline and extends the computations inland over the coastal flood plain. The results of the model can be utilized along with topographic information to determine hurricane flood inundation zones. The SLOSH model calculates four inundation zones. The four zones correspond to Hurricane Categories I & II, III, and IV respectively on the Saffir/Simpson scale.

In April 2004 FEMA, USACE, NOAA, and OEM (currently CTDEMHS) completed the Connecticut Hurricane Evacuation Study Technical Data Report with an Evacuation Map Atlas and an Inundation Map Atlas (utilizing the NWS’ SLOSH model). This study is a decision-making tool which provides information on the extent and severity of potential flooding from hurricanes, the associated vulnerable population, capacity of shelters, estimated sheltering requirements, and evacuation time. In 2006, DEMHS updated information on public shelters, medical and institutional facilities, and mobile home parks in the 25 coastal municipalities and produced updated Evacuation and Inundation Maps. The State and its municipalities use the study and maps to plan for a possible evacuation. An example of a resulting SLOSH map can be seen in Figure 2-44. SLOSH maps have been produced for all of Connecticut’s coastal communities and are located in Appendix D.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 122 ~

Figure 2-44: Example of a SLOSH Map for Fairfield County

CT DEP Flood Hazard Risk Factor Analysis

CT DEP performed a flood hazard risk factor analysis to assist in developing the best strategy for addressing the FIRM Modernization needs of the 169 communities in the State. Towns were used as the minimum-mapping unit for this exercise to maximize categorizing areas of high risk while minimizing the logistical constraints of identifying, collecting, analyzing, and processing the required data. By using this strategy, CT DEP feels high risk areas can be processed in the most effective and efficient manner.

CT DEP used several sources of data to compile flood hazard risk factors. CT DEP chose these sources in an effort to blend pertinent localized demographic and environmental factors into a reasonable assessment of flood hazard risk. The data categories selected and their sources are listed in Table 2-32:

Table 2-32: Flood Hazard Risk Data Categories and Sources Data Category Source % of Town developed 1985 UCONN Center for Landuse Education And % of Town developed 2002 Research % Change of Developed Land: 1985-2002 Population Density 1990 Population Density 2005 Connecticut Economic Resource Center 2005 Population Density 2010 – Projected Town Data Profiles % Change Population 1990-2005 % Change Population 2005-2010 – Projected % of Town in 100 yr flood zone* Geospatial analysis of CT DEP GIS data % of Town in 500 yr flood zone* layers (FEMA Q3 Flood Zones) USGS Coastal Vulnerability Index rankings** Geospatial analysis of USGS Coastal

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 123 ~

Vulnerability Index Miles of Stream/Shoreline in 100 yr flood zone* Geospatial analysis of CT DEP GIS data layers Miles of Stream/Shoreline in 500 yr flood (1:24K USGS Hydrography) zone* Number of Flood Insurance Policies FEMA National Flood Insurance Program (as of 4/30/2006) Age of FIRM FEMA Community Status Book Report (as of 4/4/2006) LOMC/LOMA (completed) *** FEMA Mapping Information Platform *In Windham County, no FEMA Q3 flood zone data was available. For these communities, averages from the adjacent towns were used as surrogates. ** USGS Coastal Vulnerability Index data exists only for 26 coastal towns adjacent to Long Island Sound and the lower Connecticut River. *** Town data includes data from associated sub-groups (i.e., boroughs, villages, associations, etc.)

Values for each data category were extracted or computed for each of the 169 Connecticut towns and assembled into a matrix. From this, the following steps derived the risk associated with each town: A percentile rank was calculated for each Town’s value in each category. This allowed the relative standing of a value within a data category to be measured against every other value in the same category. Once percentile ranks were established, they were grouped and reclassified to determine a category risk value as shown in table 2-33:

Table 2-33: Category Risk Values Percentile Rank Category Risk Value (inclusive) Value 0 0 (very low) 1-10 1 11-20 2 21-30 3 31-40 4 41-50 5 51-60 6 61-70 7 71-80 8 81-90 9 91-100 10 (very high)

For each Town, the average of all category risk values was calculated to yield a Town Risk Value. County Risk Values were compiled as the average of their member Town Risk values. At this stage, all risk data were not weighted, thus all factors contribute equally in the analysis.

Once risk factor values were derived for each town and county, a hierarchical ranking system was employed to examine risk relative to geographic areas of Connecticut to determine where to focus resources and effort. The ranking system first looked at the county level, then to the town level.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 124 ~

On a county-wide basis, risk (as an average of member towns) is represented in Table 2-34:

Table 2-34: County Risk Ranking Rank County Risk Value 1 (high) New Haven 5.94 2 Fairfield 5.82 3 Hartford 5.55 4 Middlesex 5.53 5 New London 4.68 6 Tolland 4.48 7 Windham 3.90 9 (low) Litchfield 3.74

This result correlates reasonably well to the FEMA risk analysis for Connecticut, as well as an earlier CT DEP non-statistical/best estimate ranking of counties.

On a town-by-town basis, CT DEP classified the 169 town risk values into a 5-tier hierarchy (very low, low, moderate, high, and very high) by using a natural break algorithm. The results of this analysis are shown on Figure 2-45:

Figure 2-45: CT DEP County and Community Risk Representation

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 125 ~

Based on the results of the county and town rankings, CT DEP proposed through its Map Modernization Program to FEMA a work plan, which balanced addressing high-risk areas and creating updated products with creating a manageable and efficient work flow. This risk analysis will be updated in 2010 for inclusion and use in Connecticut’s Map Modernization Program 5-Year Work Plan update.

Connecticut will continue to be at risk for flood events due to: Its geographic location along the Northeast Atlantic seaboard; Its abundance of major rivers and tributaries located within the State; and The future projections by climate change models and their studies that project an increase in more intense precipitation events punctuated by periods of drought conditions.59 This last reason is very important in that many climate change studies published not only discuss an increase in precipitation frequency, but an actual change in precipitation types and intensity throughout the next century.

Future Vulnerability to Flooding

All areas of Connecticut continue to be vulnerable to flooding and the impacts associated with this natural hazard. There are many factors which continue to affect future vulnerability to flooding including: Connecticut is a water-rich state, in that it has many rivers, streams and brooks flowing within and between its boundaries and other states. Connecticut’s past land use patterns and the continued use of structures within areas vulnerable to flooding will continue to promote future risk and vulnerability of flood impacts to structures and people. Local land use regulations and ordinances have done much to curb unregulated development within flood hazard areas. However, Connecticut is one of the older states in the nation with limited land resources. This places a high value on all property within the state. This limitation of land availability and high property values will continue to encourage the reuse of land and structures in areas vulnerable to flooding. Flooding is often a result of the occurrence of other natural hazards such as hurricanes and tropical storm systems, winter and coastal storms, ice jams, dam failures, and severe precipitation events. Connecticut has historically experienced all these other natural hazards at one time or another and can expect to experience them in the future.

Tables 2-35 through 2-40 present a summary of the potential impacts each county may expect to experience from the occurrence of a 100-year (1%) flood event within its boundaries. These estimations were derived by using FEMA’s HAZUS-MH modeling software. Although the dollar amounts are calculated using 2006 dollars and 2000 census data, the figures are adequate to use for planning purposes to show potential vulnerability from such an event.

59 Sources: Studies reviewed include IPCC’s climate change report series, When It Rains, It Pours, by Environment America Research and Policy Center, NECIA’s Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast, and New York City Panel on Climate Change, Climate Risk Information.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 126 ~

Tables 2-35 through 2-40: County Summaries for Impacts from a 100-Year Flood Event

Overiview of HAZUS-MH Results Scenario: 100-Year Flood Event

County: Fairfield

Shelter Requirements: Displaced Population (# of Households) : 12,604 Short-term shelter (# of people): 31,542

Damage to Essential Facilities: (includes fire stations, police stations, schools, and hospitals) At Least Moderate Damage: 5 schools, 1 police station At Least Substantial Damage: None Loss of Use: None

Building Damage Information: Per Percent of Damage 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% >50% Total Expected Building Damage (# of structures) : 8.00 279.00 591.00 825.00 2,837.00 1,805.00 Total Square Footage Damage (thousands of square feet): 1,581.97 6,605.05 5,919.34 5,776.51 10,633.00 7,750.23

Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: residential followed by commercial Building Material Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: wood, followed by masonry For Total Square Footage Damage - Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: residential followed by commercial

Economic Loss Information: Building Related Economic Loss Estimates (in millions of dollars, 2006 dollars) Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Building 992.71 513.56 159.22 36.55 1,702.04 Content 595.65 1,078.29 370.20 136.16 2,180.30 Inventory 0.00 21.60 52.66 2.75 77.01 Total 1,588.36 1,613.45 582.08 175.46 3,959.35

Direct Economic Losses for Buildings (in thousands of dollars, 2006 dollars) Capital Stock Losses: 3,959,337.00 Income Losses: 26,641.00

Overiview of HAZUS-MH Results Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 127 ~

Scenario: 100-Year Flood Event

County: Hartford

Shelter Requirements: Displaced Population (# of Households) : 9,678 Short-term shelter (# of people): 24,130

Damage to Essential Facilities: (includes fire stations, police stations, schools, and hospitals) At Least Moderate Damage: 19 schools, 2 police stations, 2 fire stations At Least Substantial Damage: None Loss of Use: 1 school

Building Damage Information: Per Percent of Damage 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% >50% Total Expected Building Damage (# of structures) : 26.00 129.00 196.00 685.00 787.00 1,613.00 Total Square Footage Damage (thousands of square feet): 1,830.49 5,613.67 3,654.72 4,241.24 4,133.15 6,788.02

Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: residential Building Material Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: wood For Total Square Footage Damage - Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: residential

Economic Loss Information: Building Related Economic Loss Estimates (in millions of dollars, 2006 dollars) Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Building 561.37 353.49 141.77 43.42 1,100.05 Content 328.23 745.91 314.86 142.52 1,531.52 Inventory 0.00 19.14 52.89 2.23 74.26 Total 889.60 1,118.54 509.52 188.17 2,705.83

Direct Economic Losses for Buildings (in thousands of dollars, 2006 dollars) Capital Stock Losses: 2,705,832 Income Losses: 24,943

Overiview of HAZUS-MH Results Scenario: 100-Year Flood Event

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 128 ~

County: Litchfield

Shelter Requirements: Displaced Population (# of Households) : 2,656 Short-term shelter (# of people): 5,283

Damage to Essential Facilities: (includes fire stations, police stations, schools, and hospitals) At Least Moderate Damage: 4 fire stations, 2 police stations, 6 schools At Least Substantial Damage: none Loss of Use: 1 school

Building Damage Information: Per Percent of Damage 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% >50% Total Expected Building Damage (# of structures) : 4.00 15.00 39.00 159.00 260.00 443.00 Total Square Footage Damage (thousands of square feet): 412.24 1,382.75 1,087.10 1,169.10 1,309.01 1,997.27

Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: residential Building Material Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: wood For Total Square Footage Damage - Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: residential

Economic Loss Information: Building Related Economic Loss Estimates (in millions of dollars, 2006 dollars) Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Building 175.87 70.78 50.63 14.62 311.90 Content 92.84 167.98 106.61 50.91 418.34 Inventory 0.00 4.21 16.12 0.65 20.98 Total 268.71 242.97 173.36 66.18 751.22

Direct Economic Losses for Buildings (in thousands of dollars, 2006 dollars Capital Stock Losses: 751,209 Income Losses: 6,043

Overiview of HAZUS-MH Results Scenario: 100-Year Flood Event

County: Middlesex

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 129 ~

Shelter Requirements: Displaced Population (# of Households) : 2,736 Short-term shelter (# of people): 6,579

Damage to Essential Facilities: (includes fire stations, police stations, schools, and hospitals) At Least Moderate Damage: 5 schools, 1 police station At Least Substantial Damage: 1 hospital Loss of Use: None

Building Damage Information: Per Percent of Damage 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% >50% Total Expected Building Damage (# of structures) : 10.00 165.00 219.00 638.00 489.00 741.00 Total Square Footage Damage (thousands of square feet): 587.38 1,166.96 1,146.27 1,857.43 1,686.81 2,424.55

Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: residential Building Material Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: wood For Total Square Footage Damage - Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: residential

Economic Loss Information: Building Related Economic Loss Estimates (in millions of dollars, 2006 dollars) Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Building 263.03 83.73 19.40 10.50 376.66 Content 158.04 71.37 40.83 31.68 301.92 Inventory 0.00 4.04 6.50 0.37 10.91 Total 421.07 159.14 66.73 42.55 689.49

Direct Economic Losses for Buildings (in thousands of dollars, 2006 dollars Capital Stock Losses: 789,477 Income Losses: 5,708

Overiview of HAZUS-MH Results Scenario: 100-Year Flood Event

New County: Haven

Shelter Requirements:

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 130 ~

Displaced Population (# of Households): 9,571 Short-term shelter (# of people): 22,678

Damage to Essential Facilities: (includes fire stations, police stations, schools, and hospitals) At Least Moderate Damage: 11 schools, 2 fire stations, 3 police stations At Least Substantial Damage: 1 school, 1 police station Loss of Use: None

Building Damage Information: Per Percent of Damage 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% >50% Total Expected Building Damage (# of structures) : 12.00 316.00 728.00 1,406.00 1,277.00 1,544.00 Total Square Footage Damage (thousands of square feet): 1,391.03 4,593.88 4,578.52 5,354.03 6,364.00 8,771.13

Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: residential Building Material Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: wood For Total Square Footage Damage - Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: residential

Economic Loss Information: Building Related Economic Loss Estimates (in millions of dollars, 2006 dollars) Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Building 662.53 610.94 207.84 40.37 1,521.68 Content 400.25 1,220.00 455.08 115.22 2,190.55 Inventory 0.00 15.93 63.01 2.81 81.75 Total 1,062.78 1,846.87 725.93 158.40 3,793.98

Direct Economic Losses for Buildings (in thousands of dollars, 2006 dollars) Capital Stock Losses: 3,793,974 Income Losses: 25,205

Overiview of HAZUS-MH Results Scenario: 100-Year Flood Event

County: New London

Shelter Requirements: Displaced Population (# of Households) : N/A Short-term shelter (# of people): N/A

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 131 ~

Damage to Essential Facilities: (includes fire stations, police stations, schools, and hospitals) At Least Moderate Damage: 2 fire stations, 3 police stations, 3 schools At Least Substantial Damage: None Loss of Use: None

Building Damage Information: Per Percent of Damage 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% >50% Total Expected Building Damage (# of structures) : N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Square Footage Damage (thousands of square feet): 466.87 1,866.68 1,971.36 2,036.35 1,756.91 1,745.80

Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: N/A Building Material Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: wood For Total Square Footage Damage - Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: residential

Economic Loss Information: Building Related Economic Loss Estimates (in millions of dollars, 2006 dollars) Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Building 298.88 82.73 44.39 9.76 435.76 Content 200.13 195.93 103.6 48.13 547.79 Inventory 0 4.38 15.11 0.29 19.78 Total 499.01 283.04 163.1 58.18 1003.33

Direct Economic Losses for Buildings (in thousands of dollars, 2006 dollars) Capital Stock Losses: N/A Income Losses: N/A

Overiview of HAZUS-MH Results Scenario: 100-Year Flood Event

County: Tolland

Shelter Requirements: Displaced Population (# of Households) : 1,052 Short-term shelter (# of people): 1,772

Damage to Essential Facilities: (includes fire stations, police stations, schools, and hospitals) Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 132 ~

At Least Moderate Damage: 3 schools At Least Substantial Damage: 1 fire station Loss of Use: None

Building Damage Information: Per Percent of Damage 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% >50% Total Expected Building Damage (# of structures) : 0.00 7.00 3.00 32.00 49.00 106.00 Total Square Footage Damage (thousands of square feet): 215.72 520.94 281.78 352.88 393.63 772.46

Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: residential Building Material Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: wood For Total Square Footage Damage - Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: residential

Economic Loss Information: Building Related Economic Loss Estimates (in millions of dollars, 2006 dollars) Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Building 63.79 31.98 15.77 2.37 113.91 Content 34.57 79.03 33.38 8.79 155.77 Inventory 0.00 1.29 5.99 0.16 7.44 Total 98.36 112.30 55.14 11.32 277.12

Direct Economic Losses for Buildings (in thousands of dollars, 2006 dollars) Capital Stock Losses: 277,094 Income Losses: 1,906

Overiview of HAZUS-MH Results Scenario: 100-Year Flood Event

County: Windham

Shelter Requirements: Displaced Population (# of Households) : N/A Short-term shelter (# of people): N/A

Damage to Essential Facilities: (includes fire stations, police stations, schools, and hospitals) At Least Moderate Damage: 1 fire station, 5 schools At Least Substantial Damage: none Loss of Use: none Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 133 ~

Building Damage Information: Per Percent of Damage 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% >50% Total Expected Building Damage (# of structures) : 0.00 16.00 17.00 76.00 75.00 155.00 Total Square Footage Damage (thousands of square feet): 93.24 618.97 477.15 596.96 638.90 939.34

Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: residential Building Material Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: wood For Total Square Footage Damage - Building Occupancy Type Estimated to Obtain Most Damage: residential

Economic Loss Information: Building Related Economic Loss Estimates (in millions of dollars, 2006 dollars) Residential Commercial Industrial Others Total Building 77.59 27.42 30.62 5.60 141.23 Content 41.22 70.75 69.30 21.62 202.89 Inventory 0.00 1.71 9.48 0.16 11.35 Total 118.81 99.88 109.40 27.38 355.47

Direct Economic Losses for Buildings (in thousands of dollars, 2006 dollars) Capital Stock Losses: 355,464 Income Losses: 3,083

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 134 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Impacts and areas of vulnerability seen from the HAZUS-MH county scenarios include: Out of the total number of essential facilities (fire stations, police stations, schools, and hospitals) located within a county, each individual county may expect a small number of these facilities to receive moderate damage, and in most cases just a couple of facilities are projected to obtain substantial damage. No loss of use was projected in any county. Building occupancy most affected by a 100-year flood event would be residential followed by commercial. In addition, the building material type in all counties that would obtain the most damage was calculated to be wood. Since damage to residential structures was modeled to be most prevalent in all county scenarios, it is apparent that safety concerns and homeowner education on proper clean up after flood waters recede would be very important during the post-disaster management phase. All counties may expect some level of emergency shelter needs post- disaster. Though current HAZUS-MH simulations did not analyze shelter requirements for Windham and New London Counties, it is expected that shelter needs for Windham County will be similar to those of Tolland County, and that New London County shelter requirements would be similar , though possibly slightly higher, than those of Middlesex County (due to the fact that New London County has more lower lying coastal communities). All counties can expect some level of economic impact from a 100-year flood event. Table 2-41 shows the order of impact of a county per economic sector and the HAZUS-MH calculated economic losses. All numbers are in millions of dollars, 2006 dollars.

Table 2-41 County Rank (High to Low) of Estimated Direct Economic Losses Per Economic Sector, 100-Year Flood Event (millions of dollars, 2006 dollars) Residential Commercial Industrial Other Fairfield; 1,588.36 New Haven; 1,846.87 New Haven; 725.93 Hartford; 188.17 New Haven; 1,062.78 Fairfield; 1,613.45 Fairfield; 582.08 Fairfield; 175.46 Hartford; 889.60 Hartford; 1,118.54 Hartford; 509.52 New Haven; 158.40 New London; 499.01 New London; 283.04 Litchfield; 173.36 Litchfield; 66.18 Middlesex; 421.07 Litchfield; 242.97 New London; 163.10 New London; 58.18 Litchfield; 268.71 Middlesex; 159.14 Windham; 109.40 Middlesex; 42.55 Windham; 118.81 Tolland; 112.30 Middlesex; 66.73 Windham; 27.38 Tolland; 98.36 Windham; 99.88 Tolland; 55.14 Tolland; 11.32

Fairfield, New Haven and Hartford are the top three counties which may be hardest hit by total direct economic losses from a 100-year level flood event. Tolland County was estimated to have the least amount of direct economic losses from such a flood event for three out of the four economic sectors analyzed (Tolland was second to last for commercial). This may be attributed to the county being one of the less developed areas of the state. However, the impacts from such a flood event could

~ 135 ~

actually have serious economic impacts to such a county since it is less developed there may be a greater reliance by residents of that county on local businesses (commercial and industrial). Table 2-41 indicates that all counties are highly vulnerable to economic impacts from a 100-year level flood event. Future analysis including economic analysis on a more local and regional level would help to better define what the impact would mean to local communities in relationship to local economies.

HAZUS-MH does not calculate public health related impacts from natural hazards. Thus when reviewing this data, the reader should keep in mind the potential development of these non-quantified impacts. Complete HAZUS-MH scenario generated reports for flooding can be found in Appendix E.

Ice Jams

Ice Jam – In hydrologic terms, a stationary accumulation that restricts or blocks streamflow.60

An ice jam is an accumulation of ice in a river that restricts water flow and may cause backwater that floods low-lying areas upstream from the jam. Areas below the ice jam can also be affected when the jam releases, sending water and ice downstream. Ice jam damages can affect homes, buildings, roads, bridges and the environment (e.g., through erosion, sedimentation, bank scour, tree scarring, etc.)

According to the Special Report 94-7 Ice Jam Data Collection, by the US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) (March 1994), ice jams can be generally grouped into three categories: freeze-up jams, breakup jams, or a combination of both. Each has different ice jam characteristics and associated mitigation and control.

The following description of the types of ice jams, and mitigation and control techniques has been taken all or in part from Pamphlet No. 1110-1-11, Engineering and Design Ice Jam Flooding: Causes And Possible Solutions, US Army Corps of Engineers, November 1994. Freeze-up jams are composed primarily of frazil ice (often described as slush ice), with some fragmented ice included, and occur during early winter to midwinter. The floating frazil may slow or stop due to a change in water slope from steep to mild because it reaches an obstruction to movement such as a sheet ice cover, or because some other hydraulic occurrence slows the movement of the frazil. Jams are formed when floating frazil ice stops moving downstream, forms an “arch” across the river channel, and begins to accumulate. Freeze-up jams are characterized by low air and water temperatures, fairly steady water and ice discharges, and a consolidated top layer.

Breakup jams occur during periods of thaw, generally in late winter and early spring, and are composed primarily of fragmented ice formed by the breakup of an ice cover or freeze-up jam. The ice cover breakup is usually associated with a rapid increase in runoff and corresponding river discharge due to a significant rainfall event or snowmelt. In these cases, the increased river discharge causes the ice to rise and buckle or break apart. These broken pieces of ice are then moved downstream by the rising water. Late

60 Source: NOAA’s online glossary of meteorology and climatology terms; http://www.weather.gov/glossary/.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 136 ~

season breakup is often accelerated by sudden increases in air temperatures and solar radiation usually accompanying a rainfall/runoff event.

The broken, fragmented ice pieces move downstream until they encounter a strong intact downstream ice cover or other surface obstruction to flow (such as a dam or bridge), or other adverse hydraulic conditions such as a significant reduction in water surface slope, or a sudden rise in the river bed. Once they reach such a jam initiation point, the fragmented ice pieces stop moving, begin to accumulate, and form a jam. The ultimate size of the jam (i.e., its length and thickness) and the severity of the resulting flooding depend on the flow conditions, the available ice supply from upstream reaches of the river, and the strength and size of the ice pieces.

Midwinter thaw periods marked by flow increases may cause a minor breakup jam. The river flow subsides to normal winter level and the jammed ice drops with the water level as cold weather begins. The jam may become grounded as well as consolidated or frozen in place. During normal spring breakup, this location is likely to be the site of a severe jam. Combination jams involve both freeze-up and breakup jams. Causes of all ice jams include river geometries, weather characteristics, and floodplain land-use practices such as bridge obstructions or dams. Many times if building infrastructure is not located within close proximity to the location of the jam, the ice jams aren’t noted, since they didn’t cause flooding or other types of damages to personal property.

Ice jam mitigation techniques include both structural and non-structural measures. Some are permanent while others can be deployed under emergency conditions when a jam has formed and flooding is occurring. Ice jam mitigation measures are described in Pamphlet No. 1110-1-11.

The CRREL maintains a database of ice jam history, which draws largely from USGS river gauge information. This database includes 132 records of jams in Connecticut dating back to 1902. The database indicates that Connecticut experiences both freeze- up and breakup type events. Other sources of information include historical accounts, newspapers, personal interviews and CRREL files. However these sources of data while providing important narrative information about ice events and related damage often lacks quantitative information of the type found in USGS sources.

History of Ice Jams in Connecticut

Salmon River, East Haddam (Leesville)

Ice jam related flooding has historically been a problem along the lower reach of the Salmon River in the Leesville area of East Haddam. Damaging ice jam occurred most recently in 2000 resulting in local road closure.

A similar event in 1994 was the result of a break-up of thick river ice in response to a sudden increase in discharge by snowmelt and rainfall. The ice jam formed about a half mile downstream of the Route 151 Bridge and progressed back to about 500 feet downstream of the dam. This jam caused water levels in the river to rise even more, flooding several homes and Powerhouse Road. The flood pool created by this ice

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 137 ~

jam eventually stabilized as the water carved itself a new path around the ice and into a riverbank.

Another ice jam event occurred in February 1982 when ice flowed over the dam and jammed at the Route 151 Bridge. Many residents in the area believe the lowering of the dam and removal of its control gates has resulted in increased ice jam activity in the area below the dam. Historical evidence supports this presumption as similar winter jams occurred in January 1910 and 1940 when structural damage to the dam allowed ice to flow out of the impoundment. In contrast to the years when the dam was in place and the conditions that result in ice jams existed, there was no ice jams noted downstream of the dam.

Based on available records for the Salmon River, it appears that severe ice jams events similar to 1982 and 1994 are likely to occur when ice thickness exceeds 9 inches and average daily discharge increases by 1,400 cubic feet per second (cfs) or more during a single day. The rule of thumb used by the USACE CRREL is that seasonal breakup events based on discharge occur when the one-day increases in stage is in excess of 1.5 times the ice thickness. Also, tides (tidally influenced back water from the Connecticut River) appear to influence the ice jams location and the ice jams form both above and downstream of the Route 151 Bridge.

Shetucket River, Sprague (Baltic)

The village of Baltic, is a section of Sprague located along the Shetucket River about 9 miles upstream from the Thames River confluence. The total drainage area at Baltic is 460 square miles. There are two hydroelectric dams that affect river discharge. The Scotland Dam is located about 4 miles upstream and the Occum Dam is located about 2.2- miles downstream from the Main Street Bridge (Route 97).

Since 1956, the town has experienced several ice jams during mid to late winter, usually in January and February. Prior to 1956, no ice-related flooding was recorded in the village, probably because Baltic Dam, which breached in 1955, controlled the ice upstream of the populated area of the village.

These break-up jams form when solid ice cover on the Shetucket River breaks up and moves downstream. It appears as though most of the ice that causes the problems in Baltic comes from a 2-mile river reach between the Scotland Dam upstream on the Shetucket River and the village. The slope of the river through this reach is very flat and the channel meanders, causing ice floes to lose momentum and slow down. In addition, the backwater of Occum Dam, located about two miles downstream of the village, causes thick ice and a stable water surface elevation. As a result the ice jams tend to remain intact until sufficient pressure is built up behind them to dislodge the jam and move it downstream.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 138 ~

In the mid-1950’s, the town requested assistance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for non-ice related flooding. As a result an earthen flood control berm was built along the low-lying residential area. This berm has a top elevation of about 77.5 feet NGVD, and a top width of about 8 feet. Although the berm does not tie into high ground, it does provide protection against an approximate 10-year flood event.

Table 2-42: Rivers Susceptible to an Ice Jam No. Rivers Name Location 1 Shetucket River Baltic 2 Salmon River East Haddam 3 Pomperaug River Southbury 4 Yantic River Norwich 5 Moosup River Plainfield 6 Quanduck River Sterling 7 Blackledge River Marlborough 8 Willimantic River Mansfield 9 Limekilm Brook Bethel 10 Shepaug River Roxbury 11 Blackberry River North Canaan 12 Connecticut River Hartford

On January 29, 1994, an ice jam occurred on the Shetucket River downstream of the Route 97 Bridge in Baltic. The ice jam, about three- fourths of a mile in length, was grounded in numerous locations. Although the average ice thickness was 18 to 20 inches, the jam appeared to be about 8 feet thick in several locations. Floodwaters behind the jam overtopped the flood control berm and inundated 31 houses and 4 commercial businesses. One house was severely damaged when the ice broke through the masonry block foundation wall. Eventually, a channel opened under the ice to allow some discharge to pass the jam and the flood area drained, but the jam remained in place.

This severe ice jam flood prompted a post-disaster reconnaissance study by the USACE, who estimated that the ice jam of 1994 resulted in flood damages of $526,000 for 31 residential properties and 4 commercial properties. In addition, it was estimated that the flood stages experienced during the January 1994 flood could occur as a result of ice affected flow approximately once in 12 years. The principal ice jam flood problem is located adjacent to Route 97. It extends a distance of about 2,200 linear feet from a drainage culvert under Route 97 that drains a low area south of the state highway to an area upstream of the Blanchette Field at River Drive. It is estimated that there are 84 structures in the 500-year flood plain, 77 of which are residential structures, 4 are commercial structures and 3 are public buildings.

Potential Future Ice Jam Risk

Although limited data exists regarding historic damages associated with ice jams, the twelve well-documented ice jams (or ice jam years) since 1961indicate that typical damages include road closures, bridge damages, evacuation, residential and commercial damage. Rivers in Connecticut susceptible to ice jam formation

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 139 ~

based on historic events are listed in Table 2-35. These rivers do not show any geographic or regional similarities. It should be noted that there is a greater knowledge of the series of events that can lead to ice jams, and with this knowledge Connecticut DEP and DEMHS are better prepared to proactively warn downstream residents in the event that ice is moving and has the potential to form an ice jam.

Future Vulnerability to Ice Jams

Connecticut remains vulnerable to ice jams in areas where ice jams have traditionally occurred in the State. In addition, as older mill dams are breached or removed, attention must be given to the effects of these actions on ice conditions, especially where river widths and depths are sufficient to allow thick broad sheets of ice to become established.

DEP intends to investigate potential grant funds for technical assistance from CRREL in performing an ice jam summary and analysis for Connecticut similar to one performed for the State of New Hampshire. In addition, when DEP becomes aware of an ice jam (regardless of whether or not it causes damages), DEP intends to file report forms to CRREL for the centralized national database.

The USACE, in conjunction with DEP, has recently constructed a structure on the Salmon River to prevent or minimize ice jams in the most vulnerable locations on that river. The structure consisted of 9 large piers located in the river and many boulders situated in a way to force an ice jam to form at a less vulnerable location. A small ice jam was realized soon after the construction was complete and it was the conclusion of CRREL that additional construction work was needed to allow the structure to be fully functional. The additional construction has been completed along with the installation of a remote camera. DEP and CRREL are now waiting to view the Ice Control Structure during the next ice flow event.

Dam Failures

Dam Failure – In hydrologic terms, a catastrophic event characterized by the sudden, rapid, and uncontrolled release of impounded water.61

Dam failures have been a concern for many years throughout the United States and Connecticut has had a number of significant dams fail in the past seventy plus years. There are a number of causes for dam failure, but the most common reasons for a dam failing is overtopping. Overtopping occurs when a dam’s spillway capacity is exceeded and portions of dam which are not designed to convey flow, begin to pass water, and erode away and ultimately fail. Some other modes/causes of failure are design flaws, foundation failure, internal soil erosion, inadequate maintenance, or misoperation

While dam failures that occur during flood events compound an already tenuous situation by adding additional water to streams that are already flooded are considered problematic, it is the dam failures that occur on dry days that are the most dangerous. These “dry day” dam failures typically occur without warning and consequently the

61 Source: NOAA’s online glossary of meteorology and climatology terms; http://www.weather.gov/glossary/.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 140 ~

unaware downstream property owners are more vulnerable to being caught in such dry day failures then failures during flood events.

Connecticut has experienced many dam failures, mainly resulting from flood events. Exact numbers of dam failures caused by Connecticut’s floods of 1938 and 1955 are not available, but anecdotal information leads CTDEP to believe that many more dams were damaged during those storm events than in the 1982 or 2005 events.

A breached or failed dam can be devastating to a community. One of the worst dam failures in Connecticut occurred in 1963, when Spaulding Pond Dam in Norwich failed, causing 6 deaths and over 6 million dollars of damage (1963 dollars). In 1961, Crystal Lake dam in Middletown burst injuring 3 persons and severely damaging 11 homes.

On the weekend of June 5-6, 1982, Connecticut suffered one of its worst floods since 1955. Throughout the State, 17 dams failed and another 31 dams were seriously damaged, due to a rainfall event that produced up to 18 inches of rain and resulted in damages totaling $70 million dollars. Tragically, 11 flood-related deaths were recorded, although none were directly related to dam failure.

Figure 2-46: Major Downstream Damage - Bushy Hill Dam Break, 1982

In October 2005, Connecticut experienced moderate to major flooding statewide. Major flooding occurred in several river basins in Hartford and Tolland counties and widespread moderate flooding across the rest of Connecticut. Flood flow frequencies exceeded a 100-year event in parts of north-central and northeastern Connecticut. DEP is aware of 14 dams which completely failed or partially failed in Hartford and Tolland counties. Another 30 dams were damaged throughout Connecticut. Several bridges failed and several dozen roads were washed out or undermined. Thousands of homes suffered flooded basements and evacuations were conducted in dozens of towns due to severe flooding. As a result of the flooding that resulted in an estimated $42 million in damages, with more than 5,200 homes and 355 businesses impacted, President Bush declared Litchfield, New London, Tolland and Windham Counties Disaster Areas.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 141 ~

Table – 2-43 Regulated Dams by Hazard Class Dam Hazard Classification Number of Dams Percentage C – High Hazard 242 8% B – Significant Hazard 266 9% BB – Moderate Hazard 699 23% A – Low Hazard 1,804 60% Total Regulated Dams 3,011 100%

The potential for dam failure in Connecticut is significant given that Connecticut has over 3,000 dams that come under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Environmental Protection. These dams fall into four potential hazard classes: there are 242 “High” hazard potential dams (dams whose failure would cause loss of life or major damage to structures, highways, etc.); 266“Significant” hazard potential dams (dams where failure might possibly cause loss of life or minor damage to structures, highways, etc.); 699 “Moderate” hazard potential dams (dams whose failure would damage unoccupied storage structures or damage low volume roadways); and 1804 “Low hazard potential dams (dams whose failure would damage agricultural land or unimproved roadways).

Potential Risk and Impact of Dam Failures

There is no particular season or geographic location that is more susceptible to dam failures than another in Connecticut. However, we have started to monitor climate change predictions as they affect the numbers of and severity of heavy rain events in Connecticut.

Future Vulnerability to Dam Failures62

There are over 3,000 dams in the State of Connecticut, which because of their size and location pose a hazard to downstream properties. These dams are all regulated by the DEP under Connecticut General Statutes 22a-401 through 22a- 411 inclusive. A failure of most of these dams would not be catastrophic, but about 500 of these dams pose a possible or even a probable threat to human lives upon failure. Dam overtopping is the major cause of dam failures in Connecticut. As dam overtopping is caused by excessive rainfall, it is appropriate to relate the future vulnerability of dams directly with the potential for increased rainfall in CT.

Dams which receive Dam Construction permits for repair and/or reconstruction, are designed to pass at least the 100-year rainfall event with one foot of freeboard (a factor of safety against overtopping). The most critical and hazardous dams are required to meet a spillway design standard much higher than passing the runoff from a 100-year rainfall event. Although not all of the dams under DEP jurisdiction have been shown to be able to withstand the 100- year rainfall event, most of the dams meet this standard due to original design requirements or recent spillway upgrades. For the most part if smaller rainfall events, i.e.10-year and 25-year events occur more frequently there will be little impact on the ability of Connecticut dams to operate safely.

62 The supporting appendix G has not been provided for general public distribution due to security reasons. Requests for this information may be submitted either to the CTDEMHS or CT DEP.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 142 ~

As more and more state owned and privately owned dams get repaired, the amount of dams that will not meet the state minimum requirements for spillway design diminishes. However, the average age of all dams in Connecticut increases and we should remain vigilant.

Wildland Fires

Wildland Fire – Any non-structure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland.

Wildland/Urban Interface – The line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels.63

According to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, in order to have any type of fire, wildland or otherwise, three elements must be present: 1. Fuel – something which will burn (e.g., vegetation, houses, paper, etc.); 2. Heat – enough to make the fuel burn (e.g., match, spark from a machine, or lightning); and 3. Oxygen – air around us.64

Figure 2-47: Fire Triangle

The cause of a wildland fire can be natural (e.g., lighting strike) or human induced (e.g., sparks from a machine, arson, unattended open burning pile of yard waste or unattended campfire, etc.). Figure 2-48 shows the elements of a wildland (or forest) fire. Impacts from such a fire may include:65

1. Increase in the potential for flooding, debris flows, or landslides; 2. Increase in pollutants in the air that can cause significant health problems;

63 Source of definitions: USDA Forest Service online glossary: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/nfp/glossary/. 64 Source: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Wildland Fire Primer, 2002-2003; USDA Forest Service, The Science of Fire, http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fire_poster/science_of_fire.htm. 65 Source: USGS factsheet, Wildfire Hazards, A National Threat.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 143 ~

3. Destruction of timber, forage, wildlife habitats, scenic vistas, and watershed, on a temporary basis; 4. Development of long term impacts such as reduced access to recreational areas, destruction of community infrastructure, cultural and economic resources.

Figure 2-48: Diagram of the Elements of a Wildfire

Firefighters are trained to fight either structural (buildings) fires or wildland fires. Firefighters usually maintain a primary focus on either structural or wildland firefighting and maintain a secondary focus on the opposite one. Structural firefighting focuses on reducing the heat or the oxygen side of the fire triangle. With wildland fires, firefighters focus their main efforts on reducing the fuel side of the triangle (Figure 2-47).66 There are four types of fuels which are a concern for wildland fires:67 1. Ground Fuels – organic soils, forest floor duff, stumps, dead roots, and buried fuels; 2. Surface Fuels – litter layer, downed woody materials, dead and live plants to two meters in height; 3. Ladder Fuels – vine and draped foliage fuels; and 4. Canopy Fuels – tree crowns.

The abundance of a specific type of vegetative fuel will help to determine that a specific wildland area may be at higher risk for a specific class of wildland fire68: surface fire (surface and ladder fuels); ground fire (ground fuels); or crown fire (ladder and canopy fuels).

66 Source: South Carolina Forestry Commission website: http://www.state.sc.us/forest/refwild.htm. 67 Source: http://www.forestencyclopedia.net. This website is useful in obtaining detailed information on wildland/forest fires and fire in general. 68 Source of fire classifications: FEMA, Protecting Your Home or Small Business From Disasters, December 2005, publication number IS-394.A.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 144 ~

An important aspect to any fire is how it behaves. The USDA Forest Service defines fire behavior as, “the manner in which fuel ignites, flame develops, and fire spreads as determined by the interaction of fuel, weather, and topography (as seen in Figure 2-49).”

Figure 2-49: Fire Behavior Triangle69

A wildland fire becomes a very high concern and a very dangerous situation when is occurs or threatens to move into a geographic area commonly referred to as the wildland/urban interface (WUI). Interface and intermix communities both comprise the WUI. For both communities, the housing density must be at least one structure per forty acres (or sixteen hectares). The difference between the two types of WUI communities is the relation of vegetation in association with structures. Intermix communities are places where housing and vegetation intermingle. Wildland vegetation is continuous with fifty percent of vegetation existing within areas that contain, at a minimum, one structure per forty acres. Interface communities have more than one house per forty acres, have less than fifty percent vegetation and are within 1.5 miles of an area over 1,325 acres (500 hectares) that is more than seventy-five percent vegetated.70

Fire suppression is the primary activity utilized at all levels (Federal, state, and local) of fire management to deal with wildland fires. Although fire suppression activities can reduce or eliminate the frequent threat of small wildland fires, over the past 100 years it has promoted the continued growth of vegetation in areas where regular intervals of fire have been kept in check. This increase in vegetation growth can become a greater source of fuel and can encourage wildland fires to burn hotter, longer, thus damaging the ecosystem and creating a very difficult situation for firefighters to manage. The success of fire suppression activities throughout the county and the increase of people’s desire to move into wildland areas have made WUI fires an increasing threat for many states throughout the country, by increasingly threatening property and people’s lives in intermingled and intermixed areas. According to Cohen71 (p.22), “wildland-urban interface fire disasters depend on homes igniting during wildfires. If homes do not ignite and burn during wildfires then the WUI fire problem largely does not exist. We would have extreme wildfires without WUI fire disasters.” Cohen (p.3)72 Also states that a

69 Source: NOAA’s Guide to South Texas Fire Weather. 70 Source: Silvis Labe, University of Wisconsin website. Site provides data on WUI for all fifty states. 71 Source: Cohen, Jack, The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem, Forest History Today, Fall 2008. 72 Source: Cohen, Jack Wildland-Urban Fire – A Different Approach, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory. Website http://www.foresthistory.org/Publications/FHT/FHTFall2008/Cohen.pdf.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 145 ~

home may ignite from two possible sources in a WUI fire - directly from flames or from firebrands accumulating directly on the home. Much research in the field of WUI fires discusses the existence of a “home ignition zone (also known as the I-Zone).” Figure 2- 50 shows an example of a typical home ignition zone. The width of the zone (100-200 feet) is dependent upon the type of trees and/or other vegetation which surrounds a home in the WUI.

Figure 2-50: Example of a Home Ignition Zone

Note: The home ignition zone includes the home and an area surrounding the home within 100 to 200 feet. The potential for ignition depends on the home’s exterior materials and design and the amount of heat to the home from the flames within the home ignition zone. Firebrand ignitions also depend on the home ignition zone either by igniting the home directly or igniting adjacent materials that heat the home to ignition (Cohen, p.3)73.

Fire is an important part of most ecosystems. It helps promote the rejuvenation of forest and wildlands, cleanses wildland areas of excess vegetation, promotes the growth of particular species of trees and grasses, and helps maintain the overall health of a forest or wildland ecosystem. However, wildland fires can become a serious threat to people when such fires have an excess supply of vegetative fuel and move into wildland/urban interface areas. As Cohen (p. 3) states:

“Wildland fire will always occur in forest and rangeland fire environments and will thus have an impact on people, property and resources. We may have some choice of when and where we have wildland fire, but we do not have the choice of not having wildland fire occurrence.”

73 Source: Cohen, Jack Wildland-Urban Fire – A Different Approach, Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory. Website http://www.foresthistory.org/Publications/FHT/FHTFall2008/Cohen.pdf.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 146 ~

History of Wild land Fires in Connecticut

Since the time that Europeans settled in North America, much of Connecticut’s forests and wildland areas were converted to farmland. Then in 1830 much of the Connecticut landscape began to change again and revert back into forested and wildland areas with the opening of the Erie Canal. With the canal in operation, the smaller family farms in Connecticut could not compete with the larger corporate farms located in New York and the Ohio River Valley for which the canal provided improved access to markets for their goods.

Much of the farmland became exhausted and unsuitable for continuous agricultural crops, and was soon abandoned. Farmers left marginal hillside farms to take jobs created in the cities by the industrial revolution. Finally, the opening of the West after the Civil War, and the added incentive of free land, hastened the pace of farm abandonment across New England. Before long, land went out of farming and forests began to return to much of Connecticut.

During the early 1900’s, the mature pine stands became the raw materials that began to feed a wood-hungry nation and world. Containers, shipping crates, boxes, pails and barrels were manufactured from the raw wood material supplied by Connecticut’s “Second Forest.” These were used primarily to ship fish products inland and overseas, an avenue of trade enhanced by the opening of the Panama Canal. Up until about 1920, the harvesting of pine flourished. After this, much of the pine had been cut and the industry declined. But in the process, the understory of hardwoods had been released, contributing to today’s modern deciduous forest.

During the early 1900s, immense fires covering thousands of acres regularly roared over the countryside. Some of these fires were accidental, caused by sparks from railroads and industry. Others were deliberately set to clear underbrush in the forest and provide better pasture for livestock. Records from the early 1900s indicate 15,000 to over 100,000 acres (in 1915) of forest fires could occur annually in Connecticut. This destruction of resources spurred the legislature to create the position of State Forest Fire Warden in 1905 to coordinate control of fighting forest fires. Through the efforts of state and local fire fighters, the annual amount of forest damaged by wildfires was dramatically cut.74

Today, forests and wildland covers 1.9 million acres of land or sixty percent of the land coverage for the State of Connecticut. The Division of Forestry estimates that wildland fires burn approximately 1,000 acres per year. Although the total landmass of Connecticut is much smaller in comparison to larger mid- western and western states, and current records indicate that WUI fires are not currently a significant threat for the state overall, 1,000 acres of wildland burned per year can become significant in the future due to the State’s population density. According to 2000 US Census data, Connecticut ranks as the fifth most densely populated state in the United States. In fact with regards to percentage

74 Source: History excerpted from the Connecticut Statewide Forest Resource Plan 2004-2013. Copies can be downloaded from the CT DEP website, from the Forestry webpage.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 147 ~

of total area considered wildland/urban interface areas, intermix areas, and interfaced areas, Connecticut ranks either number one to three nationally (Connecticut ranks number one with seventy-two percent of its landmass considered being WUI areas, Connecticut ranks number 2 with sixty percent of its landmass considered located in intermix areas, and Connecticut ranks number three nationally with twelve percent of its landmass considered actual interface area).75 Figure 2-51 shows the land cover for Connecticut as of 2006. In addition, Figure 2-52 shows the areas of WUI within the State of Connecticut. As one can see, the information presented on both maps coincides. Additional information regarding the risk associated with having such a large percentage of area within the WUI will be discussed in the next sub-section, Future Risk of Wildland Fire in Connecticut.

Figure 2-51: 2006 Land Coverage for the State of Connecticut

75 Sources: CT DEP Forestry webpage, CT Statewide Forest Resource Plan, and the article Characteristics and Location of the Wildland-Urban Interface in the United States, by Susan Stewart, Volker Radeloff, and Roger B. Hammer. Article can be located from the US Forestry article search page or from the Silvis Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin at the website http://silvis.forest.wisc.edu. Ranking was based on 2000 Census data.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 148 ~

Figure 2-52: Mapped Wildland/Urban Interface Areas within the State of Connecticut

Fire Management Activities Used Today

The Forestry Division of the DEP maintains statistical records concerning forest fire occurrences in the State. Reporting of forest fires is based upon the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). This system came on line in 1997 and is administered through the State Fire Marshal’s Office. This system has greatly improved the accuracy of reported data concerning forest fires (cause, size, etc.)

As stated earlier, in Connecticut, approximately 1,000 acres per year are burned by wildland fires. On an annual basis, this annually represents less than a fraction of one percent of the total forested acreage in Connecticut. Connecticut wildland fire experience indicates that fires are small and detected early. During the last ten years only one wildland fire occurred of slightly greater than 300 acres. The vast majority of wildfires are less than 10 acres in size. Arson is the number one known cause of forest fires. Almost one-half of all wildfires are intentionally set.

During the past ten years, the worst wildfire year in terms of number of fires occurred during 1999. Over 345 separate fires burned 1,733 acres.

There are three wildland fire seasons in Connecticut: Spring Fire Season – mid-March to mid-May; Summer Fire Season – mid-May through September; and Fall Fire Season – October through snow fall.

There are three important weather factors that affect fire start, fire spread, and fire weather danger:

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 149 ~

Wind – most important factor since it dries out fuel and drives a fire; Relative humidity – affects fuel moisture; and Precipitation.

Beginning in early spring, the CT Division of Forestry starts monitoring the weather as it relates to fire danger. During the Spring Fire Season, and at other times of the year when the fire danger is high or above, the Division broadcast daily predictions for fire danger for 1:00 p.m. The predictions are normally issued before 7:00 a.m. that same day.

In addition, the Division posts Red Flag Warnings, which are issued by the National Weather Service (NWS). Connecticut is divided between three different National Weather Service stations. Predictions for Hartford, Tolland and Windham counties are made in Taunton, MA; predictions for Litchfield County are made in Albany, NY and predictions for Fairfield, New Haven, Middlesex and New London counties are made in Brookhaven, NY.

A Red Flag warning is a warning to the fire fighting community that if there is a fire, the weather conditions can be expected to cause erratic fire behavior. Red Flag warnings are not a fire danger rating and they are not synonymous with High, Very High or Extreme fire danger. Red Flag warnings are issued when winds will be sustained or there will be frequent gusts above a certain threshold (normally 25 mph). In addition, relative humidity needs to be below 30% and precipitation for the previous 5 days has to have been less than 1/4-inch.

Connecticut traditionally experiences high forest fire danger in the spring from mid-March through May. DEP’s Division of Forestry continually monitors the danger of forest fire to help protect Connecticut’s 1.8 million acres of forestland. Throughout the spring forest fire season, daily advisories on forest fire danger levels are sent to DEP state park forest field staff, municipalities, fire departments and the media. Forest fire danger levels are classified as low, moderate, high, very high or extreme. In an average year approximately 1,000 acres of Connecticut’s forests are scorched by forest fires.

The DEP Forestry Division currently utilizes precipitation and soil moisture data provided through various sources to compile forest fire probability forecasts during the spring fire season. This allows the Division to watch only the driest areas and has resulted in a reduction of both costs (measured in the thousands of dollars) and risk.

The DEP Division of Forestry issues Forest Fire Danger Ratings for Connecticut. A National Fire Danger Rating system that utilizes two indexes is used in Connecticut. The "spread" of a fire is predicted with the Spread Index, which is a numeric rating that corresponds with how fast a fire travels in 'Chains per Hour' (a chain is 66'). For example, if a prediction is made that the Spread Index will be 19, it means the fire is predicted to spread 1254 feet (19 x 66') in an hour.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 150 ~

Connecticut also uses a Build Up index that measures drought. It is a relative scale that is based upon past precipitation.

The 5 Forest Fire Danger Ratings or Class Days are:76

Table 2-44: Forest Fire Danger Rating Rating or Class Days Spread Index Build Up Index Low 0-10 0-22 Moderate 11-15 23-44 High 16-29 45-59 Very High 30-39 60-74 Extreme >40 >75

In addition, the technology used in Connecticut for forest fire fighting and the capabilities of firefighting equipment have changed dramatically over the years. Advances in gear, equipment, training and technology have progressed. For instance the use of radio and cell phone communication has greatly improved fire fighting command capabilities, while the use of equipment such as air attack by helicopter water drops has increased fire suppression successes.

Finally, due to the growing problem of accessing adequate water supplies and delivery of water to WUI areas to assist rural fire departments in fire suppression activities, in 2003 the Division of Forestry implemented a dry hydrant program for rural fire departments. The Division used National Fire Plan Hazard Mitigation funds to identify 9 high-risk wildland/urban interface zones which had inadequate water supplies. The Division of Forestry provided a 50/50 cost share for dry hydrant installations – up to $1,000 maximum in funding or in-kind services. The Division pool- purchased hydrants for the program. The benefits resulting from the program include: Fire departments are lowering their ISO ratings by using NFP funds to install dry hydrants. • The Dry Hydrant and related programs are increasing the number of cooperative projects with fire departments that traditionally have not worked with the Division. • Technology transfer about hydrant installation, urban interface issues, and rural wildland suppression has grown. • Elected officials and local commission members such as Inland Wetlands and Planning and Zoning, as well as private homeowners and business owners, are more aware of rural fire issues. • Local newspaper media are recognizing fire departments for their efforts to enhance community protection.

Costs and information regarding the program to date include:

76 Source: Information excerpted from the Division of Forestry Fire Weather Information webpage http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2697&q=322782&depNav_GID=1631. :

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 151 ~

To date, 185 hydrants have been installed and cost shared with 33 fire departments. Total cost (NFP funds) of the program to date is $160,000. The average cost, including in-kind services match, per dry hydrant installation was $2,267. Fire protection for rural homes, businesses, and municipal buildings has greatly improved.77

Potential Future Wildland Fire Risk

There will always be a risk from wildland fires in Connecticut. This is due to the makeup of the land cover which exists within the state. In addition, the development within WUI areas will increase the threat of property damage which may result from the occurrence of wildland fires. As development pressures increase within Connecticut, WUI areas, points or zones also increase in existence. The urban sprawl has started to intersect with the forested areas in Connecticut. For environmental and aesthetic reasons, we are noticing that home builders are leaving much of the natural setting in place. This means that mature trees and mature forests are much closer to new homes than they have been in the past. This leaves these new homes susceptible to threats from wildland fires. Although most of Connecticut’s wildland fire dangers are in rural areas, suburban areas are also susceptible to the threat of wildland fire.

In addition, climate change may increase the number and intensity of wildland fires which may occur in Connecticut. The USDA Forest Service states that wildland and forest ecosystems are very complex and it is difficult to project what the exact impacts of climate change may be on such systems.78 Climate Change studies for the Northeast79indicate that over the next century, the existing forest habitat range may move 300 to 500 miles northward. Thus trees and vegetation currently up the forests and wildland areas of Connecticut today would be replaced over the next century with tree species and vegetation more adapted to a warmer climate.

This change in the flora composition will have an effect on the existing risk of wildland fires due to changes in the fuel load wildland areas will develop. In addition it has been projected that climate change will have an effect on the state’s wildland areas by creating a warmer climate more conducive to invasive plant species and destructive vectors that will change the fire regime.

Currently Connecticut is experiencing climate conditions to support invading insects such as the Asian Longhorned Beetle and the Emerald Ash Borer. These insects are already a concern for today’s wildland areas in Connecticut. Though

77 Source: United States Department of the Interior (DOI), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Healthy Forests and Rangeland website, webpage http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/sucess/index.cfm.

78 Source: USDA Forest Service webpage on climate change. Research and Review, vol.1 Summer 2007. 79 Sources include: NECIA’s study Confronting Climate Change in the Northeast, and the USDA Forest Service article, Global Climate Change: What Could Happen to Our Northern Forests? Research Review vol.1, Summer 2007.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 152 ~

not a direct threat to humans, these invasive pests are a threat to the existing ecosystem. These species have the ability to survive through Connecticut’s current winter climate and threaten Connecticut’s very mature forested areas across the state.

The introduction of disease, pests and invasive plants promotes the dieback of matures tree species thus creating increased available vegetative fuel loads in wildland areas. The direct threat to humans comes in the form of increased fire outbreaks in WUI areas which have the potential to burn hotter and greater amounts of acreage, thus putting people and their properties at increased risk.

Due to the composition of the flora species that exist today in Connecticut’s wildland areas and the unknown rate of transference of species from the current forest and wildland species to more southern and invasive species, it is difficult to project the exact risk or potential increased number of fire outbreaks which may occur in the future. However what is know from past research on the topic of WUIs is that education of private property owners and the mitigation efforts implemented by homeowners will be significantly important as the risk of wildland fires in WUI areas increases in the future. These educational and mitigation effort will require a collaboration between government agencies (federal, state, and local), and private property owners.80

The prevention emphasis in local fire departments has historically been on fire in the home, with forest fire addressed peripherally. The associated risk of WUIs within the state is a result of people’s desire to move from the traditional highly urbanized geographic areas of the state to more suburban and rural wildland areas of the state.

Local fire departments in a home rule state such as Connecticut focus their efforts during wildland fires within WUI areas on residential and commercial structure protection. This is due to the fact that local fire departments are responsible for fire management and suppression activities associated with these structures. In addition, the fire fighting tactics utilized are very different for structure fires and wildland fires. Many times firefighters are primarily trained for fighting and managing either structural or wildland and have limited training in the other.81 This requires that local fire department receive support from state and federal fire fighting capabilities for managing and fighting wildland fires.

Moderating any threat of wildland fires in Connecticut is DEP’s fire fighting capability. Personnel from the state parks and the Forestry Division form the backbone of the state’s fire fighting staff. The Division of Forestry also maintains a fire-fighting crew for possible assignment to assist the USDA Forest Service in the suppression of large forest fires anywhere in the nation. This Connecticut Interstate Fire Crew is utilized within the state and is available for mutual aid to states in the Northeast. In circa 1949 the State of Connecticut signed a compact with six other states to form the Northeastern Forest Fire Protection Commission (NFFPC). Today the NFFPC consists of the following members:

80 Source: Cohen, Jack, The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem, Forest History Today, Fall 2008. 81 Source: U.S. Fire Administration, Fires in the Wildland/Urban Interface, Topical Fire Research Series, vol.2, Issue 16.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 153 ~

Seven states – Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York; Four Canadian provinces – Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland/Labrador, and Nova Scotia; and New England National Forests – White Mountain, Green Mountain, and Finger Lakes National Forests.

The mandate of the NFFPC is to, “provide the means to its member states and provinces to cope with fires that might be beyond the capabilities of a single member through information, technology and resource sharing (mutual aid) activities.”82

Future Vulnerability to Wildland Fires

As the existing forests continue to change in age, structure and species composition, wildfire danger will continue to be an issue. The problem of the urban/forest interface does exist within the state, although not to the degree that it exists in western states. People vulnerable to wildland fire risks are those who live within WUI areas. These areas and the people and structures located within these WUI areas will continue to be vulnerable to the risk of fires. The fire risk that threatens WUI areas in Connecticut is currently kept in check in Connecticut by factors such as declining backyard debris burning, and less uncontrolled or unsupervised interaction with forests and the natural environment as a whole. Other factors which lessen the urban/forest interface problem in Connecticut are: fuel-loading levels which are significantly less than other parts of the country; weather patterns producing median annual precipitation of greater than 42 inches which is well distributed throughout the year; and a landscaping preference which emphasizes large expanses of lawn around buildings. However a change in these factors may increase the risk and potential number of wildland fire outbreaks experienced within WUI areas.

Tornadoes

Tornado – A narrow, violently rotating column of air that extends from the base of a thunderstorm to the ground.83

There are two types of tornadoes – those that develop from supercell thunderstorms and those that do not84. Figure [renumber] provides a visual presentation of windflow and physical breakdown of a tornado. Supercell thunderstorm tornadoes are the most common and most dangerous type of tornado. NOAA defines this type of tornado as, “a long lived (greater than 1 hour) and highly organized storm feeding off an updraft that is tilted and rotating.”

82 Source: NFFPC webpage http://www.nffpc.org/. Information on the compact, the mandate excerpted from this website. 83 Definition taken from NOAA’s Tornado Basics primer located at www.nssl.noaa.gov/tornado/tor_basics.html. 84 Information taken from NOAA’s tornado primer webpage, see above footnote for reference.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 154 ~

Non-supercell thunderstorm tornadoes are defined by NOAA as, “circulations that form without a rotating updraft.”85 There are two types of non-supercell thunderstorm tornadoes: 1. Gustnado – a whirl of dust or debris at or near the ground with no condensation tunnel; and 2. Landspout - a narrow rope-like condensation funnel that forms when the thunderstorm cloud is still growing and there is no rotating updraft (the spinning motion originates near the ground). Waterspouts are similar to landspouts but occur over water rather than land.

Figure 2-53 is a diagram of the anatomy of a supercell thunderstorm tornado. There are still many unknowns regarding tornadoes and their development such as: Exactly what and when will a storm event trigger a tornado? How do tornadoes dissipate? How does cloud-seeding affect tornado development?

Figure 2-53: Visual Diagram of a Tornado86

The National Weather Service (NWS) is the official agency that forecasts tornadoes nationwide. Warnings are issued to specific geographic areas by local NWS offices. As of February 1, 2007 the original Fujita (otherwise known as the F-scale), which was developed by Dr. Tetsuya Theodore Fujita in 1971, was replaced with Enhanced Fujita Scale as seen in Table 2-4487

85 Please see above footnotes for reference to NOAA’s webpage. 86 Source: NOAA’s webpage.. 87 Copy of the Enhanced Fujita Scale was taken from NOAA’s webpage www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/ef-scale.html.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 155 ~

Table 2-45: Enhanced Fujita Scale

OPERATIONAL EF FUJITA SCALE DERIVED EF SCALE SCALE

Fastest 3 Second 3 Second 3 Second F EF EF 1/4-mile Gust Gust Gust Number Number Number (mph) (mph) (mph) (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

There are 28 damage indicators which are associated with the enhanced F-scale, as shown below in Figure 2-54. The F-scale uses three-second gusts estimated at the point of damage based on a judgment of 8 levels of damage to the 28 indicators listed in figure 2-54. NOAA provides detailed information for each damage indicator on its website such as average structure size, building construction and material characteristics, and damage descriptions per degrees of damage.

Figure 2-54: Damage Indicators Associated with the Enhanced Fujita Scale88 Small barns, farm Large shopping mall Institutional bldg. outbuildings Large isolated retail (hospital, 1- or 2-family bldg. (“big box”) government, residences Automobile showroom university) Single-wide mobile Automotive service Metal building system homes bldg. Service station Double-wide mobile School, 1-story canopy homes elementary (interior Warehouse (tilt-up Apt., condo, or and exterior halls) walls or heavy timber) townhouse (<3 stories) School – junior or Transmission line Motel senior high school tower Masonry apt. or motel Low-rise bldg. (1-4 Free-standing tower Small retail bldg. (fast stories) Free standing pole food) Mid-rise bldg. (5-20 (light, flag, etc.) Small professional bldg stories) Tree – hardwood (doctor’s office, bank High-rise bldg. (>20 Tree - softwood branch) stories) Strip mall

88 Indicators taken from NOAA’s Enhanced Fujita Tornado Damage Scale webpage: www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/ef-scale.html. A link on this webpage will direct the reader to the final document which details the changes to the original F-scale.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 156 ~

History of Tornadoes in Connecticut

Connecticut experienced eighty-one tornado incidents in the period from 1950- 2008. Four of these events impacted people and property in two counties. NOAA does not have any historical record of a tornado affecting more than two counties since 1950 (date when NOAA began collecting data on tornadoes). Incidents of tornado activity have occurred throughout all of Connecticut during the months of April through October. These tornadoes have caused millions of dollars in damages, claimed at least six lives and injured 700 people.

Table 2-46: Total Number of Tornadoes Per County from 1950 – August 31, 2009

Fujita Scale Intensity Measurement Total Number of F-0 F-1 F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 Tornadoes (Gale) (Weak) (Strong) (Severe) (Devastating) (Incredible) Per County County Fairfield 2 9 2 0 0 0 13 Hartford 3 6 5 1 1 0 16 Litchfield 2 11 9 0 0 0 22 Middlesex 2 4 1 1 0 0 8 New Haven 3 4 3 2 1 0 13 New London 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Tolland 2 4 3 1 0 0 10 Windham 1 3 1 0 0 0 5 Total Number of Tornadoes for all 15 42 24 5 2 0 88 Counties (per F-Scale intensity)

*Source: NOAA Storm Prediction Center website: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/. Eighty-one actual events, four events affected two counties, no event affected more than two counties. In addition three more events with no county affiliation were also recorded by NOAA but not listed here. Enhanced Fujita Scale categorizations located on NOAA's SPC website.

According to NOAA, the deadliest tornado on record to strike Connecticut occurred on October 3, 1979 in Hartford County. The tornado had an estimated path length of 11.3 miles and an estimated width of 1,400 feet. Damages were estimated between $50,000,000 - $500,000,000. Five hundred people were injured and three people died from this event. As a result of this tornado, two towns were declared Federal disaster areas.

Prior to the October 3, 1979 event, another deadly tornado occurred on May 24, 1962. One person was killed and fifty people were injured by this tornado event. The 1962 tornado had an estimated path length of 11.6 miles and was estimated

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 157 ~

to be 120 feet in width. Damage estimated for this tornado event range from $500,000 to $5,000,000.

On July 10, 1989. a tornado cut a path through western Connecticut, from Salisbury to New Haven in less than one hour. Two people were killed, 110 people were injured and sixty-seven homes were destroyed. Damages totaled $125 million (1989 dollars), and a Presidential Disaster Declaration was issued (FEMA-837-DR-CT).

The most recent tornados to strike Connecticut occurred on June 26, 2009 and July 31, 2009. Both tornadoes were rated as EF-1s. The June 26, 2009 tornado affected Wethersfield, CT, and the July 31, 2009 tornado touched down in Madison and Shelton Ct.

On June 29, 2009 Governor M. Jodi Rell requested a FEMA preliminary damage assessment (PDA) as a result of the tornado, heavy winds, rain and hail which were associated with severe thunderstorms on June 26. Damage estimates that resulted from the severe weather of June 26 are as follows:

Table 2-47: Preliminary Damage Estimates as of July 21, 2009 for Damages Incurred by the Severe Weather of June 26, 2009 County Total Damage Estimate Federal Threshold Hartford $1,796,923. $2,811,560 New London $352,172 $849,809 Statewide $2,434,302 $4,461,341

As of July 21, 2009 it was determined by FEMA that the State failed to meet federal thresholds for support under the FEMA Public Assistance Program.

Potential Future Tornado Risk

Since tornadoes occur on such small spatial scales and are a product of current weather patterns (they can occur with very little warning), it is difficult to provide a detailed and highly specific predictive analysis for this type of hazard event.

In general, the pattern of occurrence and locations for tornadoes in Connecticut is expected to remain unchanged in the 21st Century. Based on NOAA’s historical data (see Table 2-45), 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. The counties of Middlesex, Tolland and Windham have a moderate risk, while the counties of Windham and New London may be considered to have a low risk of tornado since tornadoes have historically occurred less frequently than in other counties in Connecticut.

According to NOAA, climate change will directly influence the frequency and intensity of tornadoes89. However, climate change may directly increase the frequency and intensity of thunderstorms in the future. This potential future increase in thunderstorm activity will be the primary factor to affect the frequency

89 See facts page at www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 158 ~

and intensity of future tornado events. This in turn may increase the risk and occurrence of tornadoes within Connecticut. Therefore, climate change may act as an underlying influence on tornado activity.

Future Vulnerability to Tornadoes

Tornadoes in Connecticut will continue to occur more frequently in western and northwestern Connecticut, and less frequently in southeastern Connecticut. Although the frequency of tornadoes may be greater in western Connecticut, vulnerability may not be greatest in that part of the state due to relatively low population density. When the frequency and population density are combined, the highest vulnerability to damage exists in Hartford and New Haven Counties.

The lowest vulnerability to tornado damage will likely continue to be along the southeast coast. Although this area is very densely populated, the frequency of tornado activity is low with only one confirmed tornado during the past thirty years in New London County. Even though tornadoes pose a real threat to public safety, their occurrence is not considered frequent enough in Connecticut to justify construction of tornado shelters at this time.

In lieu of a tornado shelter program, the State of Connecticut, through CT DEMHS, has chosen to provide NOAA weather radios to all public schools and to many municipalities for use in local government buildings. These radios are tuned into the National Weather Service (NWS) radio frequencies. When weather warnings are given by NWS, the schools and local communities receive immediate notification of a storm event. Based on the type of warning provided, residents are advised to seek shelter or take appropriate precautions as directed by the NWS. NOAA radios have proven to be very popular with communities in Connecticut, as they serve to warn local populations of many types of weather events, not just tornado activity.

Advances in weather forecasting, use of Doppler radar and computer modeling have reduced the time for issuing tornado warnings and implementing tornado event preparations by local communities and the general public. However, warning times are still very short due to the nature of these type of events, and the impacts from tornado activity are still considered a significant threat to life and property.

Drought

Drought – an extended period of deficient rainfall relative to the statistical mean for a region.90

Although associated with deficient precipitation, droughts are measured in a number of ways. The Connecticut Drought Preparedness and Response Plan identifies seven criteria for assessing drought: 1. Precipitation;

90 Definition excerpted from Defining Drought Conditions, by Dr. Xiusheng Yang, Connecticut State Climatologist, 2002; available at website address: http://www.ctiwr.uconn.edu/DroughtArticles/Yang.htm.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 159 ~

2. Groundwater; 3. Streamflow; 4. Reservoir levels; 5. Palmer Drought Severity Index; Crop Moisture; and 6. Fire Danger.

Other entities, such as water utilities may measure drought conditions by these or other criteria, such as the duration in which their well pumps must operate in a day.

Considering just the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), severe droughts have occurred periodically in Connecticut, most recently during 1929-1931, 1957, 1964-1966, 2002, and 2007-2008.91 Droughts can vary widely in duration, severity, and local impact. They may have widespread social and economic significance that require the response of numerous parties.

While the agricultural drought of 1957 was especially disastrous to the State’s agricultural interests it was also a severe meteorological drought for small reservoirs in the State. Other meteorological droughts of June 1929 through March 1931 and the mid-60’s were also very serious. Connecticut experienced its drought of record during the 1960’s with rainfall deficits reaching their highest levels in the spring of 1965. This drought severely limited water resources throughout the state.

General Climate and Climate Division of the State

Connecticut’s general climate has four main characteristics:92 1. Equitable distribution of precipitation among the four seasons; 2. Large ranges of temperature both daily and annually; 3. Great differences in the same season or month of different years, and 4. Considerable diversity of the weather over short periods of time.

Three types of air affect the state, with the first two types influencing the state’s climate the most: 1. Cold, dry air coming down from sub-arctic North America; 2. Warm, moist air flowing up overland from the Gulf of Mexico and sub- tropical waters of the Atlantic; and 3. Cool damp air moving in from the Atlantic.

From north to south of the state, the mean annual temperature difference is approximately 6 degrees Fahrenheit. The greatest temperature contrast occurrs during the winter season. Precipitation is generally evenly distributed throughout all parts of the state, with Connecticut averaging 120 days of rainfall annually.

91 Source of historic data for droughts consisting of a 2 or more month period of severe or extreme drought is: http://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/drought/CT_drought_periods.html. In Addition Governor M. Jodi Rell issued a drought advisory in 2007, which was subsequently lifted in 2008.

92 Narration from Weather America 2001, and presented on Connecticut’s State Climate Center website: http://www.cag.uconn.edu/nrme/cscc/CTweatherstationintroduction/conncticutintroduction.htm.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 160 ~

The state is divided into three climate divisions for purposes of computing the PDSI: 1. Northwest Climate Division – Consisting of Litchfield County; 2. Central Climate Division – Consisting of parts of Tolland, Windham, Hartford Counties and portions of Fairfield, New Haven Middlesex, and New London Counties; and 3. Coastal Climate Division – Consisting of the coastal portions of Fairfield, New Haven, Middlesex, and New London Counties.

Drought Categories

Four categories of drought are listed in the drought literature. The first three types of drought are physical in nature, while the fourth drought is measured by societal impact93: 1. Meteorological Drought – Is a measure of departure of precipitation from the normal. It is relatively regional in nature and affects a specific geographic area due to large variability of precipitation and climatic differences between geographic locations. 2. Hydrological Drought – Occurs when surface and subsurface water supplies are below normal. 3. Agricultural Drought – Refers to a situation where the amount of moisture in the soil no longer meets the needs of a particular crop grown in an area. The key to vulnerability to this type of drought is two-fold – severity and timing. This type of drought tends to be more serious if it occurs when plants are forming or filling their seed (mid-summer in Connecticut).94 4. Socioeconomic Drought – The situation that occurs when physical water shortages begin to affect people.

Although all droughts originate with a deficiency of precipitation, hydrologists are more concerned with how this deficiency plays out through the hydrologic system. Hydrological droughts are usually out of phase with or lag the occurrence of meteorological and agricultural droughts. It takes longer for precipitation deficiencies to show up in components of the hydrological system such as soil moisture, streamflow, and ground water and reservoir levels. As a result, these impacts are out of phase with impacts in other economic sectors. For example, a precipitation deficiency may result in a rapid depletion of soil moisture that is almost immediately discernible to agriculturalists, but the impact of this deficiency on reservoir levels may not affect hydroelectric power production, drinking water supply availability or recreational uses for many months.

93 Sources of information on the 4 drought categories include the National Weather Service Forecast Office (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov), National Drought Mitigation Center (http://drought.unl.edu), and the Connecticut State Climate Center (http://www.ctiwr.uconn.edu).

94 Miller, Dr. David. Drought, Forests, and Agriculture in Connecticut, 2002. The University of Connecticut; web address: http://www.ctiwr.uconn.edu/DroughtArticles/Miller.htm.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 161 ~

Human Activity and Land Use

Human actions can increase the risk of water shortage without any change in meteorological conditions. For instance, as the degree of imperviousness and water run-off is increased during land development, recharge of groundwater is reduced. This not only reduces the availability of groundwater to wells, it also reduces dry weather flows in streams.95 Although weather condition is a primary contributor to hydrological drought, other factors such as changes in land use, land degradation, and the construction of dams all affect the hydrological characteristics of a water basin.

Since geographic areas of the state are interconnected by hydrologic systems, the impact of meteorological drought may extend well beyond the borders of the precipitation-deficient area.96 For example, the Southwest Regional Pipeline interconnects most of the major public water supply systems in Fairfield County, Connecticut. This promotes the sharing of supply and distribution systems and can mitigate the effect of a drought or other water supply emergency in any one system. However, since the highly populated coastal area is dependent upon water resources reservoirs located further inland, meteorological drought inland may severely affect the sources of supply, resulting in the need for drought restrictions in the coastal service areas even if these areas are not experiencing meteorological drought.

Potential Risk of Drought Impacts

There are three main categories of impacts associated with drought: 1. Economic; 2. Environmental; and 3. Social.

Table 2-48 provides some of the most common impacts that may occur from drought. A more thorough and detailed list of potential drought impacts can be found at the National Drought Mitigation Center website.97 Figure 2-55 provides a visual representation of the sequence of drought impacts through the three physical types of drought into the three main categories of drought impacts.

95 Source: the National Drought Mitigation Center website, Understanding and Defining Drought. 96 Source: the National Drought Mitigation Center website, Understanding and Defining Drought. 97 National Drought Mitigation Center website provides a detailed checklist for use by water use planners for drought planning. This checklist can also be found in the Western Drought Coordination Council’s planning guide, How to Reduce Drought Risk. A link to this guide can be found on the National Drought Mitigation Center’s website.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 162 ~

Table 2-48: Common Types of Drought Impacts98

Drought Impacts by Category

Economic: Environmental Social Agricultural Animal/Plant Stress and Health Industry Wetland Nutrition Tourism and Recreation Water Quality Recreation Energy Public Safety Financial Cultural Values Transportation Aesthetic Values

Figure 2-55: Sequence of Drought Impacts99

Drought Preparedness and Response Planning in Connecticut

The first State Drought Preparedness and Response Plan for Connecticut was adopted on August 4, 2003 by the Water Planning Council (WPC), a group of Commissioners from four state agencies, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Department of Public Health (DPH), Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC), and Office of Policy and Management (OPM). The plan was initiated due to record low ground water level during the spring of 2002. The plan was prepared by the Interagency Drought Working Group, comprised of

98 See footnote 8. 99 See footnote 8.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 163 ~

staff from the DEP, DPH, DPUC, OPM, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS) with assistance from the U.S. Geological Survey.

The disconnect that may arise between an area’s actual supply of water and people’s perception of that supply is a major consideration of the Drought Preparedness and Response Plan. The plan provides statewide guidance to assess and to minimize the impacts of a drought on Connecticut. In addition, the plan presents each participating state agency’s roles and responsibilities pre and post-drought event. The plan is to be used as a flexible, non-regulatory, guidance document. The State will also be able to mobilize state resources more quickly and efficiently during response efforts. For example, actions performed to date to mitigate potential impacts from droughts include:100 1. The eighty-one water utilities that serve over 1,000 people or 250 customers have prepared water supply plans. As a part of these plans, each of these water utilities is required to have a water conservation component and an emergency contingency plan component. 2. The individual water utility plans outline actions to be taken in response to local public water supply conditions. 3. In 1989 a law was passed that required the sale of only low flow devices, such as shower heads and low flow toilets. 4. In the same year a law was passed that required water utilities to make available, free of charge, many of these low flow devices to encourage their customers to retrofit their residences with water conserving devices. 5. The eighty-one water utilities are now required by law to make an annual distribution of water conservation educational information to their customers. 6. In the late 1980’s a program was established to retrofit state agency buildings with water saving fixtures and devices. 7. An effective drought response program hinges on communication among state agencies and public water providers and the timely dissemination of clear and succinct information to the public. An effort has already been made to develop a comprehensive information dissemination system consisting of a dedicated web site with links to other state, federal, and private drought information.

Furthermore, the plan provides specifics for drought stage criteria, actions, monitoring, coordination, and preparedness for each of the following drought stages: 1. Drought Advisory Stage; 2. Drought Watch Stage; 3. Drought Warning Stage; 4. Drought Emergency Stage; and 5. Post-Drought Actions.

The plan also provides details as to the allowance of non-essential uses of water during various drought stages, when a non-essential would be allowed, by whom, and a description of the non-essential use.

100 Actions excerpted from the 2003 State drought plan.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 164 ~

The plan is a living document and is being updated in response to the experience of its implementation during the state’s 2007-2008 drought advisory. In addition, the Water Planning Council has approved the State of Connecticut Model Water Use Restriction Ordinance which can improve a community’s ability to communicate and enforce any necessary drought responses.

Other drought preparedness and pre-mitigating actions that the state undertakes include: Maintains a webpage called www.ct.gov/waterstatus. This webpage provides information and data regarding droughts and drought monitoring, links to all state agencies participating on the Interagency Drought Workgroup, and links to other data monitoring sites. Department of Public Health annually reviews water utility reports and provides a summary of Statewide Reservoir Capacity Levels.

The Drought Plan may be revised in the future to incorporate recommendations from the subcommittees.

Potential Future Risk of Drought

As noted by the National Drought Mitigation Center101, drought risk is based on four elements: 1. Frequency; 2. Severity; 3. Physical nature of the drought; and 4. The affected area’s vulnerability to the effects of the drought.

Predicting the future occurrence of a drought within a given time period is very difficult to do. Other factors may also contribute to the degree of droughts and their impacts on Connecticut. These include projections of humidity levels (decrease), hotter temperatures and increased heat wave occurrences, transpiration rates, increased water demands by the general population and industry sectors.

However there are indicators and tools available that can help indicate to scientists when a drought may occur and to monitor the duration of said drought. Connecticut, as with most states within the United States, use both the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) and the Crop Moisture Index (CMI) as indices for a drought occurrence102. The PDSI indicates prolonged and abnormal moisture deficiency or excess and helps climatologists evaluate the scope severity and frequency of prolonged periods of dryness, while the CMI (a derivative of the PDSI) provide information on the short term or current status of purely agricultural drought or moisture surplus. The PDSI is most effective for determining long-term drought conditions, while the CMI is effective at helping determine short-term droughts.

101 Information regarding risk elements was taken from the National Drought Mitigation Center’s website: http://drought.unl.edu, under the section entitled, “Drought Impacts and Vulnerability. 102 Information excerpted from the NOAA Climate Prediction Center, http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov and the National Drought Mitigation Center website.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 165 ~

Recent climate change studies103 have indicated that although precipitation is projected to increase throughout this century, it will be in the form of short duration, intense, and less frequent events. In addition it is projected by the Northeast Climate Impact Assessment Group (NECIA) and the New York Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) that most of this increased precipitation may occur during colder times of the year (i.e., winter in the form of snow or ice). Furthermore, it is projected that the frequency and intensity of both long-term and short-term droughts in Connecticut, and throughout the Northeast, will increase throughout the century with the impacts beginning to occur with a greater degree of frequency beginning in the mid-century (2050’s).

Currently the State of Connecticut is proactively working, through the Governor’s Steering Committee on Climate Change, to assess the risks and impacts of climate change on the State of Connecticut104 It is anticipated that more detailed information, which will be a valuable addition to the future risk assessment sections of all natural hazards stated within this plan will be available within the next year. This added data and information will be a part of subsequent NHMP updates and will enhance the analysis of future risk from natural hazards.

Future Vulnerability to Drought

The entire state is susceptible and vulnerable to the occurrence of a drought event. Figure 2-56 and 2-57 show the population density and land use cover for Connecticut. The population numbers are based on Census 2000 figures, while the land cover was updated in 2006.

Figure 2-56: Population Per Community

103 Information derived from 2 recent studies: Confronting Climate Change in the Northeast, by the Northeast Climate Impact Assessment Group, July 2007, and Climate Risk Information, by the New York City Panel on Climate Change, 2/17/09. 104 Risk Assessment and Impact Analysis Report expected publish date is July 2010, and Panel Recommendation Report expected publish date is July 2011. Please see Chapter 3 for more information regarding the Governor’s Steering Committee on Climate Change.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 166 ~

Figure 2-57: Land Cover in Connecticut: 2006

As one can see from Figures 2-56 and 2-57, a drought will produce different impacts to the state depending on the extent and geographic location of the drought (e.g., affecting a local area or region, or occurring statewide). In highly developed areas drought impacts tend to be dominated by economic losses and possible potable water shortages and potential health threats. However, in the past, many of the state’s cities developed large capacity water supplies to serve the rapidly growing industrial, commercial, and residential sector demands within their communities. The subsequent reduction of industrial demand has left some of the state’s most intensively developed urban areas with extra water capacity. The opposite can be seen in some rural and suburban areas, which are now experiencing more rapid growth., These areas’ water supplies may be limited, thus restraining future growth of these communities and placing increased demand on existing water resources.

In less densely populated areas of the state, the impacts from the occurrence of a drought are equally as high a threat. They include: Increased potential of brush and forest fire occurrences – Potential loss of natural resources in addition to the impacts to people living within or near heavily forested areas, who are at a higher risk for the impacts which can come from fires - safe access/evacuation routes from the affected area, loss of personal belongings and economic losses, potential physical injury and/or loss of life; Potential threat to levels and quality of municipal public water supplies (many of which are utilized by heavily urbanized areas of Connecticut along the coast and throughout the Connecticut River Valley, and impacts to small community and private potable water wells; and Reduction of available fresh water resources of existing wells, including increased threat of well contamination (bacterial or chemical) and

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 167 ~

increased need to drill deeper wells to adequately provide fresh water resources for the resident population and natural resource and agriculture management.

Table 2-49: 2000 Population Percentages for Groups 18 Years and Under and 65 Years and Over Percentage of Percentage of Projected Projected Total Population Population Total Total Population of people 18 of People 65 Population Population per Census and Under and Over Who Are 18 Who Are 65 2000 per Census per Census Years and Years and County (4/1/00) 2000 2000 Under Over Connecticut 3,405,565 841,688 470,183 24.72% 13.81% Fairfield County 882,567 226,214 117,163 25.63% 13.28% Hartford County 857,183 210,832 125,628 24.60% 14.66% Litchfield County 182,193 44,846 25,941 24.61% 14.24% Middlesex County 155,071 35,980 21,085 23.20% 13.60% New Haven County 824,008 201,679 119,292 24.48% 14.48% New London County 259,088 63,231 33,765 24.41% 13.03% Tolland County 136,364 31,520 13,869 23.11% 10.17% Windham County 109,091 27,386 13,440 25.10% 12.32% Source of Population Numbers: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau; Release Date: March 19, 2009

Table 2-50: 2008 Projected Population Percentages for Groups 18 Years and Under and 65 Years and Over Percentage Percentage of Projected of Projected Population of Population Total Total Total People 18 of people 65 Population Population Population and Under and Over Who Are 18 Who Are 65 Projection Projection Projection Years and Years and County for 7/1/08 for 7/1/08 for 7/1/08 Under Over Connecticut 3,501,252 812,213 478,007 23.20% 13.65% Fairfield County 895,030 223,180 118,119 24.94% 13.20% Hartford County 877,312 201,868 125,157 23.01% 14.27% Litchfield County 187,745 40,206 27,670 21.42% 14.74% Middlesex County 164,794 35,836 23,813 21.75% 14.45% New Haven County 846,101 195,441 116,806 23.10% 13.81% New London County 264,519 60,434 35,528 22.85% 13.43% Tolland County 148,406 29,404 16,441 19.81% 11.08% Windham County 117,345 25,844 14,473 22.02% 12.33% Source of Population Numbers: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau; Release Date: March 19, 2009

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 168 ~

U.S. Census projections of population and population groups for Connecticut indicate an increase in total population and specific population groups of people eighteen years of age and under, and people sixty-five years of age. However the relative percentage of these groups to the projected total population does not show a significant increase and the percentage of these two groups remains relatively the same from year 2000 figures and 2008 projected figures. Though the percentage of these groups remains relatively the same in the U.S. Census projections until July 1, 2008, it should be noted that these two groups combined make up between 30-40% of a county’s population (see Tables 2-49 and 2-50).

Economic impacts from a drought event may affect both elderly populations and families with children under eighteen years of age. In addition, if current economic data are also taken into consideration at the time of a long-term drought (i,e., unemployment figures), the economic and social impacts from such an event could be significant for Connecticut. Due to limited available resources at the time of this plan update demographic analysis for this hazard was limited. It is recommended that an additional analysis be performed for future plan updates, especially when Census 2010 data is available. However the implementation of this recommendation will rely on available resources and secured funding sources to perform this work.

Connecticut is highly vulnerable to a drought occurrence, whether short or long- term in duration. Impacts will be costly in both social and economic terms. The responsibility for drought planning lies with the Connecticut Water Planning Council105. It is recommended that future updates of the Connecticut Drought Preparedness and Response Plan include: 1. Assessment of vulnerability aspects (socially and economic) of the state; 2. Identification of primary and secondary impacts which may arise from a drought (both long-term and short-term droughts), including underlying issues which may increase the state’s or a particular sector’s vulnerability to a drought; 3. Inclusion of risk assessment and recommendation work performed by the Governors Steering Committee on Climate Change; and 4. Proposed mitigation measures and implementation of educational outreach, which may be performed to reduce the impacts from both short-term and long-term droughts.

Earthquakes

Earthquake – The sudden, cyclic movement of the earth caused by the release of strain inside the earth. This movement causes faulting.106

Though California is widely known for its seismic activity, earthquakes, mostly with a magnitude of < 3.0, occur in a large frequency within the Northeast United States.107 In

105 See section entitled Drought Preparedness and Response Planning in Connecticut for more information regarding this group. 106 Definition taken from the American Meteorological Society’s online glossary located at http://amsglossary.allenpress.com.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 169 ~

fact, the Northeast States Emergency Consortium notes that from 1538 to 1989 1,215 earthquakes occurred in New England.108 From 1568 to July 2009, 140 earthquakes occurred in Connecticut.109

Kafka states that the earthquakes that occur within the northeastern United States are called intraplate earthquakes.110 The earthquake process itself is often described as complex in plate interiors. Kafka notes two important points that affect earthquake prediction in these areas (i.e., the where and when an earthquake will occur): 1. There is no obvious relationship between earthquakes and geologically mapped faults in most intraplate areas; and 2. It is not at all clear whether faults mapped at the earth’s surface in the Northeast are the same faults along which the earthquakes are occurring.

Kafka reports that the current accepted theory to explain the occurrence of earthquakes in the Northeast is that ancient zones of weakness are being reactivated in the present day stress field. The last major episode of geologic activity to affect New England bedrock occurred during the Mesozoic Era, approximately 100 million years ago.111 The remains of the Mesozoic rifting episode can be found in a series of ancient continental rift zones in the Northeast, including the Hartford rift basin (located in central Connecticut and central Massachusetts), and the Newark rift basin (located in the greater New York area).112 Figure 2-58 shows recent seismic activity of the Northeast between 1975 and 2008.113 Most earthquakes have a calculated magnitude of less than 3.0. This map also shows clusters of earthquakes occurring around the Portland-Haddam-East Haddam area, as well as the New Haven –Greenwich area of Connecticut.

107Source of information is a paper entitled, Why Does the Earth Quake in New England, written by Alan L. Kafka and located on Boston College’s Weston Observatory website, www.2.bc.edu/~kafka/Why_Quakes/why_quakes.html. 108.Source: NESEC website: www.nesec.org/hazards/earthquakes.cfm 109 Information downloaded from Northeast Seismic Network earthquake catalogs located on the Weston Observatory site: www.bc.edu/research/westonobservatory/. 110 Source: see Kafka’s paper Why Does the Earth Quake in New England?, located at Weston Observatory’s website. Intraplate means within plates, in contrast to along plate boundaries. 111 Source: see Kafka’s paper Why Does the Earth Quake in New England?, located at Weston Observatory’s website. 112 Source: see Kafka’s paper Why Does the Earth Quake in New England?, located at Weston Observatory’s website. 113 Map downloaded from the Weston Observatory website: www.bc.edu/research/westonobservatory/.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 170 ~

Figure 2-58: Map of Seismic Activity within the Northeast between 1975 and 2008

A number of seismic stations have been established within New England and Canada. There are three seismic stations currently operating in Connecticut. One station is operated and maintained by the Weston Observatory, and is part of the observatory’s New England seismic network. Two stations are operated and maintained by the Lamont-Doherty Cooperative Seismographic Network.114 Figure 2-59 shows the seismic station network located within New England and Canada.115

114 More information for both network can be found at the following websites: Lamont –Doherty Cooperative Seismographic Network – http://www.1deo.columbia.edu/LCSN/intro.html; and the Weston Observatory – http://www.bc.edu/research/westonobservatory/about/aboutwo.html. 115 Map downloaded from the Weston Observatory website: www.bc.edu/research/westonobservatory/.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 171 ~

Figure 2-59: Map of Active Seismic Stations within New England and Canada

The magnitude of an earthquake is a measure of the amount of energy released as seismic waves at the focus of an earthquake.116 Each earthquake has a magnitude assigned to it. The magnitudes of earthquakes which occur east of the Rocky Mountains and into Canada are often determined by the use of local or regional magnitude scales. Many earthquakes in Northeast earthquake catalogs calculate magnitude for such events based on the Coda-length magnitude scale or the Nuttli magnitude scale and use the Richter Scale as a default magnitude scale.117 Nuttli is the most commonly used magnitude scale in the Northeast. It is computed from the vertical component 1-second Lg seismic-waves (short period surface waves).118

Once a magnitude for an earthquake event has been calculated using one of several scientifically accepted formulas, it can then be connected to an intensity measure. The intensity scale used in the United States and by the USGS is the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Table 2-51 shows the connection between computed magnitudes and related intensities of earthquake events. Table 2-52 provides an abbreviated description of each intensity level of the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.119

116 Source of information is USGS’s web page entitled Magnitudes located at http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/code_magnitude.html. 117 LCSN and Weston Observatory earthquake logs, being the most comprehensive for the Northeast utilize Nuttli or Coda-length magnitudes scale as the primary scale and Richter as the default scale. 118 Source of information is USGS’s web page entitled Magnitudes located at http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/code_magnitude.html. 119 Source of information and figures is USGS’s website: http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/learning/topics/mag_vs_int.php.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 172 ~

Table 2-51: Earthquake Magnitude/Intensity Comparison Earthquake Magnitude Typical Maximum Modified 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 or higher VIII - XII

Table 2-52: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale Intensity Description of Effects on People, Structures, or Natural Environment Level I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. II Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. III Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated. IV Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. V Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. VI Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. VII Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well- built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. XI Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. XII Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air.

Earthquake History of Connecticut

The largest earthquake in Connecticut occurred in East Haddam on May 16, 1791. It was estimated to be a VII in intensity.120 A description of the earthquake and the events that followed states:

“It began at 8 o’clock p.m., with two very heavy shocks in quick succession. The first was the most powerful; the earth appeared to undergo very violent convulsions. The stone walls were thrown down,

120 Note: Seismic recorders were not in use until the early 1900’s and routine reporting of earthquake activity was not implemented until the 1930’s for the Northeast region, hence intensity levels for early earthquakes (prior to 1900’s) were based on expert determinations based on damage and activity reports..

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 173 ~

chimneys were untopped, doors, which were latched were thrown open, and a fissure in the ground of several rods in extent was afterwards discovered. Thirty lighter ones followed in a short time, and upwards of one hundred were counted in the course of the night.”121

The next moderate earthquake occurred in Hartford in April 1837. This was followed by three subsequent earthquake events in 1840 (a few miles southeast of Hartford), June 1858 (occurred at New Haven), and the June 1875 (which have an estimated intensity level of a V and was felt within a general 2,000 square mile area of Connecticut and Massachusetts). Figure 2-60 shows earthquake activity for the Northeast, including Connecticut for the time period 1924 to 2006.

Figure 2-60: Earthquake Activity in the Northeast from 1924 to 2006122

A list of past earthquakes which occurred in Connecticut is presented in Appendix C. The list was compiled from several northeast earthquake catalog files. A review of the past 140 earthquakes which occurred in Connecticut shows that most earthquakes had a calculated magnitude of < 3.0.

Potential Risk of an Earthquake in Connecticut

Connecticut may be categorized as having a low or moderate risk for an earthquake > 3.5 occurring in the future and a moderate risk of an earthquake < 3.0 occurring in the future. USGS currently ranks Connecticut as 43 out of 50 states for earthquake activity (based on geologic and historical data) and notes that no earthquake with a magnitude of > 3.5 has occurred in Connecticut within

121 Source: USGS, 2009, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/connecticut/history.php. 122 Source: Kafka, Alan L., Why Does the Earth Quake in New England, downloaded from Weston Observatory website on July 15, 2009; website address: www2.bc.edu/~kafka/Why_Quakes/why_quakes.html.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 174 ~

at least the last 30 years.123 As Kafka notes, it is impossible to predict when, where, and what magnitude would be for a future earthquake, especially in New England, due to this geographic area being located in an intraplate area of the United States.124 However, future probabilities of potential events can be developed given geologic information and historical information on past events for a particular area.

The USGS earthquake hazard map in Figure 2-61 indicates a low probability of an earthquake occurring within Connecticut that would cause substantial damage within a fifty-year time period. The hazard map shows, “the distribution of earthquake shaking levels that have a certain probability of occurring in the United States.”125 For the northeastern area of the United States, USGS suggests the use of either a 2% or 5%/50 year hazard map to provide higher, more realistic probabilities for planning purposes. Figure 2-62 shows that, depending upon the specific geographic area of Connecticut in question, the earthquake peak ground acceleration (PGA) (certain amount of mapped shaking distribution) that has a 2% chance of being exceeded in 50 years has a value between 7 – 15 % of %g (percent of gravity). Kafka notes that it requires more than 100% of the force of gravity to throw objects into the air. This is a relatively low probability since a 2% percent chance of exceedence means there is a 98% chance that the shaking will not exceed the indicated value of %g.

In addition, a series of probability maps were created using the USGS’s interactive web-based mapping tools (see example in Figure 2-62) for East Haddam, Portland, and Haddam, and the New Haven to Greenwich area of the state. The maps were created to help analyze the probability of a magnitude > 5.0 (shown as a magnitude > 4.75), and a magnitude > 6.0 earthquake occurring within 50, 100, 250 and 350 year time period. Since the probabilities were the same for Portland, Haddam and East Haddam, only one of these communities’ map series (Haddam) along with the map series for Stamford are located in Appendix C. Due to the relative historic infrequency of an earthquake of the selected magnitudes occurring within the state, USGS encourages the use of a longer time period to provide a truer projection of probabilities.

Tables 2-53 and 2-54 present the projected percentages of such earthquake magnitudes occurring within Connecticut. The chance (percent) of a minimum 5.0 earthquake occurring within a 350-year time period (maximum mapped for this plan) is relatively moderate for the New Haven-Greenwich area of Connecticut. This may be a result of the geographic proximity of this area to a mesozoic rift basin.

123 Source: USGS website: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/last_earthquake.php, and http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/top_states.php. 124 Source: Kafka, Alan, L. Why Does the Earth Quake in New England. 125 Sources: USGS, website http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/haz101, and Weston Observatory website: www2.bc.edu/~kafka/Why_Quakes/why_quakes.html.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 175 ~

Figure 2-61: USGS Hazard Map for the Eastern United States

Table 2-53: Probability of an Earthquake of Specific Magnitude Occurring in the Haddam-East Haddam- Portland Area of Connecticut Timeframe Probability of the Occurrence of an (years) Earthquake Event Equal or Greater Than a 5.0 Equal or Greater Quake Than a 6.0 50 3.00% 0.30% 100 8.00% 0.50% 250 20.00% 1.50% 350 20.00% 2.00%

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 176 ~

Figure 2-62: Example of Probability Maps Developed for Haddam-East Haddam-Portland and New Haven-Greenwich Areas of Connecticut

Table 2-54: Probability of an Earthquake of Specific Magnitude Occurring in the New Haven- Greenwich Area of Connecticut Probability of the Occurrence of an Earthquake Event Greenwich Stamford Bridgeport New Haven Timeframe (years) > 5.0 > 6.0 > 5.0 > 6.0 > 5.0 > 6.0 > 5.0 > 6.0 50 7.50% 0.70% 8.00% 0.70% 5.00% 0.50% 4.00% 0.30% 100 18.00% 1.50% 12.00% 1.00% 10.00% 1.00% 8.00% 0.50% 250 30.00% 3.50% 30.00% 3.50% 20.00% 2.50% 15.00% 1.50% 350 40.00% 5.00% 40.00% 4.50% 30.00% 3.00% 20.00% 2.50%

Based on the historic record of earthquakes and the information collected for this plan, one can make the following conclusion with regards to risk of a future earthquake event occurring in Connecticut: 1. There are geographic areas within the state that have had seismic activity in the past; 2. Although the risk is relatively very low, the long-term probability does exist of an earthquake with a magnitude > 5.0 to occur within the state; and 3. Although the probability of an earthquake with a magnitude > 5.0 is extremely small (under 1%), based on Connecticut’s historical record of earthquake events, it is likely that one or more earthquake(s) with a magnitude < 3.0 will occur within the next hundred years.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 177 ~

Future Vulnerability of Earthquakes in Connecticut

The two geographic areas most vulnerable to potential earthquakes in Connecticut are New Haven-Greenwich and Hartford-East Haddam-Haddam- Portland. Most at risk are people who work or live in unreinforced masonry buildings built on filled land or unstable soil.126 Other population groups who may be more vulnerable to the impacts from a potential earthquake with a magnitude > 5.0 in both geographic areas include the elderly, the very young (under 18 years of age), people with various special needs.

For this plan update, new HAZUS-MH simulations were run for the following earthquake scenarios: Magnitude 5.7, epicenter located in Portland (largest historic event, information within HAZUS-MH database); Magnitude 5.7, epicenter located in Haddam (largest historic event, information within HAZUS-MH database); Magnitude 6.4, epicenter located in East Haddam (largest historic event, information within HAZUS-MH database); and Magnitude 5.7, epicenter located in Stamford (magnitude scenario based on probabilities calculated by USGS in their probability maps).

The magnitudes chosen for these simulations and this plan are the maximum plausible magnitude for a potential earthquake in the scenario areas. The following should be noted for the review and use of these scenarios: 1. No historic earthquake of a magnitude > 5.0 has been recorded for Fairfield County, however USGS potential probabilities for such an event are possible when calculated for a long time period (250 to 350 years); and 2. The last large earthquake with a magnitude of > 6.0 occurred around the Portland-Haddam-East Haddam area over 200 years ago. Seismographs were not in use at that time however, an expert determination was made based on damage reports and geographic extent to which the quaking was felt.

The results for each HAZUS-MH earthquake simulation are located in Appendix C. Each HAZUS-MH simulation that was run included the entire state of Connecticut for its analysis region. Therefore, it should be noted that the damage and injury estimations are based on state-wide building and infrastructure inventories and Census 2000 population counts. These HAZUS- MH scenarios were run for planning purposes of this plan to highlight potential areas that may warrant further analysis either at the state, regional or local level.127 It is very difficult to predict what the actual impacts would be to the State

126 Source: The Northeast States Emergency Consortium website, www.nesc.org/hazards/earthquakes.cfm.

127 Note: FEMA disclaimer on HAZUS-MH analysis reports states, “The estimates of social and economic impacts contained in this report were produced using HAZUS loss estimation methodology software which is based on current scientific and engineering knowledge. There are uncertainties inherent in any loss estimation technique. Therefore, there may be significant differences between the modeled results contained in this report and the actual social and economic losses following a specific earthquake. These results can be improved by using enhanced inventory, geotechnical, and observed ground motion data.”

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 178 ~

of Connecticut from these earthquake scenarios. The range of potential impacts for these scenarios is wide and extends from minor impact to the maximum potential impacts as presented as a result of the HAZUS-MH analyses.

Table 2-55 presents the total estimated losses and direct economic impact that may result from the earthquake scenarios created for this plan, as estimated by FEMA’s HAZUS-MH software. Though the projected economic impacts resulting from these HAZUS-MH simulations may appear low, the results do indicate that attention does need to be given to potential economic impacts from a magnitude > 5.7, since the earthquake epicenters would be located near highly urbanized areas of the state. Thus economic losses should be anticipated from the physical impacts of an earthquake > 5.7.

Table 2-55128 : HAZUS-MH Estimated Direct Losses of Earthquake Scenario Events Epicenter Estimated Total Estimated Total Estimated Total Location Capital Losses Income Losses Losses Stamford $4,982,162 $1,001,880 $5,984,042 Haddam $4,598,669 $847,450 $5,446,119 Portland $5,742,542 $1,076,946 $6,819,488 East Haddam129 $13,524,900 $3,420,292 $16,945,192

Table 2-56 shows the projected estimated building damage using FEMA’s HAZUS-MH software. The estimated numbers in this table are based on the total building inventory for the state (per Census 2000 data). A significant percentage of buildings damaged (88-96%) to any degree are estimated to be either one- family homes or other residential buildings (e.g., apartment buildings, 2 or 3- family homes, etc.). Though residential structures comprise the majority of building damages in the simulations, other building occupancy types will also experience damage. Other building occupancy types include agriculture, commercial, education, government, industrial, and religion. Though smaller in total number of buildings, these other occupancy types are vital to communities and impacts to these structures will be felt by a wide group of people within the immediate location and beyond.

128 In Table number the column entitled Estimated Total Capital Losses includes projected cost estimates for: cost of structural damage; cost of non-structural damage; cost of contents damage; and estimated inventory losses. The Estimated Total Income Losses column includes projected cost estimates for: relocation losses; capital related losses; wage losses; and rental income losses. 129 East Haddam scenario was run with the historical maximum 6.4 magnitude, the default maximum magnitude within HAZUS-MH. In addition, building inventory used to model the scenario was derived by HAZUS-MH from 2000 Census data.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 179 ~

Table 2-56: Total Number of Buildings Damaged by Expected Degree of Damage per Scenario Event Epicenter Location

Expected East Haddam Haddam Portland Stamford Damage (magnitude 6.40) (magnitude 5.70) (magnitude 5.70) (magnitude 5.7) None 774,225 936,908 921,755 964,960 Slight 174,334 81,860 90,374 55,357 Moderate 77,159 24,176 29,450 21,789 Extensive 17,595 3,589 4,754 4,199 Complete 3,665 446 646 675

Through the simulations run, HAZUS-MH estimated the number of people requiring short-term shelter to be between 2,000+ to over 11,000 people, depending on the specific scenario. In addition HAZUS-MH estimated the number of displaced households ranged from almost 4,000 to a little over 11,000 in total. The estimates by HAZUS-MH may be on the maximum end of an impact range, but do indicate that the potential does exist for individual assistance needs such as sufficient temporary shelter accommodations, and household relocation assistance (temporary or possibly permanent relocation).

For the simulations, HAZUS-MH also calculated physical injuries to people by number per injury level. The injury levels are as follows: 1. Severity Level 1 – injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed. 2. Severity Level 2 – injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life-threatening. 3. Severity Level 3 – injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not promptly treated. 4. Severity Level 4 – victims are killed by the earthquake.

Injury estimates were developed by HAZUS-MH for three times of day (i.e., 2:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m., 5:00 p.m.) representing various times of the day during which different community sectors are at their peak occupancy loads. The community sectors considered for the analysis were: commuting; educational; hotels; industrial; other residential; and single family. The vast majority of injuries projected by HAZUS-MH for all scenarios (92-96%) fall within the Severity Level 1 or 2 categories.

An analysis of potential fire ignitions resulting from each scenario was created by HAZUS-MH. Table 2-56 represents the total results for each scenario for fire impact.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 180 ~

Table 2-57: Potential Fire Impact from Each Earthquake Scenario Value of Exposed Epicenter Number of Population Structures Senario Ignitions Exposed (thousands) East Haddam 43 552 $58,693 Haddam 71 619 $62,797 Portland 25 351 $38,240 Stamford 15 435 50482

For the Stamford scenario, all projected fire ignitions were located in Fairfield County. For the other three scenarios, the majority, > 93%, were estimated to be within communities in Hartford; Middlesex; New Haven; and New London Counties.

The projected HAZUS-MH estimates for both injuries and fire starts directly related to a magnitude > 5.7 earthquake indicate an increased demand on state and local medical and emergency services (including police and fire) for injuries ranging from non-life-threatening to loss of life.

Tsunami

Tsunami – Also called seismic sea waves, tsunamis are a series of waves generated by seismic activity. Tsunamis are also popularly, but inaccurately, called tidal waves. When they reach shallow coastal regions, amplitudes may increase to several meters. The Pacific Ocean is particularly vulnerable to tsunamis.130

Tsunamis along the East Coast are very rare events. The majority of tsunamis occur in the Pacific Ocean where the “ring of fire” exists (a series of mountain chains, deep ocean trenches and island arcs subject to volcanic and earthquake activity)131. According to NOAA, “tsunamis generally are caused by earthquakes, less commonly by submarine landslides, infrequently by submarine volcanic eruptions, and very rarely by a large meteorite impact in the ocean132.”

There is no record to date of a tsunami affecting Connecticut. The last documented case of a tsunami along the Atlantic coast induced by an earthquake occurred in Nova Scotia, Canada in 1929.

130 Definition is from the American Meteorological Society’s Glossary of Meteorology. Website accessed on 6/23/09 at http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?p=1&query=tsunami. 131 Source: NOAA website, http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/tsunami2.htm. 132 Information is from NOAA’s webpage, What Causes Tsunamis? Located at http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/tsunami2.htm.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 181 ~

Potential Risk of a Tsunami in Connecticut

Since the waves are ocean born, the communities immediately along the Connecticut coastline would be affected. Due to the relative seismic stability of the Atlantic Ocean in comparison with the Pacific Ocean, Connecticut’s geographic location and the protection provided to Connecticut’s coastline by Long Island Sound, the chances of a tsunami affecting Connecticut are low.

Potential Future Vulnerability to a Tsunami

The most vulnerable coastal areas of Connecticut would be in New London County where communities could be impacted by a wave that skirts between Block Island and Long Island. The populations and land areas would be similar to those affected by a Category 1 hurricane. However, damages from a tsunami may be greater for immediate coastal locations than from a Category 1 hurricane. Since tsunamis present an extremely small risk of impacting Connecticut, no detailed analysis of possible populations and infrastructure at risk have been generated.

Natural Hazard Identification and Evaluation ~ 182 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Chapter 3 Capability Assessment

~ 183 ~

Capability Overview

This chapter outlines State and local natural hazard mitigation policies, programs, and capabilities. In particular, the role and responsibilities of the various agencies, departments, and offices that participated in the NHMP planning process. No significant changes have occurred over the last 3 years with regards to this chapter and the State’s capabilities analysis for this Plan.

Within Connecticut, the Connecticut Inter-Agency Hazard Mitigation Committee (CIHMC) has the primary responsibility for the initiation of mitigation actions for with respect to natural hazards. DEP disseminates flood watches and warnings issued by the National Weather Service (NWS). DEMHS also assists in dissemination of flood watches and warnings. Additional federal agency partners such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and FEMA assist the state with long-term planning activities and the pursuance of hazard mitigation construction projects.

State Hazard Mitigation Programs and Related Laws

Connecticut has several state statutes, regulations, policies and practices that achieve the goal of natural hazard mitigation in areas prone to natural hazards. During the past 100 years, flooding has caused more damage and loss of life than any other natural disaster in the State. Most of the State’s programs and policies deal either directly (structural mitigation) or indirectly (non-structural methods through enforcement, education and monitoring) with flooding. These state programs focus on damage prevention within special flood hazard areas (SFHAs). Since all 169 municipalities within Connecticut contain mapped floodplain areas within their political boundaries, these programs are implemented on a statewide basis and affect every municipality.

Structural flood mitigation projects in Connecticut have either dealt with the initial causes of flooding (e.g., construction of flood control projects to reduce the frequency of flooding) or the effects of the flooding (e.g., elevating or moving structures out of the floodplain). The DEP is the lead agency for the pursuance of flood hazard mitigation activities in Connecticut.

State Floodplain Management Act

The Flood Management Act as referenced in the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 25-68b and 25-68c outlines the flood management responsibilities of DEP and lays out the rules and regulations to be used by all state agencies when undertaking activities within a floodplain area.

CGS Section 25-68b defines the terms (e.g., Floodplain, Base Flood, etc.) used by Section 25-68c. Section 25-68c goes beyond the regulations contained within the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in many aspects and references the NFIP standards as a minimum standard.

The Commissioner of DEP has the following powers and duties under Section 25-68c:

1. To coordinate, monitor and analyze the floodplain management activities of state and local agencies;

Capability Assessment ~ 184 ~

2. To coordinate flood control projects within Connecticut and be the sole initiator of a flood control project with a federal agency; 3. To act as the primary contact for federal funds for floodplain management activities sponsored by the State; 4. To regulate actions by state agencies affecting floodplains except conversion by the University of Connecticut of commercial or office structures to an educational structure; 5. To designate a repository for all flood data within the State; 6. To assist municipalities and state agencies in the development of comprehensive floodplain management programs; 7. To determine the number and location of State-owned structures and uses by the State in the floodplain and to identify measures to make such structures and uses less susceptible to flooding including flood-proofing or relocation; 8. To mark or post the floodplains within lands owned, leased or regulated by state agencies in order to delineate past and probable flood heights and to enhance public awareness of flooding; 9. To designate the base flood elevation for a critical activity where no such base flood elevation is designated by the NFIP. The Commissioner may add a freeboard factor to any such designation; and 10. To require that any flood control project be designated to provide protection equal to or greater than the base flood.

Section 25-68f mandates that if more than one floodplain designation exists for the same area, the most stringent designation shall be used to fulfill the provisions of sections 25- 68b to 25-68h inclusive.

Floodplain Management and Mitigation Act

During the 2004 session, the State legislature passed the Floodplain Management and Hazard Mitigation Act. This new legislation covers many aspects of floodplain management. It requires municipalities to revise their current floodplain zoning regulations or ordinances to include new standards for compensatory storage and equal conveyance of floodwater. Municipalities are not required to make such revisions until they revise their regulations for another purpose. The DEP has developed model regulation language which incorporates these new State requirements and has issued this model floodplain ordinance to communities for their use since 2007.

The Office of Policy and Management is required to incorporate natural hazards into the next revision of the Statewide Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD), as part of the compliance with the Floodplain Management and Hazard Mitigation Act, The next update of the POCD, which will incorporate this requirement, is expected in late 2012, early 2013.

Other enabling State Legislation related to flood plain management includes: Sections 22a-36 through 22a-45, inclusive – Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act; Section 22a-401 through 22a-410, inclusive – Dam Safety; Section 13a-94 – Construction Over and Adjacent to Streams; Section 25-84 through 25-98 – Flood & Erosion Control Board Statutes; Section 22a-318, 22a-321 – NRCS Statutes;

Capability Assessment ~ 185 ~

Section 25-74 through 25-76 – Authorization to perform flood and erosion projects under Federal authority; Section 22a-342 through 22a-350 – Stream Channel Encroachment Line Program Statutes; and Section 22a-365 through 22a-378 – The Connecticut Water Diversion Policy Act.

Table 3-1 Shows each state funded program related to floodplain management and whether it is associated with pre-disaster mitigation or post-disaster mitigation efforts.

Table 3-1: State Funded Programs Related to Floodplain Management State Funded or Staffed Program in Hazard Pre or Post Disaster Prone Area. Flood Management Section 25-68 Pre and Post Disaster Dam Safety Section 22a-401 – 22a-410 Pre and Post Disaster Flood and Erosion Control Boards Section 25-84 Pre and Post Disaster National Flood Insurance Program Pre-Disaster Stream Channel Encroachment Line Program Pre-Disaster Section 22a-342 through 22a-350 Section 22a-318, 22a-321 – NRCS Statutes Pre and Post Disaster Section 25-74 through 25-76 – Authorization to Pre and Post Disaster perform flood and erosion projects under Federal authority. Floodplain Management and Mitigation Act Pre-Disaster PDM Planning Pre-Disaster

Connecticut State Agencies, Intra-Agency Groups, and Inter-State Groups That are Associated with Natural Hazard Mitigation

There are a number of state agencies and intra-agency planning groups that are associated with natural hazard mitigation within Connecticut. Some agencies, such as DEMHS and DEP, share roles and responsibilities for hazard mitigation. These are the two primary agencies associated with natural hazard planning and mitigation efforts. Other agencies and unique intra- agency planning groups are associated with natural hazard mitigation through their policies or plans in which they are charged with developing and implementing. The following is a presentation of the state agencies and their relative divisions, and inter-state and intra-agency planning groups associated with natural hazard mitigation in Connecticut.

Connecticut Interagency Hazard Mitigation Committee (CIHMC)

As a result of a Federal disaster declaration in July 1989, the State of Connecticut formed the Hazard Mitigation Grant Review Committee (HMGRC). The purpose and goal of the HMGRC was to oversee the new post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) that became law with the passage of the Stafford Act in 1988.

The HMGRC consisted of representatives of the DEP, NWS, Connecticut Department of Education (DOE), Connecticut Office of Emergency Management (OEM, currently CTDEMHS), Connecticut Office of Policy and Management (OPM), NRCS, Small Business Administration (SBA), and FEMA. The DOT and the Connecticut Department of the Military joined the HMGRC in the late 1990’s. A private group, the Hartford Financial Services Group (Hartford Group) also joined the HMGRC to give private companies representation on the Committee.

Capability Assessment ~ 186 ~

During the 1990’s the HMGRC met quarterly after each disaster and met annually in non-disaster years to review hazard mitigation project applications. The HMGRC began reviewing and approving applications for the newly developed Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) grant program in 1998.

The HMGRC was renamed to the Connecticut Interagency Hazard Mitigation Committee (CIHMC) in 1998. The Connecticut Interagency Hazard Mitigation Committee continued the duties of discussing and overseeing mitigation-related activities and issues within the State. Due to the group’s name change, the CIHMC had a revised MOU signed by the top agency official of each participating state and federal agency in 2001. The 5 participating state agencies at this time are DEP, DEMHS, OPM, Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Office of the State Building Inspector (OSBI). The one participating federal agency is the Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS). In addition, one private sector representative from the Hartford Life Insurance Company sits on the Committee.

The Adaptation Subcommittee of the Governor’s Steering Committee on Climate Change (GSC)

The Adaptation Subcommittee of the Governor’s Steering Committee on Climate Change (GSC) is charged with the assessment of the impacts of climate change on Connecticut infrastructure, natural resources and ecological habitats, public health, and agriculture, and will recommend adaptation strategies in accordance with the requirements of Public Act 08-98. The Subcommittee will report to the GSC in early 2010 on climate change impacts, and by mid-2010, the Subcommittee will report to the legislature on recommendations for changes to programs and laws that would enable state and local governments to adapt to such impacts. Since natural hazards, such as extreme storm events and flooding, are expected to increase in frequency and magnitude with climate change, adaptation planning will be important to mitigate the effects of these hazards. More information on the Adaptation Subcommittee, including the reports will be posted on the Connecticut Climate Change website (http://www.ctclimatechange.com/Adaptation.html ).

Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS)

Title 28 of the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS.) outlines the roles and responsibilities of the DEMHS. DEMHS is responsible for: 1. Providing a coordinated, integrated program for state-wide emergency management and homeland security; 2. Directing the preparation of a comprehensive plan and program for the civil preparedness of the State; 3. Coordinating with state and local government personnel, agencies, authorities, and the private sector to ensure adequate planning, equipment, training, and exercise activities; 4. Coordinating emergency communications and communication systems of the state and local government personnel, agencies, authorities, the general public, and the private sector; and

Capability Assessment ~ 187 ~

5. Distributing and coordinating the distribution of information and security warnings to state and local government personnel, agencies, authorities, and the general public.

The agency assumes many roles for the State including: 1. Maintains the local branch of the National Warning System (NAWAS); 2. Serves as the Alternate State Warning Point (AWSP). The Department of Public Safety serves as the Primary State Warning Point (PSWP). 3. Develops and maintains various types of emergency operations plans for state government; 4. Provides technical planning assistance to communities as requested or as needed; 5. Provides emergency management and homeland security training programs for state and local governments; 6. Conducts emergency operations drills and exercises; 7. Works with the DEP to administer the Hazard Mitigation Programs of the state; and 8. In times of disaster or emergency, alerts key state, federal and local response organizations and acts as a central coordination point for all state agencies at it's Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in Hartford, CT.

DEMHS Disaster Preparedness Programs

DEMHS is responsible for administering the State’s disaster preparedness programs and for developing and implementing Connecticut’s Natural Disaster Plan, which outlines the steps to be taken prior to, during and after the occurrence of a disaster event (a copy of this plan is provided within Appendix F). In addition, DEMHS administers the following disaster preparedness programs: State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) - DEMHS is the State Administering Agency (SAA) for Emergency Management and Homeland Security grants provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These grants including the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG), the Buffer Zone Protection Program, and Urban Area Security Initiative, among others. Funds from these programs are used for providing planning and equipment grants to state, regional, and local government agencies. The purchase of interoperable communication systems has been a major activity in ensuring disaster preparedness. Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program - This program is responsible for off-site planning and preparedness for the Millstone Nuclear Power Stations in Waterford, the only nuclear power plant in Connecticut since the decommissioning of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Haddam Neck. The REP program develops and maintains radiological plans and procedures, which are regularly evaluated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and FEMA. The REP network includes ten emergency planning zone communities, six host communities, numerous key state agencies and utility emergency responders. In addition, the REP program conducts other related activities such as annual conferences for public officials, media briefings, and training of state and local emergency workers.

Capability Assessment ~ 188 ~

Department of Transportation (DOT)

In addition to its overall responsibility to provide a safe, efficient and cost-effective transportation system that meets the mobility needs of its users, the Connecticut Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for several short- and long-term natural hazard mitigation objectives in Connecticut. The short-term objectives include plowing of roads during winter storms and repairing the public transportation network after natural disasters. DOT's long-term goals include the design of flood and earthquake resistant roads and bridges.

Three of DOT's major short-term mitigation efforts are their Storm Control Center, Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS), and Bridge Inspection Program.

The DOT Storm Control Center is operational during severe weather events ranging from winter storms to hurricanes. The Storm Control Center coordinates the plowing operations of over 600 crews during winter storms.

The ATMS system is a network of cameras and road sensors that monitor road conditions and traffic flow on Connecticut's Interstate Highways. Using automated road signs, the ATMS system also warns drivers of traffic congestion, accidents or hazardous driving conditions.

The Bridge Inspection program uses an automated computer based monitoring system that alerts DOT personnel when a scour critical bridge is experiencing a critical rainfall or stream flow event. The system uses rain intensity and river gage information to trigger alerts so that bridge inspectors can be dispatched to the identified bridge(s). A plan of action has been developed for each scour critical bridge to aid the inspector in monitoring and possible closure of the structure.

Some of DOT's long-term mitigation efforts include: 1. Improving the design of roads and bridges above the 100-year floodplain; 2. Seismic resistant bridge retrofit projects and designing new bridges to resist earthquakes; and 3. Storm evacuation route planning.

Department of Public Health (DPH)

The CT Department of Public Health (DPH) Drinking Water Section (DWS) is responsible for ensuring that all public water supply systems provide a water supply of adequate quantity and quality to their consumers. All public water systems serving 1,000 or more persons, or 250 or more consumers are required by the CT DPH to prepare water supply plans in accordance with CGS 25-32d Sections 1a – 5 in order to maximize efficient and effective development of the state’s public water supply systems and to promote public health, safety and welfare. The water supply planning process provides for a coordinated approach to long-range water supply planning by addressing water quality and quantity issues from an area-wide perspective. In CT, there are 84 water utilities that fall under this category. These 84 utilities must provide updates on the water supply plan every 5 years and plan their system viability over a 5, 20, and 50 year period. The water supply plan also includes an emergency contingency plan section that addresses all scenarios as discussed further below.

Capability Assessment ~ 189 ~

Per Public Act 85-535 of the State of CT, there is also a plan for Public Water Supply Coordination that works to maximize efficient and effective development of the state’s public water supply systems and to promote public health, safety and welfare. This act coordinated through the CT DPH provides for a coordinated approach to long-range water supply planning by addressing water quality and quantity issues from an area-wide perspective. The process is designed to bring together public water system representatives and regional planning organizations to discuss long-range water supply issues and to develop a plan for dealing with those issues. The state has been divided into seven management areas based upon a number of factors, including similarity of water supply problems, such as proliferation of small water systems, groundwater contamination problems, and over allocated water resources.

In the course of a day, more than 2.86 million Connecticut residents, as well as many others who visit the state, come into contact with drinking water provided by a public water system, whether community, non-community or non-transient, non-community. The CT DPH maintains the following two plans that relate to emergency response and mitigation: 1) Connecticut Public Health Emergency Response Plan and 2) Drinking Water Section (DWS) Emergency Contingency Plan. The DPH DWS also has the Water Emergency Assessment and Response (WEAR) team consisting of staff members trained to handle water system related incidents that follow a standard operating procedure (SOP) for addressing Public Water System Security Incidents and Public Water System Emergency Incidents. The WEAR team also provides Security & Emergency Response Guidelines to public water systems to be used in conjunction with their existing emergency response plans. These guidelines include information on handling a contamination event, whether it is due to intentional terrorist or criminal actions, accident, or deficient infrastructure.

Connecticut Public Health Emergency Response Plan

The CT DPH is the lead administrative and planning agency in Connecticut for public health initiatives including public health emergency preparedness. CT DPH works with federal, state, regional, and local partners to improve the State’s ability to respond to public health emergencies. The Connecticut Public Health Emergency Response Plan (CT PHERP) identifies the appropriate CT DPH response activities during a public health emergency. This plan supports the public health and medical care component in existing state disaster and emergency plans.

The purpose of the CT PHERP is to support the following four functions of the Connecticut emergency response effort: 1. Maximize the protection of lives and properties; 2. Identify the CT DPH procedures to implement when responding to a natural, biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear, or explosive emergency that threatens the public health of Connecticut; 3. Contribute to emergency support functions, as appropriate, particularly emergency support function #8 of the CT PHERP (Health and Medical Services) at the state level to define policies and procedures for CT DPH and other public health partners in preparation for and in response to a public health emergency; and

Capability Assessment ~ 190 ~

4. Enable the State of Connecticut to continue to operate and provide services as normally and effectively as possible in the event of a public health emergency.

Connecticut Drinking Water Section Emergency Contingency Plan

Acting on behalf of the CT DPH, the DWS protects public health through regulatory oversight of public water systems throughout the state. Implicit in this mission statement is providing immediate “emergency” support to water supplies and the public. It is part of the CT DPH’s mission to influence, through regulation and communication, the operation of public water systems so that all necessary precautions to protect and preserve sources and systems of supplies are taken.

The CT DPH DWS requires all public water systems serving 250 or more customers or 1000 or more people to develop an Emergency Contingency Plan. The plan aims to avoid or address emergencies by evaluating vulnerabilities and how to mitigate potentially harmful events. The public water systems are encouraged to address risk prone items and areas where a system may fail and take steps to correct them. The CT DPH DWS addresses emergencies by communication with and responding to water quality issues at public drinking water systems through site visits, sampling and follow-up technical assistance as deemed necessary. Examples of site visits to the utility would occur when there are potential toxic spills into or leading into public drinking water sources or malicious acts such as unauthorized entry to the water system property. The plan also implements four stages of response ranging from advising customers to rationing of water. The plan is developed to address emergencies including contamination of water, power emergencies, drought, flooding, and/or failure of any or all critical water system components.

The Connecticut (DPH) Water Emergency Assessment & Response (WEAR) Team

The WEAR Team is trained and operates within the Incident Command System (ICS), the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the National Response Plan. The WEAR Team consists of personnel with specific skill sets and has received additional specialized training in areas relating to security for the drinking water industry and potential emergency response situations that could occur at the various types of Public Water Systems. Specific skill sets include expertise in risk communication, radiological monitoring, surface water treatment, source water protection, mutual aid, cross connection control, water system operations and drinking water regulations. The WEAR Team also acts as a liaison to programs such as local health administration, food protection, day care licensing, healthcare systems within the CT Department of Public Health during a drinking water or public health incident. The WEAR Team specifically addresses emergencies related to water quality and security issues.

Connecticut Department of Public Health Drinking Water Section Incident Report Forms: Standard Operating Procedure

There is a formal standard operating procedure (SOP) for the DWS Public Water System Security Incident Report Form and the DWS Public Water System

Capability Assessment ~ 191 ~

Emergency Incident Report Form. The form describes the scope of public water system’s distribution and storage. The procedure provides a consistent means for internal notification of staff on emergency and security situations at Public Water Systems. The Incident Report Forms also provide the DWS a means to notify key personnel within the CT Department of Public Health as well as other partners outside the Department of Public Health. Emergency and security situations at Public Water Systems can be divided into two categories, routine operating emergencies such as pipe breaks, pump malfunctions, acute risk water quality issues and power outages; and non-routine emergencies such as intentional acts of sabotage, chemical spills, floods, hurricanes, windstorms or droughts. The DWS Public Water System Security Incident Report Form and the DWS Public Water System Emergency Incident Report Form have been provided to capture all emergency scenarios.

Office of the State Building Inspector

The lead agency for the adoption and administration of building code provisions for wind flood, and seismic matters is the Office of the State Building Inspector. The 2005 State Building Code was adopted effective December 31, 2005. The 2003 International Residential Code (IRC) portion of this code regulates construction of all detached one- and two-family dwellings and all townhouses up to and including three-stories in height. The 2003 International Building Code (IBC) portion of this code regulates all other construction.

New rules found in the 2003 IRC include: 1. Requirement that all residential structures are to have a structural system that provides a complete load path capable of transferring all loads from their point of origin through the load resisting elements to the foundation; 2. Allowance for alternative compliance using Wood Frame Construction Manual or Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing; 3. An engineering requirement for non-conventional elements of otherwise conventional construction (but only requires engineering for the non-conventional elements); 4. New wind speeds utilizing three-second wind gusts have been adopted consistent with the ASCE-7 requirements. More accurate mapping of the State’s wind speeds results in a more appropriate enforcement of the regulations; 5. New design criteria for wind speeds that equal or exceed 110 MPH (the southern 1/3 of Connecticut); 6. Glazed opening protection requirement (or removable fitted wood structural panels with attachment hardware) in wind borne debris regions (municipalities with basic wind speed of 120 MPH.) on southeastern Connecticut; 7. Requirements for engineered design of masonry or concrete foundation walls, for walls subject to hydrostatic pressure from groundwater; 8. Expanded crawl space ventilation information as defined in code (R408.2); 1) additional materials approved to cover openings, 2) code now allows for under- floor space (crawlspace) access through perimeter walls (16 x 24 areaway required if below grade) as option to openings through floor as defined in code (R408.3); and 9. Requirements for construction in A and V flood hazard areas, but all construction in floodways must follow the requirements of the IBC.

Capability Assessment ~ 192 ~

Office of Policy and Management

Given its role as the Governor’s staff agency, the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) plays a central role in providing the information and analysis used in formulating state policy. OPM provides the Governor with an objective view of the issues and with an assessment of available policy alternatives. OPM also assists state agencies and municipalities in implementing policy decisions on behalf of the Governor. Integrating natural hazard mitigation considerations with development, resource management and public investment policies helps minimize the loss of life and property due to natural disasters.

Beyond its broader role in the development and implementation of state policy, OPM is responsible for coordinating drought management activities of state agencies. OPM is a member of the Interagency Drought Working Group and of the Water Planning Council.

OPM is also responsible for the state's Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD), which identifies the state's development, resource management and public investment policies. The POCD identifies the policies that guide the state in (1) addressing human resource needs and development; (2) balancing economic growth with environmental protection and resource conservation concerns; and (3) coordinating the functional planning activities of state agencies to accomplish long-term effectiveness and economies in the expenditure of public funds.133

The Department of Environmental Protection

CT DEP is the principal flood management agency in the State. Within the DEP, the Inland Water Resources Division (IWRD) is the lead division for planning and coordinating flood management and post natural disaster mitigation responses. Other assisting DEP divisions are the Office of Information Management, Office of Long Island Sound Programs, and the Forestry Division.

Inland Water Resources Division

The Inland Water Resources Division (IWRD) consists of six major sections: Wetlands Management, Enforcement, Environmental Analysis, Dam Safety, Flood Management, and Engineering. The Dam Safety, Flood Management, and Engineering Sections are responsible for various aspects of Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning and floodplain management.

The following actions have been undertaken by DEP’s IWRD and other state agencies to improve the State’s capability to respond to flood emergencies. These measures were taken as a result of recommendations formulated in the 1983 and 1989 Flood Hazard Mitigation Reports: State Sandbag Policy and Procedures (OCP, currently DEMHS 1984) Guidance for municipal flood emergency planning issued (1983)

133 For a copy of the CT Plan of Conservation and Development and more information please see the following web pages: POCD homepage is located at http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.asp?a=2990&q=383182; text for the plan can also be located at: http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/igp/cdplan/adopted2005-2010cdplan.pdf; POCD maps may be downloaded as shapefiles or pdfs from the following page: http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.asp?a=2990&q=383184#State.

Capability Assessment ~ 193 ~

Operational Guide for the Connecticut Automated Flood Warning System (updated in 2000) prepared, Emergency Operations Guidelines prepared for the Flood Warning System (1987) Installations of Advanced Technology NOAA Weather Radios (A.K.A WRSAME) in schools, state parks, and command centers (1992-93) Expansion and upgrading of equipment and technology within the Automated Flood Warning System (1992, 2002) Installation of telemetry equipment to receive satellite and radar information (1993) Establishment of a fax/email weather warning system (1994).

Dam Safety Section

The Dam Safety Section regulates the operation and maintenance of all dams in the State, which would endanger life or property through failure. This Section reviews and approves permit applications for dam repair, modification or construction. This section has the statutory authority to enter onto private property to conduct inspections and when inspections lead to a finding that the dam is unsafe, this Section has the authority to order dam owners to make necessary repairs to correct unsafe structures. This can be accomplished by repairing the dam or by removing the dam. If an emergency condition exists which represents a clear and present danger to the public, Dam Safety can order the repair or removal of the structure. Should the dam owner fail to repair or remove the structure, the Department may do so and bill the owner for the costs. Activities undertaken and the average annual number of actions performed (based on the last ten years of available data) by Dam Safety include the following: Inspections – 158 performed Orders for Dam Repairs – 4 issued Requests for Maintenance and Engineering – 24 approved Dam Construction Permit Applications Received – 20 received; and Dam Construction Permits Issued – 17 issued.

In addition, the Dam Safety Section has undertaken different activities over the past years to gain addition and improved data regarding the management of dams within the state, and the mitigation of potential effects from the associated flood hazard. Three activities during the last seven years have included performing an inventory of high hazard dams, critical facilities mapping, and the implementation of the DamWatch program throughout the state.

Inventory of High Hazard Dams

In 2003, Connecticut received a grant from FEMA to perform an inventory of 227 High Hazard Dams in the State. This inventory updated existing database information. Each dam was also photographed and its location recorded using the Global Positioning System (GPS).

Capability Assessment ~ 194 ~

In 2004/2005 construction plans for dams within the State were scanned and recorded in an electronic format. The plans are now readily accessible and retrievable for use during a flooding emergency and to assist IWRD staff and consultant engineers in dam design and repair.

Flood Management Section

The Flood Management Section is the state coordinating agency for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This section conducts municipal NFIP compliance audits, training workshops, and provides assistance for the development of local floodplain ordinances. The Flood Management Section provides general technical assistance to municipalities on flood mapping and floodplain management inquiries. This section also manages the FEMA Unified Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (which includes the following grant programs: Flood Mitigation Assistance, Repetitive Flood Claims, and Pre-Disaster Mitigation). Furthermore, this section is responsible for the implementation FEMA’s Map Modernization Program on the state-level.

Ensuring Local Compliance to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

The U.S. Congress established the NFIP on August 1, 1968, with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The NFIP is a Federal program administered by FEMA enabling property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding. This insurance is designed to provide an alternative to disaster assistance to meet the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods.

Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local communities and the Federal government that states if a community will adopt and enforce a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risks to new construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas, the Federal Government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses.

The State of Connecticut and all of its communities participate in the NFIP. Connecticut's NFIP coordinator is located within DEP’s IWRD.

The following lists a few of the NFIP regulations: 1. All new construction in the floodplain of a river and within coastal floodplain areas must have their lowest floor situated at or above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE); 2. Additions or renovations to existing flood prone buildings that exceed 50% of the buildings market value require that

Capability Assessment ~ 195 ~

the entire building be elevated and/or otherwise brought into compliance with the NFIP regulations; 3. Any encroachment into the floodplain must not increase the 100-year water elevation more than 1 foot. (It is important to note that many local communities have instituted more stringent policies regarding encroachments into the Floodplain); and 4. Buildings constructed in the V-Zone must have no walls or breakaway walls below the BFE to allow the passage of rapidly moving water under the structure and must have the lowest horizontal structural member elevated above the BFE.

Map Modernization

In the past, FEMA’s NFIP re-mapping efforts have been limited by both technology and funding. In recognition of these limitations, Congress has committed to a Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization Management Program (MHFMMM); herein referred to as Map Modernization. Starting in fiscal year 2003 the goal of Map Modernization is to upgrade flood hazard data and mapping to create a more accurate digital product by 2010. Upgrading the maps should improve floodplain management throughout the nation by providing more accurate flood data for use in planning and regulatory decision-making and by providing a product in a digital format that will be easily accessible to multiple users. By 2009, it is expected that digital flood hazard data will be available nationwide. The Map Modernization Program will be phased in over the course of several years with priority given to areas of greatest flood risk as determined by the State and approved by FEMA.

The purpose of this Map Modernization Plan; herein referred to as Business Plan, is to outline the DEP’s strategic approach for partnering with FEMA to participate in Map Modernization through DEP’s existing Floodplain Management Program (FMP). The Plan describes the FMP’s current roles and responsibilities related to floodplain management, outlines its future role, organizational design, and execution strategy to meet the data and mapping needs of communities within the State of Connecticut.

The FMP currently includes a proactive approach that combines two key elements under one organization: (1) NFIP community compliance, and (2) technical assistance and outreach to communities and agencies. It is envisioned that the compliance element will expand significantly based on map modernization activities due to municipal floodplain management ordinance changes. This linkage of NFIP community status assurance from the existing NFIP Compliance efforts, within the DEP Community Assistance Program (CAP), will complement and enhance the effectiveness of the expanded FMP. If fully funded by FEMA,

Capability Assessment ~ 196 ~

program management of the FMMP will be achieved through the expertise of a diverse, skilled project team complemented by external support from an independent state mapping contractor, and other state and federal partners. Program management will be centered on the identification of program goals and clear implementation and tracking of these goals during the program execution. Program management will be further enhanced by a data management system such as the Management Information Portal (MIP) provided by FEMA’s National Service Provider.

The Business Plan addresses how Map Modernization will integrate with existing program needs over time, such as coastal erosion mapping, stream flow modeling for varying flow conditions, comprehensive land use planning, and others.

Education and outreach play a vital role in Map Modernization by promoting and building floodplain management capacity throughout the State, which includes training, workshops and presentations for local officials, lenders, insurance agents, land surveyors, engineers, regional planning commissions, and various state agencies and programs.

The success of the FMP and related programs within the DEP is contingent on the receipt of adequate funding over multiple years from our Federal partners. Approximately $1.45 million per year (on average) is required to implement this plan. Of that amount, the FMP anticipates that approximately $480,000 per year may be available from state and partner contributions, which are mostly in- kind, and data matches. Total implementation costs over the 5- year period are estimated to be $8 million. In order to adequately pursue efforts to manage mapping activities and contractors a multiple year commitment from FEMA for funding for staff is essential.

Critical Facilities Mapping

In 2003 Connecticut received a grant from FEMA to produce Critical Facilities Maps of each town based on HAZUS 99 data from FEMA. These maps show the locations of critical facilities such as schools, police and fire departments, hospitals, nuclear facilities, and hazardous materials sites. These maps also show hazard information (floodplains, earthquake and wind vulnerability).

In September 2003, Connecticut submitted a first draft of the mapping to FEMA for review. In 2004, Connecticut modified the maps to segregate public and private facilities and updated the database to the new HAZUS MH data as requested by FEMA. In addition, a graphic user interface was created and the maps were disseminated to local towns in the fall of 2004.

Capability Assessment ~ 197 ~

Federal, state, and local governments will use these maps to provide improved responses to both natural and man-made disasters by putting critical information into the hands of the first responders.

Currently there are no plans by the State to update these existing critical facilities maps for the state and for individual communities. Connecticut will continue to investigate the feasibility of developing and performing such a planning task in the future. However, this work would be performed through planning efforts supported by FEMA grants and possible other grant/funding sources that may become available to the State. Due to existing resource constraints, the advancement of research and planning for this specific activity will rely heavily on obtaining such support funding for required resources.

Furthermore, state critical facilities are not currently included in the HAZUS data for Connecticut. To collect the necessary data needed to incorporate these facilities within HAZUS would be a major undertaking for the State. In addition, due to security concerns, the dissemination of information on state critical facilities is provided on a limited basis. More information regarding the current state critical facility database and access availability can be found in Appendix J.

Engineering Analysis Section

The Engineering Analysis Section administers the Stream Channel Encroachment Line (SCEL) Program and State Floodplain Management Certification Program. The SCEL Program predates the NFIP and is a state program that regulates the placement of encroachments and obstructions in the floodplain of certain watercourses. The Flood Management Certification Program regulates all state actions in or affecting floodplains including regulating state sponsored changes to storm water drainage. Any state project located in a FEMA-mapped 100- year floodplain (or project that utilizes state funds) must certify to the DEP that certain statutory and regulatory requirements have been met. These requirements always are equal to or exceed NFIP minimum standards (e.g., critical facilities must be elevated above the 500-year floodplain elevation, no increase in “intensity of use” in the floodplain without going to a hearing and demonstrating that the project is “in the public interest” and that the project “will not injure persons or damage property in the area of the project”, etc.).

Stream Channel Encroachment Lines

The Stream Channel Encroachment Line (SCEL) program regulates obstructions and encroachments riverward of legally established lines. A permit from the DEP is required for any activity riverward of established encroachment lines.

Capability Assessment ~ 198 ~

Encroachment lines are generally based on a 100-year flood or the flood of record, whichever is greater. The initial line placement is determined by an engineering firm contracted by the DEP and the proposed lines are then presented at a public hearing in the affected communities. Following the public hearing the DEP Commissioner legally established the lines, and maps depicting the lines were filed with the affected communities. The lines encompass significant floodwater conveyance areas, areas of high velocity flows and areas subject to significant depths of flooding.

While the program has been successful in discouraging inappropriate development within the 285 river miles, which have been delineated, the high cost of establishing new lines (between $12,000 - $14,000 per mile in 1997 dollars) has reduced the ability of the State to extend lines along other flood prone rivers. Also the strong home rule ethos of municipalities in Connecticut has led many communities to prefer to regulate development in local floodplain through local zoning regulations and participation in the NFIP program.

The majority of the lines were established following the devastating floods of 1955. However, in 1982 an additional 12 miles were established on the highly flood damage prone Yantic River in southeastern Connecticut. More recently, the Norwalk River Basin was re-studied, and revised SCEL maps were established in 1997

Engineering Services Section

The Engineering Services Section is responsible for the study, design, repair and maintenance of state owned and operated dams and flood control works. This Section coordinates with municipal flood and erosion control boards (FECB) on flood control and shore erosion projects. The Commissioner of DEP is responsible for the coordination of flood control projects within the State and is to be the sole initiator of a flood control project with a federal agency. The Commissioner has designated this section of DEP to coordinate with the NRCS and USACE on feasibility studies and flood control projects. The Engineering Services Section also provides technical assistance to municipalities and other state agencies to help address their flooding issues.

The Automated Flood Warning System

The original automated flood warning system was installed in Connecticut by the NRCS in cooperation with DEP in 1985 as a direct result of the June flooding of 1982. The flood warning system has aided the NWS in issuing faster flood watches and warnings, and has aided communities in responding more rapidly to impending flooding situations. In several communities flood audits were prepared by the NRCS. These flood audits identified

Capability Assessment ~ 199 ~

which structures were in danger at specific water levels as measured by the water level gages in the warning system.

At its peak, the DEP owned and maintained 45 ALERT gages. Each gage can have from 1 to 6 sensors associated with it. The DEP gages have 11 river level sensors, 36 precipitation sensors, and 6 weather group sensors collecting data. These gages and sensors were purchased over the course of twenty years and are of various makes and models. Component parts and sensors are not necessarily compatible between the individual gages. The flood warning system monitors rainfall and river levels statewide, and transmits the data via VHF radio to a computer base station in Hartford, Connecticut. Radio repeaters are used to relay data to the base station from outside the Hartford area. Several gages have been discontinued in recent years, due to lack of funding and to avoid duplicating gages that were operated by USGS or the USACE.

Precipitation, river, tide and weather data is received, decoded, and then stored in the base station computer. The base station equipment simultaneously sends the data to the NWS via an Internet connection. The State base station computer has a bank of modems to facilitate remote viewing of the data. Several communities in the state operate their own base station equipment to store and display data from their area. The City of Stamford and the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Company own and operate warning systems that are separate from the State's system.

The municipalities use the river level data to help determine what actions to take to safeguard their communities. Currently, only 12 of the State's 169 towns have the flood data available to them in real time. Not all rivers and streams in the State are covered by the ALERT system. In fact, only four river basins are monitored using DEP river level gages: Quinnipiac; Norwalk; Yantic; and the Weepawaug Rivers. The current system is made of various components of local, state and federal ownership with inconsistent geographical coverage. Local flood warning systems have been installed in Westport, East Haven, Danbury, Southington, Norwich, Wallingford, Hartford, Milford, Ridgefield, Wilton, Redding and Norwalk.

The base station is located at 79 Elm Street, in Hartford. Engineering Services Section personnel currently maintain and monitor the ALERT system. DEP does not provide full time monitoring of river or rainfall conditions during non-business hours. It is incumbent upon local communities to assess their river conditions and respond to NWS Flood Alerts and Watches. The DEP has only one part-time staff position to operate and maintain the State's portion of the Flood Warning System.

Capability Assessment ~ 200 ~

DEP does not have any dedicated funding available for maintenance or operation of the system, although DEMHS has provided some funding for equipment such as replacement batteries. The cost of operation of the DEP system should be carefully reviewed with consideration given to on-going operations and maintenance cost sharing arrangements with the benefiting communities.

Consideration should be given to federal/state/municipal partnerships to assume maintenance of portions of the ALERT system. The system could also be better integrated with weather and roadway information collected by a variety of agencies, including DOT. A strategic plan for selective gauging of Connecticut streams to provide statistically meaningful statewide coverage of both climate change, stream flow conditions including low flow (drought) and high flow (floods), as well as precipitation should be developed. Currently, areas of the state, particularly in the Northeast and Northwest corner, have little to no rain gages and limited stream flow information. The USGS is the national agency charged with providing scientific data to the National Weather Services, NOAA and other federal and state entities. Working with the USGS, many of the DEP Alert sites could be replaced by USGS stations thereby providing enhanced information such as low flow with the scientific data collection standards of USGS. Currently the DEP data is relativistic, whereas USGS collected data meets strict data collection and quality assurance standards whereby statistical frequency analyses can be performed.

DamWatch Program

The Dam Safety Section of the Inland Water Resources Division within the Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse received a grant under the National Dam Safety Act in 2006, which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security. The grant was used to contract with US Engineering Solutions Corporation to provide the department with the DamWatch dam-monitoring application. Connecticut is the first state to use this technology for monitoring its DEP owned dams.

DamWatch is a web based monitoring software product that allows DEP personnel to respond to and monitor potentially destructive flood events. DamWatch continually reviews real-time rainfall and streamflow data sources such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Weather Service (NWS), the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and archives this information. The system then compares specific rainfall and runoff data against established thresholds pertaining to spillway capacity at DEP-owned dams and alerts staff of impending overtopping flows at these dams.

Capability Assessment ~ 201 ~

DamWatch will enable the Inland Water Resources Division to effectively monitor DEP-owned dams during potentially catastrophic events by gathering localized real time rainfall data, track movements of storms and evaluate the hydraulic capabilities of specific dams for discharging the flood flows anticipated from a particular flood event. The system employs an automatic communications system that alerts users by various means, which include cellular phones, pagers, fax transmissions, e-mails or instant messaging which the user can monitor during critical flood events. DEP staff can then be dispatched as needed during or after a flood event to those dams for which alerts were issued during a storm event.

Office of Long Island Sound Programs . The Office of Long Island Sound Programs (OLISP) administers Connecticut's Coastal Management Program, which is approved by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Under the statutory umbrella of the Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CCMA), enacted in 1980, the Program regulates work in tidal, coastal, and navigable waters waterward of the high tide line and tidal wetlands under Section 22a-90 through 22a-112 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Structures Dredging and Fill statutes (Section 22a-359 through 22a-363f) and the Tidal Wetlands Act (Section 22a-28 through 22a-35). Development of the shoreline landward of the high tide line is regulated at the local level through municipal planning and the zoning boards and commissions under the policies of the CCMA, with technical assistance and oversight provided by Program staff via the Coastal Management Manual (http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2705&q=323814&depNav_GID=1622)

The Program also provides key administration and guidance in the following areas: Urban Waterfront Revitalization Watershed Management/Nonpoint Source Control Protecting Water-Dependent Uses Improving Public Access Restoring Coastal Habitat Promoting Harbor Management Facilitating Research Managing and Protecting Coastal Resources Protecting the Public Trust Flood and Erosion Control/Coastal Hazards

Relative to flood and erosion control, OLISP, through the Structures, Dredging and Fill statutes and Coastal Management Act standards, authorizes the repair of existing erosion control structures and, in limited circumstances, the construction of new erosion control measures in areas waterward of the high tide line. The goal for new development, however, is one of prevention: designing and building

Capability Assessment ~ 202 ~

with appropriate setbacks to prevent the need for such structures. Additionally recent activities by OLISP have advanced coastal hazard planning, notably: The acquisition of historic shoreline data for use in identifying and quantifying areas of erosion and accretion; The use of high-accuracy coastal elevation data to develop a series of visualization tools for assorted sea level rise scenarios; The development of a web site that centralizes various data relative to Connecticut’s coastal hazard; and Establishing partnerships with various regional organizations such as the Northeast Regional Ocean Council (NROC) and the Northeast Regional Association Ocean Observing System (NERACOOS) all of whom have an active interest and role to play in regional hazard planning and mitigation

Other DEP Programs

Forestry Division

There are 32 state forests (totaling nearly 170,000 acres) in the Connecticut state forest system managed by the Division of Forestry. These forests provide a variety of recreational experiences, natural diversity (including threatened, endangered and special concern species), and the preservation of unique sites (both geologic and archeological), the provision of raw materials as forest products, and the maintenance of wildlife and fisheries habitats. The Division’s professional foresters work to insure that these forests remain healthy and vigorous while meeting the wide range of demands that the public places on these lands.

The Division of Forestry maintains an active forest fire prevention program and a specially trained force of fire fighting personnel to combat forest fires. The division also has crews ready to assist the USDA Forest Service in controlling large fires across the nation. The Division prepares a daily Forest Fire Danger Report. Division of Forestry programs and activities related to forest fire prevention include: Maintaining a fully trained and equipped crew of fire fighters "on call" for assistance both in-state and to the federal government in fighting fires in the other parts of the U.S.; Conducting a forest fire prevention program utilizing Smokey Bear as a focus; Coordinating the timely suppression of all forest fires in the state using trained DEP personnel, the Connecticut Interstate Fire Crew, local fire departments, and the Connecticut National Guard; Administering the federally-funded Volunteer Fire Assistance Program, which provides federal funds for equipment and training to fire departments which serve small communities; and Participating in the Northeastern Forest Fire Protection Commission to coordinate mutual aid in fire prevention and suppression efforts among compact members.

Capability Assessment ~ 203 ~

Solid Waste Division’s Debris Management Plan

The CTDEP has prepared the State of Connecticut Disaster Debris Management Plan, 2007 (the Plan) as a component in the State’s overall comprehensive efforts to support and implement improved planning for disaster debris management. This Debris Plan is to be made an Annex to the State’s Natural Disaster Plan, 2006. The Plan establishes the framework for State agencies and municipalities to facilitate proper management of debris generated by a natural disaster. In addition to the Plan, the State will be establishing pre-need and pre-event contracts to assist the State in disaster debris management preparedness. These contracts will be activated only by the Governor as the result of an emergency declaration and will cover debris removal operations and the monitoring of these operations.

The Plan is based on guidance provided by FEMA, EPA, USACE and lessons learned from the destructive hurricanes in the gulf coast states in 2004 and 2005. The Plan outlines the CTDEP’s processes to consider, approve or disapprove requests for authorizations, variances, and waivers as needed for rapid and environmentally sound waste management, specifically with regard to managing the natural-disaster debris waste stream. In addition, this Plan outlines debris removal and monitoring roles and responsibilities and presents an overview of eligible federal reimbursable costs resulting from debris clean up and monitoring. State government agencies and municipalities will be the primary users of this Plan. Municipalities in particular, will make use of the information for planning pre- positioned contracts with waste haulers, as well as identifying disaster Temporary Debris Storage and Reduction Sites (TDSRS) that may be called into use during disaster recovery operations. Much of the information will also be useful to the waste management industry as they develop their own in-house plans for participating in a potential disaster recovery scenario.

The Disaster Debris Management Plan implemented by Connecticut state agencies and municipalities will be based on recycling and material separation at the point of generation to the extent possible with additional segregation occurring at TDSRS in order to minimize disposal and reduce potential threats to human health and safety. TDSRS will be those sites that have been identified by local and state government, and which have been evaluated and approved by CTDEP for the purposes of collection, volume reduction, and transfer to final permitted disposal and recycling facilities. The CTDEP is responsible for the permitting of these sites. The goal will be to maximize potential processing and recycling options consistent with the State Solid Waste Management Plan. This strategy will be of highest priority and public education together with municipal, State, and federal cooperation will be imperative to effectively carry out this mission.

DEMHS will be establishing pre-need and pre-event contracts to assist the State in disaster debris management preparedness. The contracts will be activated only by the Governor, as the result of an emergency declaration. These contracts will cover debris removal operations and the monitoring of these operations.

Capability Assessment ~ 204 ~

Office of Information Management

DEP’s Office of Information Management (OIM) oversees the agency’s information management and information technology systems. OIM plans, manages, and coordinates major information management and information technology projects within DEP. In 2009 OIM completed and put into production the agency’s integrated information management system, called SIMS (Site Information Management System). In addition, OIM participates in initiatives to monitor, research, and collect information about the State’s land surface, earth materials, water resources, and climate.

In order to carry out its functions, OIM is organized into four sections, Administration, Information Technology, Project Management and Business Support. There are several significant units within the Administration and Information Technology sections. The Information Technology Section includes Data Base Administration, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Applications Development, Help Desk, Network & Telecommunications Administration and Applications Hosting. GIS is a key agency technology, used to integrate and analyze a range of environmental and natural resource information of interest to DEP staff and other public and private sector entities. Among the programs located within OIM Administration are the Geological Survey portion of the Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey, Field Data Collection, DEP Records Center and Records Management. The Business Support unit coordinates and oversees the development of eGovernment activities including eWorkflow and eForms.

Connecticut Geological Survey

It is a role of the State Geologist and the Connecticut Geological Survey to reduce risks from geologic and seismic hazards through assessment and mapping of areas vulnerable to natural hazard events. Geologic research and field investigations support hazard assessments and assist policy makers to minimize damages of future events. These investigations are accomplished through cooperative efforts between the State Geological Survey of DEP, CT State Universities, and other State and Federal agencies.

CT Geological Survey cooperative efforts related to Hazards: Surficial Geologic Mapping for NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) site effect classification in HAZUS-MH (NE SGs/NESEC) (2010) Geochemical Landscapes Soil Analyses and Mapping (DEP/USGS) (2008-2010) natural vs. anthropogenic geochemical information Subsurface Geologic Mapping from Well Completion Reports (DEP/USGS) (2008/09) ground water resource mapping Surficial Aquifer Potential Mapping (DEP/EPA) (2006-2008) water resource protection Characterization of Bedrock Aquifers (DEP/USGS) (2002) source water protection; surface/groundwater interactions

Capability Assessment ~ 205 ~

State Geological Map of Connecticut digitized (DEP/CT DEM) (1998-99) seismic hazards mapping Indoor Radon Potential Mapping (DEP/DPH/EPA) (1990-1997) well water & indoor air radon distribution mapping

Support for DEP efforts involving erosion susceptibility (1:24,000 scale) as a planning tool for predicting terrace escarpment erosion. This mapping was derived from a synthesis of Quaternary geology and soil mapping characteristics. Field testing at 60 key locations enabled mapping methodology to be applied statewide. Erosion susceptibility mapping is available to environmental planners within DEP through GIS and to the public through free data download.

The Connecticut Geological Survey has prepared digital geologic and soils data for hazards assessments and analyses through cooperative efforts with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. These data support agency assessments of inland and coastal flooding, shoreline erosion, and sea level rise.

The catalog of digital GIS data available from DEP, including geologic and soils data is available through www.ct.gov/dep

Interstate Programs

Thames River and Connecticut River Flood Control Compacts

There are two active interstate flood control commissions; the Thames River Valley Flood Control Compact (1957 TRVFCC), and the Connecticut River Valley Flood Control Compact (CRVFCC 1953). These compacts were enacted to provide the authority to create detention reservoirs. The creation of each of the compacts required an act of Congress and legislative authorization from each of the signatory states. The CRVFCC is composed of three representatives each, from Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont, while the TRVFCC has three representatives from Connecticut and three from Massachusetts.

Representatives of the CRVFCC are chosen by their respective governors, and in Connecticut, are appointed for six-year terms. The CRVFCC requires all states to share in the cost of the office located in Massachusetts, and to share in reimbursements of property tax losses to the 21 communities in which the reservoirs are located. The office fees and tax reimbursements are fixed in the Compact according to proportional benefits. Because Connecticut and Massachusetts benefit most from the upstream dams, they pay more. Although tax reimbursement proportions are fixed, while property assessments change, correspondingly yearly payments change.

The costs of building the 16 dams and 16 local protection projects works along the Connecticut River and its tributaries have been principally borne by the Federal government.

Similar to the CRVFCC, the TRVFCC assesses each state for the tax losses associated with the flood control benefits provided by upstream communities.

Capability Assessment ~ 206 ~

DEP pays for the two flood control commission assessments on behalf of the state through a dedicated budget line item. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show the land areas associated with both of these flood control compacts.

Capability Assessment ~ 207 ~

Figure 3-1: Map of Connecticut River Flood Control Facilities Source CRVFCC website: www.crvfcc.org/damprojects.htm

Capability Assessment ~ 208 ~

Figure 3-2: Map of Thames River Basin134

134 Source: CT DEMHS.

Capability Assessment ~ 209 ~

Intra-State Programs

Regional planning organizations (RPOs) and Councils of Government provide land use guidance to municipalities, and assist with drafting of ordinances or zoning regulations.

The Connecticut River Gateway Commission and the Connecticut River Assembly advises municipalities on land use changes along the Connecticut River, and both consider flooding as a major consideration in making their decisions. Created by State statute, the Assembly is concerned with the northern half of the river, while the Gateway Commission reviews proposals for the southern half.

Federal Agencies and Programs for Disaster Response and Recovery, and Related Executive Orders

This section describes the roles, executive orders and programs of the State of Connecticut’s primary federal agencies that assist the State by providing funding for natural hazard mitigation.

Federal Executive Orders

The following Federal Executive Orders are mandated on DEP projects that relate to natural hazard mitigation. Executive Order 11988- Floodplain Management- This Executive Order requires Federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of any Federal action, which may affect floodplains, and to eliminate or reduce any negative effects of that action. PL-566, Section 205 – This Public Law authorizes the U.S.D.A., NRCS and the USACE to undertake flood and erosion control projects in cooperation with the DEP. Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands

The National Weather Service and the State Severe Weather Warning System

NWS offices in Albany, NY, Upton, NY (on Long Island), and Taunton, MA share Forecast and warning operations for Connecticut (see Figure 3-5 for NWS Connecticut county responsibility). Connecticut’s eight counties are sub-divided into 13 weather forecast zones to account for topography and climate variation across the State. See Figure 3-6 for a depiction of Connecticut forecast zones.

Each NWS office maintains sophisticated computer forecasting technology and Doppler radar for continuous weather and radar surveillance of Connecticut. NWS offices collaborate on forecast and warning services for Connecticut. Furthermore, each NWS office enlists the aid of volunteer severe weather observers through Skywarn training across the State.

Four NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards (NWRAH) transmitters are located in Connecticut. These transmitters are located in Cornwall, Meriden, Hartford, and New London. The Cornwall transmitter serves Litchfield County and is controlled by the NWS office in Albany, New York. In addition, NWRAH transmitters in neighboring states provide forecast and warning information for adjacent Connecticut municipalities.

Capability Assessment ~ 210 ~

Computer-generated depictions of NWRAH coverage in Connecticut are provided in Figure 3-7. NWRAH is the official voice of the NWS and delivers weather forecasts, watches and warnings 24 hours per day, and as requested by emergency management officials other hazardous awareness information such as Civil Emergency Messages.

As a direct result of the 1989 western Connecticut tornado outbreak, the State purchased 300 advanced technology Specific Area Message Encoder (SAME) radios in 1992 and 1994. These SAME radios allow the NWS to issue watches and warnings to specific counties in Connecticut when severe weather threatens the State. In 2006 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security purchased 92,000 NWRAHs and provided one to every public school in the United States.

Figure 3-3: Map of NWS County Warning Forecast Areas in Connecticut. (Note: “WFO Boston” is actually “WFO Taunton, and “WFO New York City” is actually “WFO Upton”.)

Capability Assessment ~ 211 ~

Figure 3-4: Depiction of Connecticut Forecast Zones

Capability Assessment ~ 212 ~

Figure 3-5: Depiction of NWRAH Coverage in Connecticut

Capability Assessment ~ 213 ~

Table 3-2: REFERENCE SHEET FOR WARNING/ADVISORY THRESHOLDS Last Updated: December 22, 2008

The following are National Weather Service criteria for issuing Advisories and Warnings for various weather events. Watches generally are issued with longer lead times in expectation of meeting Warning criteria.

TYPE OF ISSUANCE WHEN ISSUED FOR CONNECTICUT

WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY When any of the following is expected within the next 12 to 24 hours: More than one predominant hazard Winter weather event having more than one predominant hazard (ie., snow and ice, snow and sleet, or snow, ice & sleet) meeting or exceeding advisory criteria for at least one of the precipitation elements, but remaining below warning criteria. Snow and/or Sleet

3, 4 or 5 inches averaged over a forecast zone in 12 hours except 4, 5 or 6 inches averaged in Litchfield County Snow and Blowing Snow Sustained or frequent gusts of 25 to 34 mph accompanied by falling and blowing snow occasionally reducing visibility to < 1/4 mi for > 3 hours Blowing Snow Widespread or localized blowing snow reducing visibility to < ¼ mi with winds < 35 mph Black Ice A Special Weather Statement will usually be issued when sufficient moisture is expected to cause a thin l yer of ice on ro d surfaces, typically on cloudless nights (“black ice”). At forecaster discretion a formal Winter Weather Advisory may be issued instead.

FREEZING RAIN ADVISORY Any accretion of freezing rain or freezing drizzle on road surfaces WIND CHILL ADVISORY Wind chill index between -15°F and -24°F for at least 3 hours using only the sustained wind. WINTER STORM WARNING When any of the following is expected within the next 12 to 36 hours: More than one predominant hazard

Winter weather event having more than one predominant hazard {ie. heavy snow and blowing snow (below blizzard conditions), snow and ice, snow and sleet, sleet and ice, or snow, sleet and ice} meeting or exceeding warning criteria for at least one of the precipitation elements. Snow or Sleet 6 inches or more averaged over a forecast zone in a 12 hour period except 7 inches or more in 12 hours in Litchfield County 8 inches or more averaged over a forecast zone in a 24 hour period except 9 inches or more in 24 hours in Litchfield County

BLIZZARD WARNING Sustained winds or frequent gusts > 35 mph AND considerable falling and/or blowing snow frequently reducing visibility < ¼ for > 3 hours Blizzard conditions need to be the predominant condition over a 3 hour period

ICE STORM WARNING ½ inch or greater accretion of freezing rain in any zone WIND CHILL WARNING Wind chill index < -25°F for at least 3 hours using only sustained wind

WIND ADVISORY Sustained winds 31-39 mph (27-34 kts) for at least 1 hour; OR any gusts to 46-57 mph (40-49 kts)

Capability Assessment ~ 214 ~

HIGH WIND WARNING Sustained winds 40-73 mph (≥35 kts) for at least 1 hour; OR any gusts ≥ 58 mph (≥50 kts)

SMALL CRAFT ADVISORY Over the coastal waters…sustained winds 25-33 kts AND/OR Seas ≥ 5 feet within 24 hours GALE WARNING Over the coastal waters…sustained winds 34-47 kts within 24 hrs from a non- tropical system STORM WARNING Over the coastal waters…sustained winds ≥ 48 kts within 24 hours from a non tropical system HURRICANE FORCE WIND Sustained winds or frequent gusts ≥ 64 kts (> 2 hrs) within 24 hours from a WARNING non-tropical system TROPICAL STORM WARNING Sustained winds 39-73 mph (34-63 kts) (no gust criteria) associated with a tropical storm expected to affect a specified coastal zone within 24 hours

TROPICAL STORM WIND Sustained winds 39-73 mph (34-63 kts) (no gust criteria) associated with a WARNING (INLAND) tropical storm affecting areas beyond coastal zone (inland) within 24 hours

HURRICANE WARNING Sustained winds ≥ 74 mph (64 kts) (no gust criteria) associated with a hurricane expected to affect a specified coastal area within 24 hours HURRICANE WIND WARNING Sustained winds ≥ 74 mph (no gust criteria) associated with a hurricane (INLAND) affecting areas beyond coastal zone (inland) wit in 24 hours SPECIAL MARINE WARNING Over the coastal waters…brief/sudden occurrence of sustained wind or frequent gusts ≥ 34 knots, usually associated with thunderstorms; also issued for waterspouts SEVERE THUNDERSTORM Thunderstorms with wind gusts ≥ 58 mph (50 kts) AND/OR hail ≥3/4" in WARNING diameter

TORNADO WARNING Likelihood of a tornado within the given area based on radar or actual sighting; usually accompanied by conditions indicated above for "Severe Thunderstorm Warning" FLOOD ADVISORY Expect d inundation of some low lying and poor drainage areas, resulting in a nuisance to the public but not a threat to life and property. FLASH FLOOD WARNING Rapid and extreme flow of high water into a normally dry area, or a rapid water level rise in a stream or creek above a predetermined flood level, beginning within a short timeframe from the onset of heavy rain. A dam or levee failure, or water released from an ice jam is also considered FLOOD WARNING Expected overflow or inundation by water which causes or will cause damage and/or a threat to life RIVER FLOOD WARNING Water level at a River Forecast point along a main stem or larger tributary river (such as the Connecticut, Shetucket or Yantic) is expected to reach or exceed flood stage

COASTAL FLOOD ADVISORY Minor coastal flooding expected within 12 hours. Examples include: splash over causing a few roads briefly impassable, standing water in parking lots, etc.

COASTAL FLOOD WARNING Coastal flooding expected within 12 hours; widespread serious coastal flooding which damages property AND/OR is a threat to life EXCESSIVE HEAT WARNING Daytime heat indices of ≥ 105°F for 2 or more hours

HEAT ADVISORY Daytime heat indices of 100ºF-104ºF for 2 or more hours

Capability Assessment ~ 215 ~

HEAT WAVE Issued for non-criteria warning/advisory heat. A heat wave is defined as 3 or more days of > 90ºF temperatures. DENSE FOG ADVISORY Widespread visibility ≤1/4 mile for at least 3 hours

FREEZING FOG ADVISORY Very light ice accumulation from predominantly freezing fog FROST ADVISORY Issued u der clear, light wind conditions with forecast minimum shelter temperature 33-36ºF during growing season

FREEZE WARNING When minimum shelter temperature drops to < 32ºF during growing season HIGH SURF ADVISORY When high surf poses a danger to life in the form RIP currents or breaking seas RED FLAG WARNING High degree of confidence that dry fuels and weather conditions support extreme fire danger within 24 hours using the following criteria as a guide: Winds sustained or with frequent gusts > 25 mph Relative Humidity at or below 30% anytime during the day Rainfall amounts for the previous 5 days less than 0.25 inches (except 3 days in pre-greenup) Lightning after an extended dry period Significant dry frontal passage Dry thunderstorms Keetch-Byram Drought Index values of 300 or greater (summer only)

FEMA’s National Warning System (NAWAS) is used by the NWS to disseminate warnings to the Connecticut State Warning System. The Connecticut State Warning System consists of four agencies; 1) DEMHS, 2) Connecticut State Police Warning Point, 3) Tolland County Fire Radio, and 4) National Weather Service. The Connecticut State Police Warning Point forwards these messages to 20 municipalities via the NAWAS State Circuit. These 20 municipalities are then responsible for conveying warnings or watches to all communities in their regions, thereby attaining 100% coverage of the State.

The 4 in-state networks operate as follows:

1) DEMHS a. Acts as the Alternate State Warning Point. EMHS will alert its own personnel through its own radio system, or via pagers and cell phones. In cases of extreme emergency the DEMHS may activate the Emergency Alerting System (EAS) to alert the general public directly, and disseminates warnings via NAWAS to 20 municipalities if Connecticut State Warning Point is unable to do this.

2) Connecticut State Warning Point a. Receives the watch or warning from a NWS office. The NWS offices also issue flood warnings. b. Disseminates the watch or warning via the Connecticut On-line Law Enforcement Telecommunications (COLLECT) teletype to 96 municipal police and fire departments.

Capability Assessment ~ 216 ~

c. Relays the watch or warning to DEP’s IWRD, which currently maintains the ALERT Flood Warning System. d. Sends the warning message via the NAWAS State Circuit to 20 municipal police and fire departments, which are responsible for alerting all towns in their regions.

3) Tolland County Fire Radio Dispatch a. Upon receipt of the watch or warning from the State NAWAS (i.e. State Warning Point or DEMHS) System, the State Fire Control Center at Tolland will transmit the information over the State and Tolland-Windham-New London-Hartford County Fire Radio Systems. b. County fire control centers will then re-transmit the warning received from the State Fire Radio Systems to individual municipalities.

c. National Weather Service forecast offices in Taunton, Mass (Hartford, Tolland, Windham Counties), Albany NY (Litchfield County), and Upton NY (Fairfield, New Haven, Middlesex and New London Counties). Prepares weather and water related forecasts, watches, warnings and advisories. Notify Connecticut State Warning Point of weather and water related watches and warnings via NAWAS.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

In March 2003 FEMA became a part of the newly established U.S. Department of Homeland Security, under the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate.

FEMA sponsors major flood related programs through the Federal Insurance Administration, the National Preparedness Programs Directorate, and the State and Local Programs Directorate. FEMA also provides disaster assistance under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance and Recovery Act and the Flood Mitigation Assistance Act, Part 78.

FEMA Enabling Legislation

State participation in the NFIP, Stafford Act, and related actions are authorized under the Connecticut General Statutes Section 25-68b thru 25-68h and associated regulations. The NFIP is mandated under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44 Sections 59 - 80 inclusive.

FEMA Disaster Preparedness Programs

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

A major effort of FEMA is the continued implementation of the NFIP. This program seeks to limit flood losses and the significant federal cost related to those losses by requiring communities to properly manage their floodplain development. This is accomplished by: 1. Conducting detailed engineering studies of most watercourses,

Capability Assessment ~ 217 ~

2. Delineating floodways and floodway fringes showing flood conveyance and storage areas; 3. Requiring communities to adopt floodplain management regulations; 4. Subsidizing insurance for structures already in flood risk areas; 5. Requiring insurance at actuarial rates for new structures proposed for flood risk areas; 6. Joining the availability of disaster relief programs, federal grants and loans and federally backed mortgages to a community’s willingness to participate in the program; and 7. Requiring lending institutions to notify the purchaser or lessee of special flood hazard in advance of the signing of purchase or lease agreements. As of April 2007, all communities in Connecticut participate in the NFIP.

Civil Preparedness Activities

These activities are funded in-part by FEMA, and are described in Chapter 3 under the description for DEMHS.

Natural Resources Conservation Service

The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) NRCS provides significant technical assistance to the DEP and other state agencies in the planning and implementation of activities, most of which have been conducted under Public Law (PL)- 566, the Small Watershed Program Authorization.

NRCS Enabling Legislation

NRCS projects are conducted under federal PL-566, and CGS Sections 22a-318 through 324 and provide the framework for state cooperation with the NRCS when utilizing the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, PL 83-566 Section 6, Statute 666 for planning and implementation of flood damage reduction projects on a watershed basis.

The Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP) is administered by the NRCS under Section 216, PL 81-516 and Section 403 of Title IV of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, PL 95-334. The EWP program provides the State and local units of government with technical and financial assistance to plan, design and implement measures that repair watershed impairments resulting from natural disasters.

Federal Level Recommendation 3 of "A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management" and Section 6 of PL 83-566 provide the authorization to NRCS for Floodplain Management and Cooperative USDA River Basin studies.

NRCS Water Resources Programs

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, P.A. 83-566, CGS 22a-318 through 22a-323, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to “cooperate with states and local agencies in the planning and carrying out of works of improvement for soil conservation and other purposes." It provides for technical and financial assistance by the department through the NRCS to local organizations representing persons living in small watersheds (less than 250,000

Capability Assessment ~ 218 ~

acres). The Act provides for a project-type approach to solving land, water, and related resource problems. Flood prevention is an eligible purpose for which NRCS can pay 100% of the costs for planning studies, design and construction of structural solutions. The local sponsoring organization is solely responsible for land rights, operation and maintenance. Often these costs are equal to 1/2 the total costs of the project. For on-site measures such as flood proofing, the costs for implementation are divided 75% federal and 25% non-federal.

Floodplain Management Studies (FPMS) authorized in Section 6 of PL-566 are a means of NRCS assisting state agencies and communities in the development, revision, and implementation of their floodplain management programs..

A FPMS can identify site-specific flood problem areas (or potential problem areas), inventories natural values, incorporates public participation, studies the community's management alternatives, and provides for study follow-up assistance. A FPMS may serve as the source of technical data for the community to implement local floodplain management programs.

Implementation programs such as PL-566, or the Connecticut Flood Management Program are needed to install structural or on-site (such as flood proofing, raising or acquisition) measures. Floodplain studies and additional studies such as Dam Breach Analyses are underway.

Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP)

This program’s objective is to assist in relieving imminent hazards to life and property from floods and the products of erosion created by natural disasters. Any corrective measure must prevent flooding or soil erosion, and reduce threats to life or property.

Authorized EWP technical and financial assistance may be made available when an emergency exists. Federal funds may bear up to 75% of the construction costs of emergency measures in an exigency situation and 75% in a non- exigency situation. Sponsors are responsible for obtaining any needed land rights and federal, state, and local permits. The number of EWP projects initiated after most recent natural hazard events in Connecticut include:

37 EWP projects after the June 1982 floods; 1 EWP project each after a thunderstorm in June 1989 in Franklin, Connecticut 1 EWP project after the July, 1989 tornadoes in western Connecticut; 5 EWP projects after Tropical Storm Floyd; 1 EWP project after the April 2005 storm in Danbury; and 7 EWP projects after the October 2005 storm. 4 EWP projects after the April 2007 storm.

Capability Assessment ~ 219 ~

Table 3-3 NRCS Damage Reduction NRCS Public Law 566 Watershed Projects Project Location Damages Prevented in a Recurring Flood* in 2007 Dollars Roaring Brook/Walnut Street $367,000 Furnace Brook/Middle River $1,582,000 Blackberry River $7,61,000 North Branch/Park River $8,140,000 South Branch/Park River $12,209,000 Spaulding Pond Brook $3,053,000 Farm Brook $5,223,000 Norwalk River $4,477,000 Avery Brook $827,000 Neck River $212,000 Mill Horse Brook $21,000 ($2,713,000 when completed) Yantic River $$495,000 ($17,636,000 when completed)

Total Damages Prevented Current $44,067,000 When All Projects are Completed $63,900,000

*Evaluation Flood is the larger of the 100-year or Flood of Record

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE)

The USACE provides significant flood assistance to Connecticut. In their role as an assisting federal agency, the USACE has undertaken several flood and erosion control projects within the State. Tables 3-5 and 3-6 provide damage reduction and suffered estimates based on USACE supported facilities within Connecticut, as well as a listing of authorized flood control projects within the State.

Table 3-4 USACE Damage Information for Connecticut (based on USACE supported reservoirs and levees in the State)135 Flood Damage Reduction, by Flood Damages Suffered, by Fiscal Year State (in thousands of dollars) State (in thousands of dollars) 1996 $74,414 $2,092 1997 $11,518 $52 1998 $55,971 $40 1999 $27,303 $1,112 2000 $375 $6,010 2001 $37,364 $237 2002 $83 $0 2003 $24,268 $70 2004 $116,333 $0 2005 $53,911 $25 10 Year Average = $40,154 10 Year Average = $964

135 Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report of the Secretary of the Army on Civil Works Acitivites, North Atlantic Division; website – http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwb/annual_reports/fy05_annual_report/index_fy-5.htm.

Capability Assessment ~ 220 ~

Table 3-5: USACE Authorized Flood Control Projects in Connecticut136

Total Contributed Funds (includes Year of Construction Cost excluded funds as Last Full Project (Cost to 9/30/05) noted by USACE) Report Ansonia-Derby $18,266,040 $727,460 1977 Connecticut River, Middletown $262,046 $93,255 1996 Danbury $13,143,000 $1,146,828 1978 Derby $7,582,642 $406,653 1977 East Branch Dam $1,959,836 $0 1973 East Hartford $2,135,447 $7,637 1951 Farmington River, Simsbury $500,000 $267,915 1996 Faulkners Island $3,168,000 $0 2003 Folly Brook, Wethersfield $220,284 $0 1979 Gulf Street, Milford $365,000 $21,000 1991 Hall Meadow Brook Dam $2,572,357 $0 1970 Hartford $6,929,100 $2,781,100 1960 Housatonic River, Salisbury $102,800 $0 1982 Mad River Lake $4,773,020 $0 1973 Mad River, Waterbury (Woodtick Area) $1,177,905 $392,635 1998 New London Hurricane Barrier $8,504,919 $3,948,216 1992 Nonewaug River $222,500 $0 1985 Blackberry River, North Canaan $73,865 $0 1977 Norwalk $52,150 $0 1952 Norwich $1,209,000 $0 1960 Park River, Hartford $60,176,919 $259,408 1986 Pawcatuck $644,311 $214,106 1966 Port 5 Facility, Bridgeport $227,500 $0 1986 Salmon River, Colchester $247,100 $0 1983 Squantz Pond, New Fairfield $116,296 $0 1983 Sucker Brook Dam $2,227,792 $58,800 1976 Torrington, East Branch $389,237 $0 1963 Torrington, West Branch $228,237 $0 1963 Waterbury-Watertown $265,300 $0 1963 West River, New Haven $3,883,293 $1,375,128 1996 Winsted $245,500 $0 1954

136 See footnote #4

Capability Assessment ~ 221 ~

USACE Enabling Legislation

The USACE has worked within Connecticut to develop several floodplain management studies. These studies include ice jam protection on the Salmon River in Haddam and East Haddam, and a feasibility study of flood protection on the West River in West Haven, Connecticut and New Haven, Connecticut.

Connecticut is able to undertake projects with the USACE as authorized under CGS Section 25-76 entitled "Small Flood Control, Tidal and Hurricane Protection and Navigation Projects; and State Cooperation with Federal and Municipal Governments," and through CGS Section 25-95 entitled "Agreements Concerning Navigation and Flood and Erosion Control."

Section 205 Program

The USACE, in cooperation with the DEP and the city of Milford, elevated 36 residential structures under the authority of Section 205 of PL-858 in 2002 - 2003. The total cost of the project is estimated at $3.4 million. The city and State contributed 35% of the cost and the USACE covered the remaining 65% of the construction costs. The project was completed in 2003.

USACE Disaster Preparedness Programs

The USACE has undertaken several large flood control projects all across New England to reduce flood levels by retaining storm water runoff in upstream impoundments. These projects located in the Connecticut, Housatonic, Naugatuck, and Thames river basins. These structural measures have saved the State millions of dollars in flood damages. The USACE works in cooperation with the DEP by providing technical assistance on flood control and prevention projects, and assistance to the State's flood warning system.

Municipal Programs

All communities within Connecticut have developed and implement, either locally or on a regional level, several plans and regulations that are used to effectively manage natural resources on a community level. These plans and regulations are updated on a regular basis either due to a statutory requirement or through normal practices at the local level. Since all these mechanisms exist and are available to all municipalities, it is presumed for the purposes of this plan that local communities do maintain adequate capability for pursuing and implementing hazard mitigation/reduction activities. Table 3-6 lists many of the plans and regulations/ordinances communities have developed and continue to maintain and the connection of said plans and regulations to hazard mitigation.

Capability Assessment ~ 222 ~

Table 3-6: Local Plans and Regulations Used by Communities

Plan or Regulations Significance to Hazard Mitigation Emergency Management Plans Assist local communities in the preparation and implementation of resources prior to and during an emergency, including natural hazard events. The plans help local communities assess the locations of vulnerable areas within their communities and how to handle these areas during an emergency. This plan may be a good source of information for local risk assessment activities. Floodplain Management Regulations/ These regulations assist a community in Ordinance effectively manage its floodplain areas. These regulations are usually part of a community’s land use regulations. However depending on the community, they may take the form of a stand-alone municipal ordinance. These regulations may also require specific minimum design/construction/or development elements which must be complied with for health and safety reasons. Land Use Regulations (e.g., zoning Primary tool for community for shaping the regulations, subdivision regulations, character and development of a community. stormwater regulations) Land use regulations may restrict particular uses or structures from being located in hazard vulnerable areas in a community. These regulations may also require specific minimum design/construction/or development elements which must be complied with for health and safety reasons. Wetland Regulations Helps a community maintain and protection the integrity of its wetland resources. Local wetland areas often coincide with FEMA delineated floodplain areas in a community. Local Building Codes Critical to maintain adequate safety and building integrity factors in construction. In addition, these codes may limit structure size, type or place additional requirements in the construction of structures located in a identified hazard area (i.e., high wind, coastal, floodplain, wildland/urban interface area, etc.). Local Plan of Conservation and Development Primary plan that helps guide a community in its land use and management decisions with regard to development and conservation and/or preservation of open space. Local Coastal Management Programs Assists local coastal communities ensure compliant development and management of coastal resources and to prevent adverse impacts on coastal resources.

Capability Assessment ~ 223 ~

Local Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

The State of Connecticut reviews local flood management programs, local NFIP procedures, mitigation actions and local capabilities through the Community Assistance Program (CAP) of the NFIP. Each year IWRD staff perform a number of Community Assistance Visits (CAVs). During the CAV, the community’s ordinances are reviewed along with any variances, which have been granted in the floodplain. DEP staff meet with the local floodplain coordinators and travel around local floodplain areas looking for compliance issues and checking on possible violations. DEP staff prepare a written report on the CAV and submit it to FEMA. The report is placed in the community’s NFIP file and becomes part of the participating community’s compliance history. CAVs are targeted for coastal communities once every 5 years due to their increased vulnerability to flooding. Inland communities normally receive a CAV once every 10 years. Plans for potential future projects are also reviewed back at the DEP to determine if they are in compliance with NFIP and State floodplain management regulations. The CAV program has uncovered violations and continues to allow the DEP to more effectively monitor local municipal flood management regulations. Every municipality in Connecticut is a member of the NFIP and is required to submit to a CAV upon request. This has made the program very effective in assisting municipalities to monitor and prevent floodplain violations.

The Effectiveness of Local Hazard Mitigation Plans

Connecticut’s local planning effort began in 2000. Once initially approved by FEMA, local hazard mitigation plans are required to be updated every five years. Although the DEP currently has no provisions to analyze the effectiveness of local policies, the DEP does review local plans once a draft is completed and submitted to both FEMA and the State for review and comment. Through this review, the DEP has observed an evolution of the plans (which having been prepared most recently by consultants) in that they are becoming more specific in nature as to the proposed hazard mitigation activities recommended for implementation on a local level. In the future, the DEP expects that local plans will continue to refine local risk analyses and activities recommended for pursuance in hazard mitigation. The DEP will evaluate by the quality of the proposed measures that result from the implementation of the adopted plans. Upon the submission of regular plan updates, the regulatory elements of the plan will also be analyzed as part of all future planning grants in those communities. The DEP proposes to develop a checklist of accomplishments related to the local plans in the future that will be identified in a format approved by FEMA.

Land Use Controls

Currently, every municipality within Connecticut has some form of flood zone protection authority authorized by one of several Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.).

Section 7-148 of the CGS gives municipalities authority to pass ordinances, and many communities have done so under this authority. CGS. Section 8-2 (et. seq.) provides authority for municipal zoning including provisions to use zoning to “secure from flood”. A zoning commission administers zoning and its actions in most municipalities, and is independent of a municipality’s legislative body. Some communities may have both a

Capability Assessment ~ 224 ~

flood ordinance and flood zoning. Municipalities also have authorities, which allow them to purchase open space (7-13lb), to conduct comprehensive planning (8-18 et. seq.), to regulate inland wetlands (22a-36 et. seq.), to establish and maintain civil preparedness plans (28-7), and to regulate construction of buildings (29-260 et. seq.). As discussed in Section 3.1.1.2, coastal municipalities have additional authority and responsibility under the Connecticut Coastal Management Act, including ensuring that development within coastal flood hazard areas are managed to minimize risks to life and property.

Although the State has a 100% participation rate of its municipalities in the NFIP, the real measure of success cannot be determined merely by participation in the program. The minimum regulations required for admission into the NFIP must be adequately understood and enforced at the local level. The Flood Management Section's CAP has enabled DEP to greatly expand its technical and general assistance capabilities to local officials, residents, banks, insurance agents and engineers.

CTDEP has not performed a formal assessment of local capabilities in the past 3 years. CTDEP will perform further research into whether this activity has been or is currently performed by another state agency over the next planning period, prior to pursuing any proposal to perform such an activity. In addition, CTDEP will continue to gather information on this subject through its performance of local floodplain ordinance/regulation reviews, as it continues to perform in coordination with its MAP Mod program, and through annual Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and Community Assistance Contacts (CACs). However, due to current and foreseeable staff constraints over the next three years, the CTDEP does not intend to conduct a more advanced assessment update for natural hazards at any level of government for the next NHMP update.

Available qualitative information and ongoing communications between Inland Water Resource Division programs and local governments indicate that local governments’ land use policies and the enforcement of these policies and local regulatory controls have been and continue to be effective with regards to the mitigation of natural hazards at the local level. Many communities have been proactive with regards to managing their local natural resources and in developing local strategies to mitigate and/or plan for post-disaster recovery. The majority of communities located within the state actively work with CTDEP and CTDEMHS to develop and implement local hazard mitigation activities, and enhance and exercise evacuation and post-disaster plans of action

Flood and Erosion Control Boards

CGS Sections 25-85 through 25-98, inclusive, enable municipalities to form a municipal Flood and Erosion Control Board (FECB) with the power to plan, layout, acquire, construct, reconstruct, repair, maintain, supervise and manage flood and erosion control systems, flood control projects, and dam repair projects. These boards may also enter upon, take and hold by purchase, condemnation or otherwise, property which it determines necessary for use in connection with flood or erosion control systems; defray the cost of such systems by issuing bonds or other evidence debt, or from general taxation, special assessment or any combination thereof; and assess those properties benefiting from such project according to such rules as the FECB may adopt. The FECB is further empowered to negotiate, cooperate, and enter into agreement with: 1) The United States, 2) the United States and the State of Connecticut or 3) the State of Connecticut in order to satisfy the conditions imposed by the United States or the State

Capability Assessment ~ 225 ~

of Connecticut in authorizing any system for the improvement of navigation of any harbor or river and for protection of property against damage by floods or by erosion, provided such system shall have been approved by DEP’s Commissioner.

These statutes listed above enable a municipality, which has recognized a particular flood or erosion hazards potential and is dedicated to reducing or eliminating the hazards, to work with, and receive assistance from, federal and state agencies. The municipality must make a financial commitment based on federal cost-sharing requirements for a federal project. For a state/local project, the cost-sharing ratio is based on the ownership of the benefited property. The State will provide two-thirds of the project cost if the property protected is municipally owned. When the project benefits private properties, the State will provide one-third and the municipality will provide two- thirds of the project costs.

Activities of Other Entities Located in Connecticut

Northeast Utilities

Northeast Utilities (NU) is the largest power utility company within Connecticut. NU has several short and long-term programs to reduce the impact of natural disasters on the general public. NU's short-term programs include using power restoration crews to restore power after small-scale storms. NU also has agreements with other states and Canada to bring in additional crews of linesmen after major disasters to restore power. During the peak summer usage months, NU maintains agreements with large companies to curtail power usage during peak periods to prevent the need for brownouts or rolling blackouts. NU also issues power watches and warnings when necessary to conserve energy.

Power Watch

When a power warning is issued, NU asks customers to turn off all unnecessary electrical appliances, air conditioning and lights during the peak hours of 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Tree Trimming Program

NU has an annual proactive program of tree trimming across the State. Trees are identified and property owners are notified that their trees that overhang or threaten power lines will be trimmed. Tree trimming saves millions in yearly damage to the power grid.

Activities for Future Updates

It is the intent of DEP to enhance this section of the NHMP in future updates by performing the following: A review of any future agency/division organizational changes and their effect on said agency/divisions efforts relating to hazard mitigation; and Overview of local hazard mitigation policy initiatives, where available; and Investigate the prospect of a formal evaluation of all state policies and programs associated with natural hazard mitigation. Prior evaluation information in this Chapter was developed by a single source evaluation. It was decided by the planning team that

Capability Assessment ~ 226 ~

it was not appropriate to continue its use for this plan update. Instead it was agreed that a more formal and supported program and regulatory review effort should be developed in a future plan.

This work, as stated above, will be performed through planning efforts supported by FEMA grants and possible other grant/funding sources that may become available to the State. Due to existing resource constraints, the advancement of research and planning for these stated activities for future

Capability Assessment ~ 227 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Chapter 4 Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 228 ~

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs

This chapter describes the Federal and State natural hazard mitigation programs and potential mitigation funding resources. This chapter does not serve as a grant administrative plan137, however the general grant administrative procedures for FEMA grants are included in the second half of this chapter. The following descriptions of the grant programs and general administrative practices are not intended to dictate state policy or decision-making procedures or outcomes. Any questions on the applicability of this chapter should be directed to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO).

Six major natural hazard mitigation programs administered by FEMA are presented in this chapter: 1) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); 2) Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA); 3) Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG); 4) Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM); 5) Repetitive Flood Claims Program (RFC); and 6) Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL) (See Table 4-2). Each program is similar in its funding formula (75% federal / 25% State or Local) except the SRL, which may have a 90% federal and 10% state or local cost share. However, each program has different eligibility criteria and timelines for project completion. Each program also requires that all projects be cost-effective (i.e., at least one dollar of benefit must result from each dollar of cost). This is accomplished through the utilization of FEMA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) software.

In general the potential financial support sources listed in this chapter have not changed from the 2007 Plan. The most pertinent change has been by FEMA with regards to the restructuring of all hazard mitigation assistance grant programs under one umbrella grant program and process, called the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program (HMA), and the addition of information on forestry grant funding resources.

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act

On November 23, 1988, President Reagan signed the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 USC 5121 et seq.) into law. The Stafford Act provides disaster assistance to states and municipalities after major disasters through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and through individual assistance and public assistance aid programs. A major disaster is defined as a natural disaster that causes damage equal to or greater than $1.00 per capita in a state. Based on current population information, this Act would normally be initiated for Connecticut after a disaster that caused greater than $3.2 million in damages statewide. If several states are affected by the same disaster, the $1.00 per capita standard may be waived.

The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)

Section 404 of the Stafford Act created the HMGP, which provides federal grants to states and municipalities for post-disaster natural hazard mitigation. HMGP funding is allocated to a state by the use of a sliding scale calculation. The total grant funding from HMGP cannot exceed 15% (for a state with a FEMA approved

137 DEMHS revised the former State Grant Administration Plan and developed it as a stand-alone state procedures plan for the HMGP, entitled 2008 HMGP Administration Plan. A copy of the HMGP Administration Plan is located in Appendix F of this Plan.

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 229 ~

Standard Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) or 20% (for a state with a FEMA approved Enhanced Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) of the total disaster damages for the first $2 billion. After the total aggregate amount of $2 billion in damages the amount of funding for subsequent aggregate damages is decreased according to FEMA’s formula. This FEMA formula calculates the next portion of aggregate damages between $2 billion and $10 billion by 10%, and for the next portion of aggregate damages between $10 billion and $35.333 billion, funding is calculated at 7.5%.138 The monies from this federal grant are given to Connecticut to support local mitigation projects, with a cost share ratio of 75% federal and 25% local match.

The HMGP is active only after a presidentially declared disaster. The HMGP grant provides communities with up to 75% of the total cost of projects that reduce or prevent further damage from natural disasters. Projects may include, but are not limited to: acquisition, relocation, elevation or demolition of flood prone structures, construction of small scale flood control projects such as levees and small dams, retrofitting of structures to withstand wind and seismic forces and the drafting of plans that lead directly to the implementation of mitigation measures.

The Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program

The Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program (HMA) was created by FEMA to unify the application process of four of its hazard mitigation grant programs (PDM, FMA, RFC, and SRL). As stated in FEMA’s HMA Program guidance, “The intent of this alignment is to enhance the quality and efficiency of grant awards on an allocation and competitive basis to State, Territory, Tribal, and local entities for worthwhile, cost-beneficial activities designed to reduce the risks of future damage in hazard-prone areas.” The following seven subsections will provide a more detailed description of each of the grant programs which have been placed under this umbrella grant program for application process efficiency and a discussion of a separate FEMA grant program, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMPG).

Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)

In 1994 the United States Congress created a new grant program called Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA). The purpose of FMA is to assist state and local governments in funding cost-effective actions that reduce or eliminate the long- term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other insurable structures. The long-term goal of FMA is to reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP through the use of mitigation activities with a specific focus on repetitive loss properties. Repetitive loss properties are those properties that suffer at least 2 claims of more than $1,000 each for flood damage in a 10-year period.

The FMA program provides cost-share grants for three purposes: 1) planning grants (approximately $20,000 annually for Connecticut) to states and communities to assess the flood risk and identify actions to reduce that risk; 2)

138 Information derived from FMEA Fact Sheet, Hazards Mitigation Grant Program, available at FEMA’s website: www.fema.gov.

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 230 ~

project grants (approximately $200,000 annually for Connecticut) to execute measures to reduce flood losses; and 3) technical assistance grants (approximately $20,000 annually for Connecticut) that states may use to fund staff salary and program expenses in order to administer the FMA program. FMA also outlines a process for development and approval of Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans.

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM)

The disaster experiences of the 1990’s demanded that federal, state and local emergency managers reassess their approach to disaster response and recovery. Based on the lessons of the 1990’s, it became apparent that the nation needed to shift its approach from a disaster-response driven system to a system based on pre-disaster or ongoing risk analysis so that the nation as a whole could become proactive rather than reactive to hazard events. This acknowledgement caused FEMA to re-evaluate its national strategy, resources and priorities. As a result of this evaluation, a unit for Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning was established in 1998 within FEMA to provide guidance and resources to states and local communities to promote and support the mitigation planning process. FEMA and the State of Connecticut place great value on the planning process as an approach to mitigation that must be promoted and supported in order to build sustainable, disaster resilient communities.

On October 20, 2000, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) (Public Law 106-390). This was the first major amendment to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act since that law was initially passed in 1988. Through DMA 2000, Congress approved the creation of a new mitigation grant program, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program to provide a mitigation funding mechanism that is not dependent on a presidential disaster declaration and could fund both natural hazard mitigation construction projects and natural hazard mitigation planning initiatives. PDM funding has changed since its inception. In the program’s initial years, a base allocation of funding was granted to each state and additional funds were provided using a population formula. Recently, FEMA has changed the program to a nationally competitive grant program where projects from all states compete against each other with FEMA choosing the winning projects that will receive funding. Eligible PDM projects include: state and local natural hazard mitigation planning, mitigation projects, and community outreach and education. The PDM grant is a 75% federal 25% local cost-share grant (e.g., cash, in-kind services, etc.).

For fiscal years 2002-2007, a main focus of the PDM program was on the development of local or regional natural hazard mitigation plans to help meet the new local natural hazard mitigation planning requirements of DMA 2000. In Connecticut, communities applying for any FEMA mitigation grant, such as the FMA, to conduct mitigation projects (e.g. home elevations, acquisitions) must have an adopted local natural hazard mitigation plan in place prior to receiving funds. In addition, following a presidentially declared disaster, municipalities will not be able to receive funding under the HMGP without an approved local natural hazard mitigation plan.

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 231 ~

Repetitive Flood Claims Grant Program (RFC)

Authorization for the Repetitive Flood Claims Grant Program (RFC) is granted under the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-264), which amended the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001, et al). The RFC program began in FY2006 and provides funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to structures insured under the NFIP that have had one or more claim payments for flood damages. RFC funds may only mitigate structures that are located within a state or community that cannot meet the requirements of the FMA program for either the 25% cost share or capacity to manage the activities. The long-term goal of the RFC is to reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP through mitigation activities. A municipality does not need a local hazard mitigation plan to apply for the RFC grant, however, a state must have a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan in order to submit an application. Eligible activities include only the acquisition of insured property that have one or more claim payments for flood damage; and the demolition or relocation of insured structures, with conversion of property to deed-restricted open space use. Property owners must have a current flood insurance policy on the applicable structure to be mitigated at the time of application and through the life of the award. All RFC grants are eligible for up to 100% Federal assistance. RFC grants are awarded nationally without reference to state allocations, quotas, or other formula-based allocations of funds.

With its flood management certification program, DEP encourages the implementation of less intensive floodplain land uses. This also coincides with CT OPM’s policy of promoting less intensive uses of floodplain areas. The newly created RFC program is seen as an important funding tool for use by the state and local communities to move towards more open space acquisition and less intensive uses of floodplain areas, while providing important local quality of life benefits by protecting those important resources. DEP intends to promote such less intensive uses of floodplain areas where possible, and promote the use of this program to local communities to encourage protection of these floodplain areas, while protecting public health, welfare, and safety.

Severe Repetitive Loss Grant Program (SRL)

On October 31, 2007 FEMA issued an interim rule which became effective on December 3, 2007. The rule establishes a new grant program under the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Act of 2004 called the Severe Repetitive Loss grant program (SRL). The intention of this new grant program is to “provide mitigation assistance to address properties that have experienced repetitive flood losses and that are insured under the NFIP.” The SRL focuses on a subset of all repetitive flood loss properties (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 210).” Flood mitigation projects acceptable for funding under this new program include buyouts, elevation, relocation, mitigation reconstruction, or floodproofing. Final guidance for the pilot program was issued by FEMA on January 15, 2008.

The SRL provides ninety percent Federal matching grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the mitigation (reduction) of future flood damages insured by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), with the

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 232 ~

remaining ten percent of the project cost funded through local match. The SRL program is available to mitigation flood damages to approximately eighty-one of the most severely and repetitively flood damaged residential homes and other buildings in Connecticut. DEMHS currently administers the SRL program within the State of Connecticut. The goal of the SRL program for Connecticut is to reduce the amount of future flood damage claims paid by the NFIP to the most severely flooded buildings. SRL projects seek to mitigate damage through one of three types of projects; elevation of the buildings, acquisition of the buildings or teardown and rebuilding (mitigation reconstruction) the structures to higher elevations.

Recently in 2008 DEMHS applied for and received $2,945,381 in funding from FEMA under the SRL program to elevate eighteen residential homes in the communities of Mansfield, East Haven, Milford and Westport. After the grant award was issued, FEMA gave these homeowners the option of selling their homes (acquisition) to their towns for open space in perpetuity. A total of five homeowners in East Haven have elected this option and will sell their homes to the Town of East Haven. The homes will then be demolished within ninety days and the land used for parks and greenways. Construction of the elevation projects is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2010 with completion expected by the middle of summer 2010. The home acquisitions are also scheduled to take place in the spring of 2010. DEMHS estimated that the total benefit to the National Flood Insurance Program for this project is approximately seven million dollars in prevented flood damages over the next thirty years.

In addition, the DEP Flood Management Certification program encourages the implementation of less intensive floodplain land uses. This also coincides with CT OPM’s policy of promoting less intensive uses of floodplain areas.139 Both the recently created RFC and SRL programs are seen as important funding tools for use by the State and local communities to move towards more open space acquisition and less intensive uses of floodplain areas, while providing important local quality of life benefits by protecting such important resources.

139 CGS 16a-27(c) requires the following of OPM for the next plan update of the Connecticut Plan of Conservation and Development: “Any revision made after March 1, 2006, shall (1) take into consideration risks associated with natural hazards, including, but not limited to, flooding, high winds and wildfires; (2) identify the potential impacts of natural hazards on infrastructure and property; and (3) make recommendations for the siting of future infrastructure and property development to minimize the use of areas prone to natural hazards, including, but not limited to, flooding, high winds and wildfires.”

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 233 ~

Table 4-1: Connecticut Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Communities (Data From FEMA, as of 5/31/09) Total Number of NFIP NFIP Cumulative Community Number of Claims NFIP Claims Municipality Number Properties Paid Paid BETHEL 090001 1 5 $254,481 DARIEN 090005 1 5 $184,346 EAST HAVEN 090076 31 234 $3,851,301 ENFIELD 090028 1 5 $78,699 FAIRFIELD 090007 1 5 $31,692 GREENWICH 090008 1 5 $94,802 HAMDEN 090078 1 6 $48,643 MANSFIELD 090128 1 9 $224,502 MILFORD 090082 12 64 $1,639,483 NORTH HAVEN 090086 1 7 $168,374 NORWALK 090012 2 9 $141,497 OLD SAYBROOK 090069 1 4 $97,667 ORANGE 090087 3 18 $254,157 OXFORD 090150 1 5 $33,540 PLAINVILLE 090034 1 4 $58,423 SHELTON 090014 2 12 $252,523 SIMSBURY 090035 1 8 $94,767 SOUTHBURY 090089 1 7 $129,493 STAMFORD 090015 3 14 $922,180 STRATFORD 090016 2 14 $255,869 TRUMBULL 090017 2 11 $180,283 WEST HAVEN 090092 2 10 $628,986 WESTPORT 090019 8 41 $370,607 WOODBRIDGE 090153 1 5 $67,2319 Totals 81 508 $10,063,545

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 234 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Table 4-2: FEMA Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs Available Under the Unified HMA Grant Program in Connecticut

FEATURE / PROGRAM HMGP - HAZARD FLOOD MITIGATION REPETITIVE FLOOD PRE-DISASTER SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS MITAGATION GRANT ASSISTANCE CLAIMS GRANT MITIGATION PROGRAM PROGRAM

AUTHORIZATION Section 409 of the 44 Code of Federal Authorized in Disaster Mitigation Act Authorized in section Stafford Act Only Regulations Part 78 Section 1323 of the of 2000 1361A of the Bunning- available after a NFI Act of 1968, as Blumenauer Flood Presidentially Declared amended by the Insurance Reform Act Disaster Bunning-Bereuter- of 2004 Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. QUALIFYING CRITERIA Must be a project that Must be a project that Must be a project that Full range of Natural Must be one of the 81 mitigates damages mitigates damages reduces or eliminates Disaster Hazard in properties in CT from a current disaster from flooding to the long-term risk of Connecticut, however, designated as a or past disaster within insurable repetitive flooding of NFIP flood mitigation is Severe Repetitive Connecticut. loss structures insured structures. preferred. Loss property and which maintains an active NFIP policy. APPROVALS State approval based State approval based State approval based State approval based State approval based on recommendations on recommendations on recommendations on recommendations on recommendations from the CIHMC. from the CIHMC. from the CIHMC. from the CIHMC. from the CIHMC. Federal approval from Federal approval from Federal approval from Federal approval from Federal approval from FEMA FEMA FEMA FEMA FEMA

FUNDING LIMITS 15% of 1st $2 billion of $20,000 for plans Up to 100% Federal $500,000 for Amount of funding is estimated aggregate $20,000 for technical Assistance for eligible construction of based on number of amounts of disaster assistance projects, no dollar mitigation projects, applications, minimal assistance; 10% for $300,000 for projects limits stated for public information and federal funding for CT next portion of projects plans is $615,148 amounts between $2 and $10 billion; and 7.5% for the next portion of amounts between $10 and $35.333 billion TIME LIMITS 2 Years for 2 Years for 2 Years for 2 Years for 3-5 years for construction construction acquisition and construction construction 3 Years for plans 3 Years for plans demolition projects 3 Years for plans

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 235 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Other Natural Hazard Mitigation Funding Sources

Funding sources exist through various federal and state agencies to implement specific natural hazard mitigation efforts. Currently funding for hazard mitigation activities for state and local governments with regard to wildfire mitigation is available from the USDA Forest Service. Grant programs under this federal agency include the following:140 Volunteer Fire Assistance - The Volunteer Fire Assistance program provides critical funding and technical assistance directly to local and volunteer fire departments that protect communities with populations under 10,000. Funds improve the ability of rural fire departments to respond to wildfires, especially in the wildland/urban interface. Funding can be used for training and equipment to complement federal firefighting commitments, so protection capabilities can be enhanced across ownerships. Delivery is through consolidated grants to the State Forester, and funds are cost-shared on a 50/50 basis. State Fire Assistance - The State Fire Assistance program provides technical training, financial assistance, and equipment to states to ensure that state and local firefighting crews can deliver a safe, effective, and coordinated response to wildland fire. Funding is available for preparedness, high priority prevention, and mitigation education programs including FIREWISE. These funds complement readiness levels at the federal level and are available through consolidated grants to State Foresters. Funds are cost-shared on a 50/50 basis. Community Planning - Funding is available for development and revision of communities' strategic, action, and fire risk management plans. The goal for these funds is to increase community resiliency and capacity while creating an environment for development and growth. Funding will be targeted to communities most impacted by fires. Delivery is through grants awarded directly to communities and to a variety of other partners including state, county, and tribal governments, and not-for-profit corporations identified by the National Forestry Service in conjunction with the State Department of Commerce. Funds are cost shared 80/20.

For a more complete listing of USDA Forest Service grant programs that have been administered in Connecticut in FFY 2006 and FFY 2007, please see Appendix L. When additional information becomes available, these resources will be added to this section.

State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP)

DEMHS is in charge of the SHSGP with monies provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This program contains several different funding pools including the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG), the Buffer Zone Protection Program, and the Urban Area Security Initiative, among others. Funds from these programs are used for providing planning and equipment grants to state, regional, and local government agencies. The purchase of interoperable communication systems has been a major activity in ensuring disaster preparedness.

140 Source: grant program descriptions excerpted from the USDA Forest Service website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/pgr/afterfire/keypoint4/contacts.shtml. This site provides a good description of many of the USDA Forest Service grants available and links to other webpages that describe additional grant programs.

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 236 ~

Grants Administration Overview

Federal mitigation grants are administered by FEMA on the federal level, and by DEP and DEMHS on the state level. The State of Connecticut’s CIHMC reviews and approves projects submitted by eligible applicants for formal submission to FEMA under the State’s grant application for FEMA grants programs FMA, PDM, and HMGP. The CIHMC meets annually, but may meet more frequently if necessary, to review and approve potential FEMA grant funded projects.

Enabling Federal and State Regulations

The State of Connecticut will administer the HMGP, FMA, EMPG, RFC, PDM and SRL under the provisions of the following federal and state regulations:

Federal Laws and Regulations FEMA Law - Title V, The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, Subtitles D, E, and F FMA Regulations - 44 CFR, Part 13, Uniform Administrative Requirements of Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and local Governments FEMA Regulations - 44 CFR, Section 60.3 The National Flood Insurance Program FEMA Regulations - 44 CFR, Part 14 Executive Order 12612, Federalism Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management

State Laws and Regulations Connecticut General Statutes Title 28, Chapter 517, Section 28-9, 28-15a, and 28-15b, Civil Preparedness and Emergency Services Federal Aid Connecticut General Statutes, Title 4, Chapter 24, Section 4-28a, Management of State Agencies, State Properties and Funds, Advisory Commission, and Section 25-68b et seq. flood control projects Connecticut General Statutes Sections 25-68b to 25-68h inclusive and associated regulations

The distribution of state or federal funding requires full compliance with all regulations. A formal contract is entered into between the applicant and the State to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations.

Delegation of Responsibility

FEMA funded mitigation in Connecticut is administered through DEP’s IWRD in conjunction with DEMHS. Federal funding for the programs are provided through the smart-link system maintained between FEMA and DEMHS. Transfer invoices are utilized to channel approved funding through DEP to the eligible projects.

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 237 ~

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

DEP’s Inland Water Resources Division (IWRD) currently administers FEMA’s FMA, RFC, and PDM grant programs. IWRD staff review project sub- applications received from applicants for FEMA’s FMA, PDM and RFC programs and if necessary, request input from other divisions within DEP or other state agencies during the review process. Sub-applications which are chosen by the CIHMC (please see a more detail discussion of the grants administration process in a later section of this chapter) are then attached to the State’s FEMA grant application. Upon FEMA approval of the State’s grant application (and associated individual sub-grant applications), the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) who resides in the IWRD or his/her designated representative must formally accept FEMA’s grant award and give final authorization to award grants to the sub-applicants.

Currently the title and duties of the SHMO are divided between DEP and DEMHS. Currently DEP is responsible for performing the general SHMO duties with regards to flood management within Connecticut, administration of the NFIP, and for purposes of administration of FEMA’s FMA, RFC, and PDM grant programs. DEMHS is responsible for the SHMO duties associated with the occurrence of a natural hazard event, and for administration of FEMA’s HMGP and SRL grant programs. More information regarding the current division of the SHMO’s duties between the two agencies is located in Appendix M.

The Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS)

DEMHS currently administers FEMA’s HMGP and SRL grant programs. The sub-applicant award process for FEMA’s HMGP and SRL is virtually the identical to the process described in the above section. DEP and DEMHS have entered into an agreement defining their respective roles for HMGP and the duties of the SHMO. Currently DEMHS develops a state application for both the SRL program and NHMP and submits it for approval to FEMA. DEMHS also reviews and manages all approved structural projects which have received FEMA approval under these two grant programs. DEP provides technical assistance to DEMHS on an as needed basis for the review of sub-applications and issues regarding flood management and the NFIP. As a agreed upon requirements of the SHMO/HMGP MOU, DEP is responsible for managing any sub-applicant planning grants awarded by FEMA under the HMGP program.

State Office of Policy and Management (OPM)

OPM provides technical support to DEMHS and DEP in reviewing project applications. A member of OPM is appointed to the CIHMC.

Connecticut Department of Education (DOE)

DOE provides technical support to DEP and DEMHS in reviewing project applications regarding public educational facilities. A member of the DOE may be appointed to the CIHMC.

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 238 ~

Office of the State Building Inspector (OSBI)

OSBI provides technical assistance to DEP and DEMHS in reviewing projects concerned with issues of post disaster housing, and building codes. A member of the OSBI may be appointed to the CIHMC.

Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD)

DHCD provides technical assistance to DEP and DEMHS in reviewing projects concerned with improving construction practices, and building codes. A member of the DHCD may be appointed to the CIHMC.

Department of Public Health (DPH)

DPH provides technical assistance to DEP and DEMHS in reviewing projects with respect to drinking water issues including sources, adequacy, and infrastructure. A member of the DHCD may be appointed to the CIHMC.

Department of Transportation (DOT)

DOT provides technical assistance to DEP and DEMHS in reviewing projects concerned with implementing roadway construction projects, and other related transportation issues. A member of the DOT is appointed to the CIHMC.

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

NRCS provides technical and engineering assistance to DEP and DEMHS in reviewing projects concerned with soil erosion and flooding. A member of the NRCS is appointed to the CIHMC.

Major Components of FEMA Grant Programs

This section discusses the major components of the FEMA funded mitigation programs. This section covers project eligibility, applicant eligibility, notification criteria, application procedures, project funding and management, appeals, and project monitoring.

Project Solicitation and Eligibility

The SHMO will solicit eligible projects from communities and other state agencies on an annual basis via a mass mailing and public notices. The SHMO will also consult the State and local NHMPs, and the hazard mitigation survey team report that is prepared after a disaster, for potential projects.

Eligible Mitigation Activities

Subtitle E of Title V of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act, establishes the minimum criteria that all projects must meet in order to be eligible for funding

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 239 ~

consideration by the CIHMC. The following types of projects will be considered by the CIHMC along with other types of related projects: 1. Demolition or relocation of any structure located on land that is located in any designated 100-year floodplain, lake, river or other body of water and is certified by the State to be subject to imminent collapse or subsidence as a result of erosion or flooding; 2. Elevation, relocation, demolition, or floodproofing of buildings (public or private) located in flood prone areas. The new buildings must meet all building codes and local zoning regulations/ordinances; 3. Mitigation of earthquake hazard by the State or a community for the retrofit of structures for seismic reinforcement. The properties and/or buildings, which are retrofitted, must meet all current building codes and practices; 4. Mitigation of high wind hazard by the State or a community for public use. The buildings, which are retrofitted, must be located in an area subject to hurricane force winds from a Category 2 Hurricane or greater; 5. Beach nourishment activities that protect coastal structures from repetitive flood damages; and 6. Other projects, which mitigate natural hazard will be reviewed by the CIHMC to ensure that they substantially reduce or prevent damage from a natural disaster.

Sub-Applicant Eligibility

The following entities are eligible to apply for FEMA funded mitigation programs: state and local governments; state agencies; private nonprofit organizations or institutions that own or operate a public nonprofit facility or other public holdings, or are defined as a separate taxing district as defined in Section 206.221 (e) of the Stafford Act, and Connecticut General Statutes Section 7-324 et seq.; and Indian Tribes or tribal organizations.

Notification to Potential Sub-Applicants

In response to the availability of a grant, the SHMO will coordinate with the FEMA Natural Hazard Mitigation Officer (FHMO) in the preparation of a general announcement of the availability of FEMA funded mitigation programs through a mass mailing. The announcement will be designed to create an awareness of the program, with further detailed information being available upon request. A joint press release may also be developed and issued by the FHMO and the SHMO.

The SHMO will be the point of contact for applicants to obtain additional details relative to the FEMA funded mitigation programs. The SHMO will also be responsible for determining the scope of the outreach effort through the media. Additional briefings or mailings may be announced by the SHMO to increase further public awareness if necessary.

The SHMO will establish a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) (a.k.a. Applicant’s Agent) with each sub-applicant, and will provide technical assistance to the SPOC if necessary throughout the duration of the project. The SPOC may be a

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 240 ~

local fire or police chief, or town planner, who serves as the local point of contact for the mitigation programs.

Application Procedures

Submission of Sub-Applications

The SHMO will have primary responsibility for ensuring that all applications are properly completed prior to submission to FEMA. Each application must contain the following information: Name of applicant (sub-grantee) - For local projects unless otherwise stated, this will be the name of the town or municipality where the project is located; Sub-Applicant's agent - Person designated by the applicant as the project coordinator. The agent will prepare the project application and coordinate day-to-day tasks to complete the project; Location of project - Street address or physical description of project location. GPS coordinates can also be provided along with the address; Description - Detailed description of project purpose and goals; Cost estimate - An itemized estimate of costs of the project from start to finish. Construction projects above $50,000 (except for home elevations) will be required to provide a design prepared by a Professional Engineer certified in Connecticut. Applicants need to be sure that all cost estimates for projects must be guaranteed for not less than one year from the date of the original estimate, as no modifications will be made to the amount of the grant once the application is approved by FEMA; Benefit to cost ratio - A computer model supplied by FEMA will be used to calculate the benefit to cost ratio. For projects that cannot be calculated using the FEMA model, the applicant will be required to prepare a numerical Benefit to Cost (B/C) Ratio. Projects must have a B/C ratio of 1:1 or greater to be eligible for funding; Justification for selection –Within each state guidance document created for an administered FEMA grant program, DEP has established State application requirements and minimum project criteria that are used by the CIHMC during its review and selection process; Work schedule - A task list in chronological order showing the number of days required to complete each task within the project. At a minimum, the tasks of designing the project, any necessary inspections and all major construction tasks (i.e. pouring foundation, framing, electrical etc.) must be included in the schedule; Alternatives considered - List all alternatives (at least 2 alternatives) considered to accomplish the goal of your project. Describe briefly why each of the non-selected alternatives were not chosen and include the cost of each alternative for comparison; Environmental assessment – Required unless a project meets one of the five exclusion criteria listed in the environmental assessment form; Site map - A standard local street map showing the site of construction, if necessary; and

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 241 ~

Application deadline - Applicants will be given a deadline to file an application. All sub-applicants must apply for any FEMA grants electronically through the FEMA grant portal.

Sub-Application Review Process

In addition to meeting all of the requirements listed in the previous sections, all applications are reviewed as to eligibility and completeness. Eligible and complete applications will then be passed on to the appropriate state agency, by DEP, for a technical review if necessary (i.e. emergency communications applications will be reviewed by DEMHS to ensure they meet current requirements).

Once the review of eligibility and completeness has been completed the projects will be sent to the CIHMC/SHMO for project ranking. Each year the DEP will set the limit for the number of projects to be submitted to FEMA, per FEMA’s grant guidelines. Upon CIHMC selection, the application will be forwarded to FEMA via the E-grants system.

Technical Assistance

Sub-Applicants will be responsible for hiring consultants to prepare design drawings and cost estimates, if necessary, and to provide financial justification for projects during the application phase.

Breaking of Ties

If two or more projects are equally ranked and funding is not available to fully fund all of the tied projects, the SHMO will break the tie with his/her vote. Once FEMA has approved a project, the project management phase begins.

Project Management and Funding

The DEP’s IWRD shall serve as the grantee, responsible for grant administration activities, including grant management, project management, and accountability of funds at the state level. Sub-Applicants will be notified of their grant application award by DEP.

Municipalities will be expected to co-administer the grants with the State and serve as the point of contact with the homeowners. Projects shall also conform to the following criteria: 1. The total contribution of FEMA mitigation funding under the FEMA funded mitigation programs will not exceed seventy five percent (75%) of the project cost. The project cost shall be based on the original cost estimate of the project as appears in the final application. 2. The total cash contribution by the applicant (sub-grantee) must equal at least 25% of the total project cost. The amount of the grant shall be based on the original cost estimate contained in the sub-application. No increase in the grant shall be allowed. 3. Record keeping and financial system (in conformance with generally accepted accounting practices) based upon the approved application(s)

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 242 ~

and work schedule of the project(s), will be implemented by the grantee and sub-grantee for the duration of the project. Progress reports are submitted to FEMA within 30 days after each quarter (April 30, July 31, October 31, and January 31) after receipt of funding. 4. Any and all work or expenses incurred prior to the written approval of the grant application, and the formal execution of a binding contract between the applicant (sub-grantee) and the State of Connecticut (Grantee) shall be ineligible for funding. A notice to proceed will be sent to the applicant upon approval of the binding agreement. 5. A closeout report will be prepared by the SPOC upon the completion of the project(s) and include a thorough assessment and accounting of all project accomplishments.

Contractual Agreements for Approved Projects

Contractual agreements between the sub-applicants (sub-grantee) and the State for release of funds will proceed as follows: 1. When a state agency is an applicant and is named as the sub-grantee, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be drafted between the DEP and the sub-grantee. This MOU shall include provisions to guarantee compliance with all state and local floodplain management requirements and any Connecticut Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) approvals that may be necessary. The state agency receiving FEMA mitigation funding will be responsible for securing a 25% cost share of the total project cost. (All contractual obligations and permits required for administering the project rest with the sub-grantee.) 2. When a municipality, private non-profit organization or tribal organization is named as the sub-grantee, an agreement will be entered into between the State and the sub-grantee. The agreement will ensure that a sub- grantee complies with all state and federal regulations when selecting a contractor and in performance of the contracted work and services. Responsibility for securing all contractual obligations and permits required for administering the project rest with the sub-grantee. Terms of the agreement are as follows: a. An Itemized Cost Estimate will be prepared by the applicant defining the work and/or services to be performed under the agreement and the estimated costs. All cost estimates must be guaranteed for a period of not less than one year from the date of the original estimate; b. The sub-grantee will designate a person to sign the agreement via a stamped corporate resolution. This person may be the SPOC or any other person deemed qualified by the municipality; c. The sub-grantee must adhere to state nondiscriminatory policies pursuant to C.G.S. 4a-60 and 4a-60a, and Executive Order #16; d. The sub-grantee is responsible for securing all permits, easements, and land rights prior to performing the project; e. The State will reimburse the sub-grantee (municipality, nonprofit organization or tribal organization) for up to 75% of the total project cost in partial payments. The specific reimbursement schedule varies with the type of project performed; and

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 243 ~

f. Payments are made no more frequently than on a monthly basis upon receipt and approval of invoices. Evidence of funding expenditure (i.e. invoices, canceled checks, and billing receipts) must accompany the invoices.

Cost Overruns

Grant amounts will be based on the cost estimate contained in the approved application. Any cost overrun will be the sole responsibility of the project applicant. No additional grant funding will be made available.

Appeals

Due to the limited timeframe of the FEMA grant application period, an appeal of the CIHMC’s denial of a proposed mitigation grant and denial of submission of said application to FEMA is not feasible. However, an applicant, whose proposed mitigation grant application has been denied submission to FEMA by the CIHMC under the State grant application may request technical assistance from DEP. Knowledge of where and why a proposed application was incomplete and/or lacking of necessary information can help an applicant enhance the proposed application so the proposed project application may compete more effectively for other possible funding opportunities.

Connecticut Inter-Agency Hazard Mitigation Committee (CIHMC)

The CIHMC meets, as necessary, to review project applications and apply (through DEP) to FEMA for the FEMA funded mitigation programs. Although the final responsibility for selection of projects remains with the SHMO, the CIHMC advises the SHMO. The CIHMC consists of the state agencies named in Section 4.2 in cooperation with federal agencies (i.e. NRCS), and private agencies as necessary to evaluate projects. It is the responsibility of the SHMO to reconvene or re-staff the committee as necessary for future grant awards.

The CIHMC ranks potential projects for submission to FEMA. Projects must have a benefit to cost ratio of one-to-one (1:1) or greater for each project application. Projects must solve the problem being addressed. HMGP, FMA, RFC, PDM and SRL funding may not be used as a substitute or a cost share for any other federally funded projects. In addition, sub-grantees may secure funding from other state, and local programs to provide their required cost share for a particular project.

Sub-applicant and state proposed projects are evaluated and selected for funding based on the degree to which they address the following stated criteria put forth in the State’s annual PDM and FMA grant guidance documents, such as how a project will: Utilize the best strategy to ensure the success of the project goal; Allocate sufficient staff and resources for the successful implementation of the proposed mitigation project; Demonstrate that the proposed mitigation activity reduces the overall risks to the general population and structures; Result in a long-term solution to a flooding problem with minimal maintenance required;

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 244 ~

Provide a benefit to the general population of an area (ex. culvert upgrade, storm damage system upgrade, public education); Protect critical facilities; Leverage Federal/State/tribal/local/private partnerships to enhance the outcome of the proposed activity; Promote measures that prevent future construction or development in hazard- prone areas; Promote stormwater management practices according to CGS Section 25-68h; Are located in a community listed on the Public Investment Community Index with a PIC rank of 1-42 (OPM website); Have a multi-objective mitigation purpose; Are consistent with the State Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan; and Are consistent with Local or Regional Hazard Mitigation Plans.

Proposed projects are given a score base on several factors such as the ones stated above. Specific evaluation criteria may be modified for a particular grant year in response to FEMA stated requirements as set forth in FEMA grant guidance document for a particular grant and fiscal year, or based upon state mitigation grant priorities for any given year.

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 245 ~

Figure 4-1: Grant Program Weighted Evaluation Form Example

CT FY2010 PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM

Rating and Evaluation Form

Sub-Applicant name: Project name: Evaluator name:

EVALUATION CRITERIA Evaluator s Score 1-10 Utilizes the best strategy to ensure the success of the project goal

Sufficient staff and resources for implementation of the proposed mitigation project Demonstrates that the proposed mitigation activity reduces the overall risks to the general population and structures Results in a long-term solution to a flooding problem with minimal maintenance required Has a multi-objective purpose

Leverages Federal/State/tribal/local/private partnerships to enhance the outcome of the proposed activity Protection of critical facilities

Includes outreach activities appropriate to the proposed project

Promotes measures that prevent future construction or development in hazard-prone areas Is located in a community listed in the top 15% of 2007 Yes = 5 Distressed Community Index as defined by CGS Section 32-9p No = 0 * (*The top 15% of all municipalities or 25 cities/towns were used for this category. The 25 were then broken down into percentiles of 20, with 20% being the lowest of the Distressed Municipality scores.)

Project Monitoring

No modifications were made since the last plan update regarding the system to track the initiation, status, and completion of mitigation activities. Throughout a project’s life the SHMO and his/her staff will monitor the project against the project scope and costs to make sure that the project is on time and within budget, and to ensure that all contracted work shall coincide with the FEMA performance period for the specific grant received. The SHMO is tasked with coordinating overall staff support necessary to manage the FEMA funded mitigation programs. If needed, the applicant (sub-grantee) must request any time extensions to contracts 6 months prior to the end of the contract (expiration).

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 246 ~

The State may conduct meetings and follow-up surveys to ensure that all contract work meets contract requirements, and shall require a progress report from the applicant at the end of each quarter. All work must be completed by the end of the contract period to be eligible for reimbursement. It is required that the applicant (sub-grantee) submit a final report within 30 days of the completion of the project or expiration of the contract whichever comes first.

Allowable Project Costs for Construction

The allowable project costs for construction shall include all costs directly related to the approved construction project. Costs will be reimbursed to the maximum of the approved FEMA grant value.

Allowable Planning Costs

The allowable planning costs for planning activities shall include all costs directly related to the approved planning project. Costs will be reimbursed to the maximum of the approved FEMA grant value.

General Administration of FEMA Grant Projects

During non-disaster routine administration of the FEMA funded mitigation programs CTDEP and CTDEMHS dedicate up to three persons to the program on a part-time basis. State Natural Hazard Mitigation Officer: Oversees the HMGP, FMA, RFC, PDM and SRL grant programs. Serves as the signature authority on the highest level (denials, letters to proceed, etc.) mitigation correspondence regarding FEMA funded mitigation programs. Project and Planning Coordinators: Assist in the day-to-day activities within the HMGP, FMA, RFC, and SRL PDM programs, write reports, coordinate inspections, coordinate with other agencies and serves as the signature authority for routine correspondence.

Non-Performance of Projects

Sub-grantees (applicants) who have been approved for funding by the FEMA under the National Flood Insurance Reform Act must complete all contracted work within the performance period set forth by FEMA. Sub-grantees who fail to complete their projects within the performance period will be subject to revocation of any unexpended grant funds. Also, the SHMO may place a 3-year moratorium against further FEMA funding for applicants (homeowners, municipalities, nonprofit organizations or tribal organizations) found to be in non-performance of a project agreement.

As outlined in section 4.3.4 (a) (5) all estimates of cost for work must be guaranteed for a period of not less than one year from the date of the original estimate. Therefore, any applicant that declines a grant on the basis of increased costs will be subject to revocation of any unexpended grant funds. Also the SHMO may place a 3-year moratorium against further HMGP, FMA, RFC, PDM and SRL projects with applicants found to be in non-performance of a project.

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 247 ~

Project Interruption Due to a Disaster Declaration

The SHMO may place on hold the FMA, RFC, PDM and SRL programs in the event that a presidentially declared disaster occurs in Connecticut during any phase of the grant. This program freeze will place a hold on all deadlines, work schedules, and inspections being performed by state staff for a period not to exceed 90 days. Notice of this freeze will be sent to all project applicants (sub-grantees) within 10 days of the date of the declaration. In the event of a catastrophic disaster, this freeze may be extended to 180 days. Such program freezes may required project contract extensions between the State and the applicant, and a time extension approval by FEMA.

Projects that are autonomous in nature and do not require state assistance may be continued. However this does not mean that the applicant may forego any required inspections.

Effectiveness of Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Measures

Since the inception of Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Program in 1982, Connecticut has spent millions of dollars on mitigation, and has avoided millions of dollars in damages to roads, bridges, dams, commercial and residential buildings.

Three types of mitigation are most commonly used in Connecticut: 1) large scale structural mitigation, 2) small scale structural mitigation, and 3) mitigation planning.

Large-scale structural mitigation in Connecticut involves construction or repairs to flood control dams, levees and flood control systems. This was the preferred method of mitigation following the June Floods of 1982 in which 30 dams failed in Connecticut.

Since 1982, a total of approximately 34 million dollars has been spent on the repair of dozens of dams within Connecticut. The repair or replacement of dams is considered to be an effective means of flood damage prevention within the areas protected by the dams. All dam repairs in Connecticut are designed to pass the 100-year storm without damage to the dam. Although no damage avoidance figures have been calculated for each of the dam repair projects, several large storms have occurred between 1982 and 2005 that produced little or no damage to dams within the State. Between 2005 and 2007, two storms produced significant damage to several dams within the State.

Information regarding a listing to date of small scale structural mitigation measure undertaken since 1989 can be found in Appendix A. Information regarding mitigation planning within Connecticut is located in Chapter 1.

Natural Hazard Mitigation Programs ~ 248 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

Chapter 5 Natural Hazard Mitigation Goals, Strategies, and Activities for 2010-2013

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 249 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

CONNECTICUT’S NATURAL HAZARDS MITIGATION GOALS, STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES FOR 2010 – 2013

The State of Connecticut is committed to reducing future damage from natural disasters through mitigation. The mission of Connecticut’s Hazard Mitigation Program and this associated Plan is to mitigate the effects of natural hazards by minimizing loss of life and property damage. The State of Connecticut has identified three primary goals to focus its hazards mitigation efforts towards to assist in accomplishing its mission. These three goals are:

1. Promote implementation of sound floodplain management and other natural hazard mitigation principles on a state and local level; 2. Encourage research to support management and planning activities for natural hazard mitigation and State investment policies; and 3. Promote implementation of effective natural hazard mitigation projects on a state and local level.

Over a four month period the planning team meet four times to discuss what the State’s natural hazard mitigation goals, objectives, strategies and activities should represent. The planning team and the CIHMC agreed that the goals in the 2007 NHMP were still relevant, but needed some modification to clarify them and their purpose.

The planning team developed the above goals and their associated objectives, strategies and activities based upon the following:

4. Natural hazards vulnerability and risk assessments contained in this plan; 5. Evaluation of current state and federal regulations; and 6. State and federal funding sources available to conduct natural hazards mitigation measures in Connecticut.

It is anticipated that by working towards achieving the goals set out in this Plan, effective natural hazards mitigation measures will be implemented to protect residents of Connecticut where appropriate, and will promote responsible natural hazards mitigation throughout the State on both a state and local level.

GOAL 1 – PROMOTE IMPLEMENTATION OF SOUND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AND OTHER NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PRINCIPLES ON A STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL.

The fundamental basis of this goal is what makes it important to achieve. The implementation of sound floodplain management and natural hazards mitigation principles is primary to protecting the health and welfare of the residents of this State.

Objective for Goal 1: To increase awareness by state agencies, local communities and the general public regarding natural hazards which may impact them and to encourage state agencies, local communities and the general public to be proactive with regards to hazard mitigation and floodplain resource management.

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 250 ~

Strategies for Goal 1:

There are various strategies that can be utilized to achieve Goal 1. The following strategies presented in this Plan will be effective in working towards achieving this goal. Strategy 1 - Provide technical guidance to communities regarding local floodplain ordinance enhancement and enforcement; Strategy 2 – Provide and promote educational opportunities to communities, state agencies, and engineering and land surveyor professionals: and Strategy 3 – Investigate climate change adaptation strategies as they affect natural hazard mitigation and state investment policies.

Goal 2 – IMPLEMENTATION OF EFFECTIVE NATURAL HAZARDS MITIGATION PROJECTS ON A STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL

In order to have effective natural hazards mitigation, successful mitigation projects need to be initiated on both a state-level for state-owned facilities, and on a local level. Connecticut will continue to encourage local communities to become more proactive in terms of flood management and natural hazards mitigation, by encouraging the implementation of specific mitigation projects appropriate for a community’s self-assessed hazards and risks. In addition, DEP encourages other state agencies either involved with floodplain management, natural hazards mitigation/risk reduction, or that maintain critical facilities within a natural hazards area to take actions to perform mitigation projects to reduce their facilities risk.

Objective for Goal 2: To maintain that the State and local governments have access to high quality, best available data to base their risk assessments upon for specific natural hazards and their decision making with regards to public policy and land use management.

Strategies for Goal 2

The following strategies and associated activities presented in this Plan will be effective towards achieving this goal. Strategy 1 - Promote natural hazard mitigation research and planning activities that will improve existing hazard mitigation plans or assist with the development of new hazard mitigation plans: Strategy 2 – Promote educational opportunities to communities and state agencies concerning natural hazard mitigation.

GOAL 3 – INCREASE RESEARCH AND PLANNING ACTIVITIES FOR THE MITIGATION OF NATURAL HAZARDS ON A STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL.

Further research and enhanced planning activities are vital in the development of advanced or new/improved natural hazards mitigation measures, stronger understanding of the hazards that affect your community or State, and maximize efficiency and effectiveness of implementing mitigation measures with limited resources. Planning is the foundation which projects can be developed and studied to determine their feasibility in mitigation loss from a particular natural hazards, by assisting a state or local community as to what hazards affect it, where the most vulnerable areas are located which are affected by a particular hazards, and potentially what

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 251 ~

can be done to eliminate/reduce the affects from a hazards. In essence it helps a community determine its needs in terms of hazards mitigation. Enhanced planning and research of the rate of climate change and adaptation principals and responses is urgently needed.

Effective planning is much more than just the processes end product – the plan. It involves the development or improvement of communications of different groups, stakeholders, agencies and internal division. It also involves the sharing of knowledge, the incorporation of various perspectives and concerns, the promotion of positive change for a community.

In order for any Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (state or local) to remain effective and current, the planning process that created it must be continuous in nature, and the plan itself reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Thus DEP believes it is vital for itself and local communities to prepare effective Natural Hazards Mitigation Plans and maintain them in a current status.

Objective for Goal 3: To develop the ability for the State and local communities to be more resilient to the effects from natural hazards which may occur, and to maintain the ability to adapt to climatic changes.

Strategies for Goal 3

The following strategies and associated activities presented in this Plan will be effective in working towards achieving this goal. Strategy 1 - Provide and Promote educational opportunities to communities, state agencies, and engineering and land surveyor professionals. Strategy 2 - Facilitate awareness of and access to the various FEMA and other Federal agencies' grant programs, along with other potential state funding sources, to local communities and state agencies as potential funding sources for proposed natural hazard mitigation projects.

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 252 ~ Connecticut’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Years 2010-2013

RECOMMENDED HAZARD MITIGATION ACTIVTIES FOR GOALS 1, 2 AND 3

Table 5-1 presents an overview of the recommended strategies and associated activities developed by the planning team to assist in reducing impacts from natural hazards which may impact the State141. The activities presented below focus on activities which the State, as a whole, may implement consistent with availability of resources. The planning team evaluated and prioritized each activity presented in Table 5-1 using the STAPLE-E evaluation method (Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental).142 The results of this evaluation and prioritization process can be found in Appendix N. The categorical prioritization for each activity (i.e., high, medium or low) has been presented in Table 5-1. The NHMP Planning Team prioritized all activities as either medium or high.

Many of the activities listed in Table 5-1, particularly the Outreach and Education Activities, have been presented multiple times in the table under the various goals and their associated strategies. Although it may appear redundant at first review, its presentation helps to enforce an important point that a single activity can be used to obtain positive results for multiple goals. It should be noted that no activities have been eliminated from the proceeding table since the 2007 Plan update. The status box within Table 5-1 indicates a project’s status as complete, ongoing, future, etc. Projects with a “completed” status indicate that the activity was completed and the target for said activity was met. Furthermore, no modifications were made since the last plan update regarding the system to track the initiation, status, and completion of mitigation activities.

Table 5-1: NHMP Activities Table

Goal #1: Promote Implementation of Sound Floodplain Management and Other Natural Hazards Mitigation Principles on a State level. Objective: To increase awareness by state agencies, local communities and the general public regarding natural hazards which may impact them and to encourage state agencies, local communities and the general public to be proactive with regards to hazard mitigation and floodplain resource management. Strategy #1: Provide technical guidance to communities regarding local floodplain ordinance enhancement and enforcement. Activity Lead Agency Desired Outcome Status of Activity (new, ongoing, past, STAPLE - future) E Priority Results (High, Medium, Low) Provide model ordinances and sample DEP Development of a comprehensive sample ordinance that incorporates Past Work – Target met. Work on the higher standards language that all FEMA’s NFIP minimum standards, all state requirements, and existing model floodplain ordinance was communities can adopt into existing higher regulatory language which communities can choose to adopt. performed during the last NHMP 3-year floodplain ordinances. planning period. Finalization of the current floodplain model ordinance occurred in 2007. Communities are currently being encouraged to review and High

141 A list of past activities pursued for natural hazard mitigation by the State and local communities can be found in appendix E. 142 The criterion used by the planning term for their evaluation of each factor of the STAPLE-E method can be found in Appendix N.

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 253 ~

utilize to the extent possible the language and aspects of the state model floodplain ordinance.

Provide local ordinance reviews for DEP Updated model ordinances that incorporate all of FEMA’s updated Ongoing – 80% completed. In conjunction communities to provide communities an NFIP standards and all State requirements. with the Map Modernization Program, indication as to where existing ordinances ordinance reviews were completed for requirement updates/enhancements to communities in Middlesex County in 2007, current standards. and Hartford County in 2008. Ordinance reviews for communities in New London, New Haven and Fairfield Counties will be completed in 2010. High Perform community assistance visits DEP Improved communication between the state’s NFIP office and local Ongoing – Typically the program (CAVs) each year to maximize efforts to communities; increased enforcement of local floodplain management completes five CAVs per year. CAVs are provide technical guidance and ordinances; compliance by local communities with FEMA’s NFIP normally performed with a community on educational materials to communities. standards; also will provide for educational opportunities for the following intervals: at least once every This activity is important to promote communities five years for a coastal community and at compliance with FEMA’s NFIP floodplain least one visit every ten years for an management minimum standards and inland (Riverine) community. those additional requirements as stated in local ordinances. High Investigate the feasibility of providing an DEP develop of a effective outreach program concerning floodplain resource Future - estimated timeframe is three to introduction floodplain management management to state agencies that could lead to increased and five years. Implementation of activity is workshop to interested state employees of improved compliance with existing state laws; dependent on available resources and various state agencies affected by funding. floodplain management policies. High Investigate the feasibility of participating DEP Increased educational opportunities to the general public and local Future - estimated timeframe is three to at local events such as home shows, fairs, communities; ability to expand educational outreach activities to a five years. Implementation of activity is etc. to provide information to the public larger group of people. dependent on available resources and regarding the NFIP and impacts from funding. flooding and other natural hazards, and ways individuals can help mitigate effects from these hazards. Investigate the feasibility of developing and packaging educational materials for such events. High

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 254 ~

Providing technical assistance to other DEP Increased hazard mitigation communication statewide and promote an Future - estimated timeframe is three to state agencies, local communities and the increased understanding of the types of natural hazards which could five years. Implementation of activity is public regarding natural hazard mitigation. impact the State by the general public, local communities and various dependent on available resources and State agencies. funding. High Perform a comparison and evaluation of Bldg. Insp. Office To determine most appropriate standard to enforce. Future - estimated timeframe is three to current state building code standards and five years. Implementation of activity is other Federal Agencies' building code dependent on available resources and standards (e.g., USACE) that could be funding. improved to mitigate future natural hazards for flood hazard and high hazard areas. High Strategy #2: Provide and promote educational opportunities to communities, state agencies, and engineering and land surveyor professionals. Develop a series of workshops to take DEP/FEMA Provide effective educational opportunities to improve and expand Ongoing – Typically 1-2 workshops per place over the next 3-year period that will floodplain management activities on a local level and provide the year focused on floodplain management include floodplain management 101 floodplain management tools and information needed by local activities. In addition, the DEP’s training (presentation of FEMA floodplain floodplain administrators. program for municipal inland wetlands management requirements and the NFIP), commissioners and staff includes overview of elevation certificates, coastal floodplain management activities as all construction standards, effective flood and floodplain soils are wetlands in CT. This other natural hazards mitigation program includes approximately sixteen measures, floodplain resource protection, seminars per year. Educational and the use of the new FEMA digital workshops are developed and presented FIRMS. on an on-going basis for several natural hazard mitigation topics, especially with regards to floodplain management issues. High Act as a clearinghouse for FEMA DEP Provide local communities with an easy access to hazards mitigation Ongoing – We estimate forty information produced educational materials in the materials and knowledge of other sources where information may be requests are received and processed per area of natural hazards mitigation obtained. month. This activity is performed on a including flood management and continuous basis by flood management planning; as well as climate change and staff, it is proposed that a tracking system adaptation approaches. for requests and materials provided be instituted. High Investigate the modification and update of DEP Provide local communities with an easy access to hazards mitigation Future - estimated timeframe is three to the CT DEP's flood management web materials and knowledge of other sources where information may be five years. Implementation of activity is pages to expand information and obtained. Increased educational opportunities to the general public dependent on available resources and educational materials available to the and local communities; ability to expand educational outreach activities funding. general public. to a larger group of people. High Strategy #3: Investigate climate change adaptation strategies as they affect natural hazard mitigation and state investment policies.

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 255 ~

Using IPCC climate change data sets DEP-OLISP Series of GIS map layer depicting various sea level rise and climate Future - estimated timeframe is three to model floodplain changes associated with change impacts. Sea level rise inundation maps would be provided to five years. Implementation of activity is potential sea level rise. each coastal community. dependent on available resources and funding. Medium Based on sea level rise modeling, develop DEP - OLISP Federal and State monies are directed to the appropriate mitigation Future - estimated timeframe is three to policies to reduce risks for new solution considering future costs and consequences, including but not five years. Implementation of activity is development including consideration limited to reasonable use of structural mitigation activities. dependent on available resources and towards relocating structures or reducing funding. existing hazards within inundation areas with increasing risk. Policies should also address appropriate use of federal and state mitigation monies. Medium Utilize meetings with other state agencies, DEP Increased floodplain management and resource protection on a state- Ongoing – We estimate two meetings are including pre-permitting conferences, as level. attended per month. Strong working opportunities to encourage responsible relationships have been developed floodplain management and floodplain between the flood management program development activities, and natural and other Inland Water Resource Division hazards mitigation potential in proposed sections/programs. Positive working projects. relationships will continue to be pursued with other internal agency divisions and between DEP and other State agencies. High Research existing inventory of state- DEP/DEMHS Assist in providing additional valuable information to continually Future - estimated timeframe is three to owned facilities located in SFHAs or other improve the risk analysis section of the CT NHMP. five years. Implementation of activity is natural hazard impact areas for risk dependent on available resources and Medium analysis use. funding. to High Perform a feasibility analysis of the DEP Assist in providing additional valuable information to continually Past Work – Target met. Within the last development and expansion of an improve the risk analysis section of the CT NHMP. five years CT DEP Dam Safety Section inventory of infrastructure ( including, but performed a dam inspection and inventory not limited to, key transportation, energy, project that included all state-owned dams water supply, wastewater and storm water (with the exception of CT DOT owned conveyance and treatment structures, dams). In addition to this work, a GIS dams and levees) at risk from the effects layer was developed that shows the of climate change and prioritize them location of all dams within Connecticut based on a formalized list of criteria (both state-owned and privately-owned (TBD). In addition, investigate the dams within all dam hazard classifications. feasibility of mapping the exact location Current to Future - estimated timeframe and elevation of all coastal sewer outflows for this long term project is three to ten and coastal flood control structures and years. Implementation of activity is including this information in the inventory. dependent on available resources and Medium Useful data that may be collected for this funding. to High

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 256 ~

inventory project includes the exact location of the structure; elevation; structure condition and year built; and value of infrastructure vulnerable to coastal and riverine flooding hazards exacerbated by climate change.

Perform an assessment of increased DEP Assist in providing additional valuable information to continually Current to Future - estimated timeframe natural hazard vulnerability and risk from improve the risk analysis section of the CT NHMP. Develop for this long term project is three to ten climate change (e.g., effects from Connecticut-specific data with respect to climate change analysis. years. Implementation of activity is increased flooding, sea level rise, and dependent on available resources and severe weather (e.g., wind, temperature, funding. Recent activities associated with drought)). this activity include sentinel monitoring of climate change in Long Island Sound as well as the performance of a Groton Climate Change Workshop Series that engages federal, state and local government and nongovernmental stakeholders to identify vulnerabilities to sea level rise and increased flooding and other coastal hazards and the development of adaptation strategies that will increase resiliency with regards to these hazards. Medium Development of categorical (e.g., DEP Help in developing viable public projects to mitigate large geographic Future - Estimated timeframe for this long wastewater, energy) and site-specific areas against flooding and the effects of sea level rise or climate term project is three to ten years. options for adaptation from the projected change. Implementation of activity is dependent on impacts of climate change and occurrence available resources and funding. of natural hazards for public infrastructure (including flood protection structures). Adaptation and hazard mitigation alternatives should include the estimated costs associated with the options evaluated to be the most viable for Medium

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 257 ~

implementation purposes.

Identification of the legal authorities DEP Help to clarify the legal authorities that affect both state and local Future - estimated timeframe is three to applicable to regulation and planning for government entities and could help to promote more actions performed five years. Implementation of activity is climate change adaptation activities, by local communities and state agencies due to such clarification. This dependent on available resources and especially at the local level. could be performed through investigating areas vulnerable to flooding funding. and other hazards for the inclusion in the State Plan of Conservation and Development and subsequently the local plans of conservation and development. Also reviewing state and local plans and policies and consider including exacerbated flooding and other natural hazards into said plans and policies (e.g., storm water management plans, emergency management plans, local hazard mitigation plans, etc.).

Medium Goal #2: Encourage Research to Support Management and Planning Activities for Natural Hazards Mitigation on a State and Local Level Objective : To maintain that the State and local governments have access to high quality, best available data to base their risk assessments upon for specific natural hazards and their decision making with regards to public policy and land use management.

Strategy #1: Promote natural hazard mitigation research and planning activities that will improve existing hazard mitigation plans or assist with the development of new hazard mitigation plans. Utilize meetings with other state agencies, DEP Increased number of proposed projects being developed and number Ongoing - We estimate two meetings are including pre-permitting conferences, as which have received funding attended per month. This is an on-going opportunities to encourage responsible activity performed by flood management floodplain management and floodplain staff which will begin to be tracked for development activities, and natural analysis purposes. hazards mitigation potential in proposed projects. High Act as a clearinghouse for FEMA DEP Provide local communities with an easy access to hazards mitigation Ongoing - We estimate forty information produced educational materials in the materials and knowledge of other sources where information may be requests are received and processed per area of natural hazards mitigation obtained month. This activity is performed on a including flood management and continuous basis by flood management planning; as well as climate change and staff, it is proposed that a tracking system adaptation approaches. for requests and materials provided be instituted High

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 258 ~

Encouraging communities and state DEP Planning activities that will help to further natural hazards mitigation on Completed - Activity completed for the agencies to pursue funding opportunities both a state and local level, and increase communities' interest in year 2010, target met. Notification of to develop advanced research and plans joining the CRS program. FEMA grant opportunities is performed in the area of natural hazards mitigation. annually and all communities are Planning activities included under this encouraged to pursue natural hazard section would be: stand alone plans which mitigation activities, whether it be planning can assist in enhancing existing Natural activities and the development of a new or Hazards Mitigation Plans (e.g., debris updated local hazard mitigation plan, or management plans, evacuation and the implementation of hazard mitigation sheltering plans, hazards studies and activities as indicated in an existing local evaluations (including recommendations) hazard mitigation plan. which are not part of existing approved plans); Development of a State Climate Change Science plan to measure the rate of climate change including sea level rise, evapotransporation increase, etc.; Climate Change adaptation planning; Transportation Natural Hazards Mitigation Medium Planning activities and research; to High Encouraging communities to pursue DEP The state’s objective for this activity is to have at least 95% of the Completed - Activity completed for the funding opportunities to develop FEMA state’s population covered under local FEMA approved NHMPs by year 2010, target met. A secondary goal approved Natural Hazards Mitigation 2010. is to encourage local communities to Plans. expand their Natural Hazards Mitigation Plans and enhance their objectives and potential mitigation measures. High Develop an evaluation process and DEP To help assist in a more formal and readily available means of Future - next three years, to be including implement said process to measure the measuring the success of implemented activities. in the next update of the CT NHMP. results from the implementation of various activities as listed in the State NHMP. Medium Work toward the expansion of the current DEP Improve the value and benefit of the CT NHMP. Completed - Activity completed for the planning process to promote participation 2010 NHMP update, target met. Work is by more stakeholders in the area of performed during every plan update to natural hazard mitigation. improve the planning process for this State plan and to promote participation of various stakeholders into the process. Medium

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 259 ~

Continue planning and development of a DEP Data collected can be easily accessed and analyzed for incorporation Future - No estimated time period database to assist with the storage and into future updates of the CT NHMP. determined as of the date of this plan maintenance of risk and hazard update. Initial efforts were implemented information from local and multi- during the 2007-2010 planning period, jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans. however due to resource constraints, current work has been temporarily stopped. Any additional work on this activity will include a substantial outlay of resources. Medium Develop a formal local/multi-jurisdictional DEP This would help the State to obtain important local/regional risk Future - estimated timeframe is three to plan review process to be used by staff on assessment data for the inclusion into future updates of the CT NHMP. five years. Implementation of activity is the State level to increase the efficiency dependent on available resources and and effectiveness of draft plan reviews. funding. This may include the development of a checklist of minimum data and information Medium to be included in such a plan. to High Investigate the feasibility of participating in DEP/DEMHS Unknown at the time of this plan update. Future - 2010 and beyond. This would the Army Corps/FEMA joint initiative include a thorough review and analysis of called the Silver Jackets. all additional State resources needed and costs associated for voluntary participation and the benefits that could be obtained through the program. Medium Identify areas ( e.g., tidal wetlands, DEP Help in developing viable public projects to mitigate large geographic Future - estimated timeframe is three to floodplains, retreat areas) of Connecticut's areas against flooding and the effects of sea level rise or climate five years. Implementation of activity is shoreline for conservation purposes to change. dependent on available resources and help local communities and the State to funding. OLISP is currently looking at salt sustain these areas and reduce the net marsh monitoring and modeling and loss of these areas which are so important adaption strategies for the protection and in acting as barriers or buffers and in preservation of these areas and their providing protection from the impacts of functions. natural hazards (e.g., coastal storms, hurricanes, flooding, etc.). Medium Identify head-of-tide habitat within DEP Assist in providing additional valuable information to continually Future - estimated timeframe is three to Connecticut and monitor the change in improve the risk analysis section of the CT NHMP. six years. Implementation of activity is this habitat due to climate change in order dependent on available resources and to determine those communities that may funding. OLISP is currently looking at salt endure increased risk from coastal storms marsh monitoring and modeling and and associated flooding. adaption strategies for the protection and preservation of these areas and their functions. Medium

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 260 ~

Identify and map the locations of DEP Help in developing viable public projects to mitigate large geographic Ongoing - Current activities include habitat headwater, main stem and coastal dams, areas against flooding and the effects of sea level rise or climate restoration programs. Future - estimated culverts, bridges, and other structures or change. timeframe is three to six years. land modifications that contribute to flood Implementation of activity is dependent on damage and act as barriers to habitat available resources and funding. connectivity, and assess the feasibility of removal or modification of these structures. Medium Evaluate the hazard potential in DEP Develop and maintain risk information on a more comprehensive list of Future - next three years, to be including Connecticut of land subsidence or slope potential natural hazards which may impact CT. in the next update of the CT NHMP. failures. Medium Create a database of survey elevation DOT/DEP Develop more accurate analyses and projections for projecting areas of Future - estimated timeframe is three to points in coastal areas. flood inundation. six years. Implementation of activity is dependent on available resources and funding. OLISP is currently in the pre- planning phase with CT DOT on this Medium project. to High Provide communities with tools to support DEP To promote improved hazard mitigation planning on a local and multi- Future - estimated timeframe is three to improved local vulnerability and risk jurisdictional level. six years. Implementation of activity is assessments. dependent on available resources and funding. Recent work on this activity includes development of a statewide coastal hazards website, inundation visualization products, and improved surge modeling. Future work includes municipal tools including website, and further adaptation workshops. High Strategy #2: Promote educational opportunities to communities and state agencies concerning natural hazard mitigation. Develop a body of presentations and DEP Provide local communities with an easy access to hazards mitigation Future - estimated timeframe is three to short workshop educational materials that materials and knowledge of other sources where information may be five years. Implementation of activity is could be utilized on a scheduled basis. obtained. dependent on available resources and funding. High Investigate the possibility of holding the DEP Increased floodplain management and resource protection on a state- Future - estimated timeframe is three to CFM exam on an annual basis for level. In addition, this would increase the status of professionalism and five years. Implementation of activity is interested persons. importance of floodplain administrators at the local level. dependent on available resources and funding. High

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 261 ~

Investigate the possibility of holding an DEP/ FEMA Increased floodplain management and resource protection on a state- Future - estimated timeframe is three to annual short CFM refresher course for level. In addition, this would increase the status of professionalism and five years. Implementation of activity is interested persons who desire to take the importance of floodplain administrators at the local level. dependent on available resources and Medium CFM exam. funding. to High Encourage use of EMI's independent DEP Provide local communities with an easy access to hazards mitigation Future - estimated timeframe is three to study courses which people can access at materials and knowledge of other sources where information may be five years. Implementation of activity is their computer free-of-charge from EMI. obtained dependent on available resources and funding. High Investigate the development of a series of DEP/DEMHS Series of instructional DVD- Video products to be distributed to Future - estimated timeframe is three to training media products that introduce, interested parties, and placed on DEP Web site for public access five years. Implementation of activity is explain, and train interested persons on dependent on available resources and natural hazards, mitigation, NFIP funding. program, reading flood maps, federal- state grant programs and other related issues High Goal #3: Promote Implementation of Effective Natural Hazard Mitigation Projects on a State and Local Level. Objective: To develop the ability for the State and local communities to be more resilient to the effects from natural hazards which may occur, and to maintain the ability to adapt to climatic changes. Strategy #1: Provide and Promote educational opportunities to communities, state agencies, and engineering and land surveyor professionals. Develop a tracking system of submitted DEP To maintain a list of potentially fundable projects, and maintain Future - estimated timeframe 3-5 years, FEMA grant project/planning applications, information on funded projects regarding estimated costs compared to dependent on available resources and to help analyze the types of projects and projected benefits for future analysis of a projects success. funding. This information can be used in the mitigation needs that continue to exist the development of project fact sheets within the State. and “success stories” to provide ideas and encourage others to pursue mitigation projects Medium Through communications with other state DEP Potential projects which could be pursued for feasibility and potential Continuous - Activity completed for the agencies and communities with approved funding through federal grants, state monies which may have the 2010 FEMA grant program, target met FEMA Natural Hazards Mitigation Plans, potential to eliminate or reduced the risk from specified hazards NHMP planning team members are develop a list of potential mitigation encouraged to submit potential hazard projects that can be maintained and mitigation planning and project activities assessed for further development upon which could be pursued on the state level availability of funding sources. This will during each planning cycle of the NHMP also help assist in future NHMP planning and during each FEMA grant cycle. In by identifying when areas and facilities of addition, members of the State's CIHMC concern exist. DEP will maintain this are also encouraged to submit potential listed and will provide a copy of the list in planning and project activities both for the the next Plan Update. NHMP and during the FEMA grant cycles. Medium

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 262 ~

Process technical assistance requests DEP Development and submission by sub-applicants of sound competitive Ongoing – We estimate one request per from communities and state agencies to projects for funding through FEMA grant programs month received. When DEP receives FEMA for technical assistance in the area requests from local communities for of project development. technical assistance in the area of hazard mitigation project development, it automatically refers the request to Region 1 of FEMA for response and possible Medium assistance to the community. to High Develop educational materials on DEMHS and DEP To highlight success stories within the State and promote hazards Ongoing - DEP has developed a series of successful hazards mitigation projects. mitigation to other communities. sixteen flooding and NFIP fact sheets in which it is currently in the process of internal review and posting on its flood management webpage. In addition, the program publishes a floodplain Medium management newsletter twice a year. to High Create a literature review of various DEP Provide local communities with an easy access to hazards mitigation Future - estimated timeframe is three to FEMA publications to be placed on CT materials and knowledge of other sources where information may be five years. Implementation of activity is DEP's flood management webpage. obtained. dependent on available resources and Include a short description of the funding. publication and a direct link for convenient downloading of the document, or a note to contact CT DEP's Flood Management Medium Section to obtain a copy. to High Investigate the opportunity for FEMA to FEMA/DEP Increase the number of home acquisitions or home relocations out of Future - estimated timeframe has not re-calculate the Cost/Benefit Analysis floodplains and flood hazard areas. been determined at the date of this plan used in grant applications such that update. relocation of homes outside of floodplains is more frequently feasible in the context of hazard mitigation projects. Medium Strategy #2: Facilitate awareness of and access to the various FEMA and other Federal agencies' grant programs, along with other potential state funding sources, to local communities and state agencies as potential funding sources for proposed natural hazard mitigation projects. Through working with the NHMP Planning DEP Provide communities and state agencies with a functional list of Future - estimated timeframe is three to Team develop a list of potential funding potential funding sources so that the development of hazards mitigation five years. Implementation of activity is sources available on a state and federal projects are developed and pursued. dependent on available resources and level for natural hazards mitigation funding. planning activities and projects. Medium Provide planning workshops through DEP/FEMA Have communities enhance existing hazard mitigation plans. Future - estimated timeframe is three to FEMA assistance to promote planning five years. State needs to develop of plan and enhanced planning activities that review checklist and review criteria based High

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 263 ~

communities can utilize to develop on data and information it wants to see in comprehensive hazards mitigation plans. such plans.

Encourage state agencies to perform DEP Increased inter-agency communications and sharing of information, Ongoing – We estimate a minimum of two research and planning activities in the working towards the development of an improved natural hazards interactions per month with other state area of natural hazards mitigation for their mitigation plan. agencies with regard to this activity. A facilities and operations. continued conscious effort continues on the state-level to continually improve communication between state agencies with regards to hazard mitigation. Medium Develop educational materials on DEP Encourage an awareness and/or continuous hazard mitigation planning Future - estimated timeframe is three to successful natural hazards mitigation by various state agencies for their facilities/resources and highlight five years. Implementation of activity is activities. innovative efforts made by various state agencies. dependent on available resources and Medium funding. to High Investigate the feasibility and scope of DEP/DEMHS/OPM This would be beneficial for all state agencies planning needs with Future - estimated timeframe is three to developing an inventory of state-owned regards to development and hazard mitigation. five years. Implementation of activity is critical facilities from existing state-owned dependent on available resources and facility lists. funding. Medium Develop a communication process DEP The development of an information resource for local officials, Future - estimated timeframe is three to including webpage development and consultants and the general public can access for floodplain five years. Implementation of activity is reminder notifications of potential grant management. dependent on available resources and opportunities to encourage continued funding. project planning tasks by state agencies and communities to develop highly competitive and effective mitigation projects. Medium Pursue Federal funding to establish DEP/DEMHS The increase of improved higher quality data for use in flood mitigation Future - estimated timeframe is three to additional stream gauges for flood and analysis for State and local hazard mitigation planning, project five years. Implementation of activity is drought planning purposes. implementation, and resource management purposes. dependent on available resources and Medium funding. to High Pursue Federal funding to secure the DPH Provide a public water drinking supply infrastructure which has been Future - estimated timeframe is three to public drinking water supply in made less vulnerable to the impacts from natural hazards such as five years. Implementation of activity is Connecticut. flooding, drought, effects from sea level rise, etc. dependent on available resources and funding. Medium

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 264 ~

Investigate actions of other states with DEP Create a historical visual catalog of impacts from natural hazard events. Future - estimated timeframe is three to regards to the develop of an interactive five years. Implementation of activity is webpage or other medium for collecting dependent on available resources and flood information from the general public funding. CT DEP has already utilized the or other entities which would include state library and local historical societies photos and other types of information for such documentation of past hurricane which would be a valuable asset in and storm events. In addition work has documenting impacts from natural begun to investigate what neighboring hazards. This information can be utilized state has been working on regarding this to support reporting damages to FEMA in activity. Medium a more efficient time frame. to High

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 265 ~

Assessment of Proposed Mitigation Activities

For evaluating and prioritizing the proposed activities listed in Table 5-1, the NHMP Planning Team also considered the following factors. Feasibility of implementation (both on a state and local level); Potential mitigation gains that could be achieved by the activity; and If the proposed activity would assist the State in achieving improved resource effectiveness and data collection, two current areas of constraint that have been noted within the current plan.

All of the mitigation activities listed in table 5-1 appear feasible with respect to their implementation or performance on a state or local level, whichever the case. Each of the potential activities can be implemented independently of other proposed activities. In addition, each activity will support the improvement of an increasingly effective and comprehensive NHMP. However, the implementation of any of the proposed activities listed and evaluated in TABLE 5-1 is completely dependent up availability of resources both monetary and other (e.g., staff, technical, supplies, etc.). This dependence on available resources will be a significant factor regarding their implementation and performance over the next five to six years. Further feasibility analysis of individual activities will be performed prior to the implementation and performance of any activity.

Incorporation of Risk Assessment Activities of the State Conservation and Development Plan into Future Updates of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan

As further discussed in Chapter 3, the state's development, resource management and public investment policies are delineated by the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut (C&D Plan)143. The C&D Plan’s introduction states, “The objective of the Plan ... is to guide a balanced response to the current and future human, economic, and environmental needs of the state.” Of particular relevance to natural hazard mitigation, the next revision of the C&D Plan, scheduled for completion in 2013, is required for the first time to:

1. take into consideration risks associated with natural hazards, including, but not limited to, flooding, high winds and wildfires; 2. identify the potential impacts of natural hazards on infrastructure and property; and 3. make recommendations for the siting of future infrastructure and property development to minimize the use of areas prone to natural hazards, including, but not limited to, flooding, high winds and wildfires.

Doing so will be an important addition to the state’s natural hazard mitigation strategy. The current C&D Plan already incorporates natural hazard mitigation concepts, particularly regarding flood hazard areas. For example, a Long Island Sound discussion in the C&D Plan recommends:

Consider the projected rise in sea level in the location, design, and protection of development to ensure continued usefulness of potentially impacted properties

143 A copy of the CT POCD can be found in Appendix P. More information concerning the POCD including access to associated documents of and maps for the plan can be found at OPM’s web page: http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.asp?A=2990&Q=385378.

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 266 ~

and utilities and to avoid unnecessary future costs. Where possible, avoid construction of structures such as seawalls that hamper the long-term functioning of vital coastal resources. Identify resource areas likely to be at risk and begin public discussion of options available to lessen or manage the risks.

Such an approach to natural hazard mitigation addresses human needs; balances a healthy economy with environmental protection and resource conservation concerns; and targets public resources in an efficient and effective manner. Doing so aligns natural hazard mitigation efforts with C&D Plan policies and the state’s comprehensive planning efforts. Of particular importance at this time, the C&D Plan, like the Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, acknowledges environmental changes, particularly rising sea level, noting that:

“The continuing rise in sea level ... will eventually threaten a variety of man-made and natural resources. Planning efforts must address ways of protecting or replacing these resources.”

State planning has evolved over the years to address a variety of socioeconomic and technological changes. Likewise, it is important for the state to now address adaptation strategies for responding to its changing environment, using the best available information and projections. The NHMP and the C&D Plan have prominent roles in the state’s efforts to do so.

The three-year planning cycle of the NHMP and the five-year cycle of the C&D Plan provide flexibility necessary to respond to a still-evolving understanding of environmental changes confronting the state, in order to address both current and future human, economic, and environmental needs.

SUMMARY OF STATED GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIVITIES

For the time period of 2010 – 2013, the State of Connecticut has chosen to focus its efforts in natural hazards mitigation towards the achievement of 3 goals:

1. Promote implementation of sound floodplain management and other natural hazard mitigation principles on a state and local level; 2. Encourage research to support management and planning activities for natural hazard mitigation and State investment policies; and 3. Promote implementation of effective natural hazard mitigation projects on a state and local level.

The implementation of effective natural hazards mitigation requires on-going planning and dedicated persistence both on a state and local level to maintain what has been done in the past and to improve upon past efforts to strive for implementing the most protection possible from natural hazards.

The related strategies and activities outlined in this Plan provide a guide to assist Connecticut in working towards achieving these goals that will be implemented or initiated during the time period encompassing this Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan update. The goals themselves are achievable, yet they require adequate resources such as financial and staff resources to achieve significant results. The State of Connecticut believes in the importance of natural

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 267 ~

hazards mitigation planning and implementation of hazard mitigation activities both on a state and local level in order to reduce/eliminate lives lost and property damaged suffered by natural hazards. The State also believes that climate change and adaptation techniques are an area of continued concern for which new policies and strategies will need to be developed.

Goals, Strategies and Activities for 2010-2013 ~ 268 ~