TOWN OF EAST HAVEN HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE 2012 · TOWN OF EAST HAVEN HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE 2012 ADOPTED MAY 1, 2012 MMI #2731-02-1 Prepared for: TOWN OF EAST HAVEN

TOWN OF EAST HAVEN HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE 2012

ADOPTED MAY 1, 2012

MMI #2731-02-1

Prepared for:

TOWN OF EAST HAVEN Town Hall

200 Main Street East Haven, Connecticut 06512

(203)468–3840 http://www.townofeasthavenct.org/

Prepared by:

MILONE & MACBROOM, INC. 99 Realty Drive

Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 (203) 271-1773

www.miloneandmacbroom.com

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE 2012 EAST HAVEN, CONNECTICUT JANUARY 2012; ADOPTED MAY 1, 2012 TC-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page CONTACT INFORMATION ....................................................................................................ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................ES-2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Hazard Mitigation Goals .................................................................................................. 1-4 1.3 Identification of Hazards and Document Overview ........................................................ 1-5 1.4 Discussion of STAPLEE Ranking Method.................................................................... 1-10 1.5 Discussion of Benefit-Cost Ratio................................................................................... 1-12 1.6 Documentation of the Planning Process ........................................................................ 1-12 1.7 Coordination with Neighboring Communities ............................................................... 1-12 2.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE 2.1 Physical Setting ................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Existing Land Use ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.3 Geology ............................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.4 Climate ........................................................................................................................... 2-13 2.5 Drainage Basins and Hydrology .................................................................................... 2-13 2.6 Population and Demographic Setting ............................................................................ 2-16 2.7 Development Trends ...................................................................................................... 2-18 2.8 Governmental Structure ................................................................................................. 2-21 2.9 Review of Existing Plans ............................................................................................... 2-26 2.10 Review of Existing Regulations..................................................................................... 2-29 2.11 Critical Facilities, Sheltering Capacity, and Evacuation ............................................... 2-39 3.0 INLAND FLOODING 3.1 Setting .............................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Hazard Assessment .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Historic Record ................................................................................................................ 3-5 3.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ................................................... 3-7 3.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ............................................................................. 3-12 3.5.1 Vulnerability Analysis of Private Properties ....................................................... 3-13 3.5.2 Vulnerability Analysis of Critical Facilities ........................................................ 3-21 3.5.3 Vulnerability Analysis of Areas Along Watercourses ......................................... 3-22 3.5.4 HAZUS-MH Vulnerability Analysis .................................................................... 3-23

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE 2012 EAST HAVEN, CONNECTICUT JANUARY 2012; ADOPTED MAY 1, 2012 TC-ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 3.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ......................................... 3-26 3.6.1 Prevention ............................................................................................................ 3-26 3.6.2 Property Protection .............................................................................................. 3-29 3.6.3 Emergency Services ............................................................................................. 3-31 3.6.4 Public Education and Awareness ......................................................................... 3-32 3.6.5 Natural Resource Protection ................................................................................ 3-32 3.6.6 Structural Projects ................................................................................................ 3-33 3.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives .......... 3-35

4.0 COASTAL FLOODING AND SHORELINE CHANGE 4.1 Setting .............................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Hazard Assessment .......................................................................................................... 4-4 4.3 Historic Record ................................................................................................................ 4-9 4.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ................................................. 4-13 4.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ............................................................................. 4-16 4.5.1 Vulnerability Analysis of Coastal Area ............................................................... 4-16 4.5.2 Vulnerability Analysis of Private Properties ....................................................... 4-18 4.5.3 HAZUS-MH Vulnerability Analysis .................................................................... 4-19 4.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ......................................... 4-20 4.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives .......... 4-24 5.0 HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS 5.1 Setting .............................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Hazard Assessment .......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Historic Record ................................................................................................................ 5-4 5.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ................................................... 5-8 5.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ............................................................................. 5-10 5.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ......................................... 5-16 5.6.1 Prevention ............................................................................................................ 5-17 5.6.2 Property Protection .............................................................................................. 5-17 5.6.3 Public Education and Awareness ......................................................................... 5-18 5.6.4 Emergency Services ............................................................................................. 5-19 5.6.5 Structural Projects ................................................................................................ 5-19 5.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives .......... 5-19 6.0 SUMMER STORMS AND TORNADOES 6.1 Setting .............................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Hazard Assessment .......................................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Historic Record ................................................................................................................ 6-6

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE 2012 EAST HAVEN, CONNECTICUT JANUARY 2012; ADOPTED MAY 1, 2012 TC-iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 6.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ................................................... 6-8 6.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ............................................................................. 6-10 6.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ......................................... 6-11 6.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives .......... 6-12 7.0 WINTER STORMS AND NOR'EASTERS 7.1 Setting .............................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 Hazard Assessment .......................................................................................................... 7-1 7.3 Historic Record ................................................................................................................ 7-2 7.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ................................................... 7-6 7.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ............................................................................... 7-7 7.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ........................................... 7-7 7.6.1 Prevention .............................................................................................................. 7-7 7.6.2 Property Protection ................................................................................................ 7-8 7.6.3 Public Education and Awareness ........................................................................... 7-8 7.6.4 Emergency Services ............................................................................................... 7-8 7.7 Recommended Actions .................................................................................................... 7-8 8.0 EARTHQUAKES 8.1 Setting .............................................................................................................................. 8-1 8.2 Hazard Assessment .......................................................................................................... 8-1 8.3 Historic Record ................................................................................................................ 8-3 8.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ................................................... 8-4 8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ............................................................................... 8-4 8.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ......................................... 8-12 9.0 WILDFIRES

9.1 Setting .............................................................................................................................. 9-1 9.2 Hazard Assessment .......................................................................................................... 9-1 9.3 Historic Record ................................................................................................................ 9-1 9.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ................................................... 9-3 9.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ............................................................................... 9-3 9.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ........................................... 9-5 10.0 DAM FAILURE 10.1 Setting ............................................................................................................................ 10-1 10.2 Hazard Assessment ........................................................................................................ 10-1 10.3 Historic Record .............................................................................................................. 10-3

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE 2012 EAST HAVEN, CONNECTICUT JANUARY 2012; ADOPTED MAY 1, 2012 TC-iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 10.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures ................................................. 10-4 10.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment ............................................................................. 10-5 10.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives ......................................... 10-6 11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 11.1 Additional Recommendations ........................................................................................ 11-1 11.2 Summary of Specific Recommendations ....................................................................... 11-1 11.3 Prioritization of Specific Recommendations ................................................................. 11-8 11.4 Sources of Funding ...................................................................................................... 11-10 12.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 12.1 Implementation Strategy and Schedule ......................................................................... 12-1 12.2 Progress Monitoring and Public Participation ............................................................... 12-2 12.3 Updating the Plan ........................................................................................................... 12-3 12.4 Technical and Financial Resources ................................................................................ 12-4 13.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 13-1

TABLES Table 1-1 Effects of Natural Hazards ................................................................................... 1-7 Table 1-2 Hazard Event Ranking ......................................................................................... 1-8 Table 1-3 Hazard Effect Ranking ......................................................................................... 1-9 Table 2-1 Land Cover by Area (2006) ................................................................................. 2-2 Table 2-2 Bedrock Geology ................................................................................................. 2-6 Table 2-3 Surficial Geology ............................................................................................... 2-10 Table 2-4 Soil Classifications ............................................................................................. 2-11 Table 2-5 Critical Facilities ................................................................................................ 2-40 Table 3-1 FIRM Zone Descriptions ..................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-2 Inland Flooding Repetitive Loss Properties ....................................................... 3-22 Table 3-3 Critical Facilities Located Within or Adjacent to Floodplains .......................... 3-22 Table 3-4 HAZUS-MH Flood Scenario – Basic Information ............................................. 3-23 Table 3-5 HAZUS-MH Flood Scenario – Building Stock Damages .................................. 3-24 Table 3-6 HAZUS-MH Flooding Scenarios – Debris Generation (Tons) .......................... 3-25 Table 3-7 HAZUS-MH Flooding Scenarios – Shelter Requirements ................................. 3-25 Table 3-8 HAZUS-MH Estimated Direct Losses from Flooding Scenarios (x $1,000) ..... 3-26 Table 4-1 Coastal Flooding Repetitive Loss Properties ..................................................... 4-18 Table 4-2 HAZUS-MH Flood Scenario – Building Stock Damages .................................. 4-19

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE 2012 EAST HAVEN, CONNECTICUT JANUARY 2012; ADOPTED MAY 1, 2012 TC-v

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Table 5-1 Tropical Cyclones by Month Within 150 Miles of East Haven, 1851-2011 ....... 5-4 Table 5-2 Return Period in Years for Hurricanes to Strike Connecticut ............................ 5-11 Table 5-3 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Basic Information ............................................. 5-12 Table 5-4 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Number of Residential Buildings Damaged .... 5-13 Table 5-5 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Total Number of Buildings Damaged .............. 5-14 Table 5-6 HAZUS-MH Hurricane Scenarios – Essential Facility Damage ........................ 5-14 Table 5-7 HAZUS-MH Hurricane Scenarios – Debris Generation (Tons) ......................... 5-15 Table 5-8 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Shelter Requirements ....................................... 5-15 Table 5-9 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Economic Losses (x $1,000) ............................ 5-16 Table 6-1 Fujita Scale........................................................................................................... 6-3 Table 6-2 Enhanced Fujita Scale .......................................................................................... 6-4 Table 6-3 Tornado Events near East Haven ......................................................................... 6-6 Table 6-4 NOAA Weather Watches ..................................................................................... 6-9 Table 6-5 NOAA Weather Warnings ................................................................................... 6-9 Table 7-1 NESIS Categories ................................................................................................ 7-2 Table 7-2 Reported Roof Collapse Damage, 2011 ............................................................... 7-4 Table 8-1 Comparison of Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity .......................................... 8-2 Table 8-2 Probability of a Damaging Earthquake in the Vicinity of East Haven ................ 8-6 Table 8-3 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Number of Residential Buildings Damaged .............................................................................................................. 8-7 Table 8-4 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Total Number of Buildings Damaged ...... 8-7 Table 8-5 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Essential Facility Damage ........................ 8-8 Table 8-6 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Utility, Infrastructure, and Fire Damage ................................................................................................................ 8-9 Table 8-7 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Debris Generation (Tons) ....................... 8-10 Table 8-8 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Shelter Requirements ............................. 8-10 Table 8-9 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Casualty Estimates ................................. 8-11 Table 8-10 HAZUS-MH Estimated Direct Losses From Earthquake Scenarios (x $1000) .. 8-11 Table 9-1 Wildland Fire Statistics for Connecticut .............................................................. 9-2 Table 10-1 Dams Registered With the DEEP in the Town of East Haven .......................... 10-3 Table 10-2 Dams Damaged Due to Flooding From October 2005 Storms .......................... 10-4

FIGURES Figure 2-1 Location Map ....................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 2006 Land Cover.................................................................................................. 2-4 Figure 2-3 Bedrock Geology ................................................................................................. 2-7 Figure 2-4 Surficial Geology ................................................................................................. 2-9 Figure 2-5 Subregional Watersheds ..................................................................................... 2-14

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE 2012 EAST HAVEN, CONNECTICUT JANUARY 2012; ADOPTED MAY 1, 2012 TC-vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Figure 2-6 Population Density ............................................................................................. 2-17 Figure 2-7 Elderly Population ............................................................................................. 2-19 Figure 2-8 Disabled Population ........................................................................................... 2-20 Figure 2-9 Critical Facilities ................................................................................................ 2-41 Figure 3-1 FEMA Flood Zones with Critical Facilities ......................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2 FEMA Flood Zones – Upper Farm River .......................................................... 3-14 Figure 3-3 FEMA Flood Zones – Central Farm River ........................................................ 3-15 Figure 3-4 FEMA Flood Zones – Lower Farm River .......................................................... 3-16 Figure 3-5 FEMA Flood Zones – Morris Creek & Tuttle Brook ........................................ 3-20 Figure 4-1 FEMA Flood Zones along Long Island Sound .................................................... 4-5 Figure 4-2 Hurricane Surge Inundation Areas and Critical Facilities ................................... 4-6 Figure 6-1 Anatomy of a Tornado ......................................................................................... 6-2 Figure 10-1 Dams Registered with the DEEP ....................................................................... 10-2

APPENDICES Appendix A STAPLEE Matrix Appendix B Public Meeting Announcements and Presentation, November 30, 2011 Appendix C Public Meeting Announcements, December 7 and 14, 2011 Appendix D Hurricane Evacuation Study (USACE, 1994) Appendix E Evacuation Map Appendix F Farm River Flood Warning Study Appendix G FEMA Best Practices Portfolio Summary Sheet Appendix H HAZUS Documentation Appendix I Record of Municipal Adoption Appendix J Worksheet for Evaluation of Recommendations

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE 2012 EAST HAVEN, CONNECTICUT JANUARY 2012; ADOPTED MAY 1, 2012 TC-vii

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

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE 2012 EAST HAVEN, CONNECTICUT JANUARY 2012; ADOPTED MAY 1, 2012 TC-viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)

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

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE 2012 EAST HAVEN, CONNECTICUT JANUARY 2012; ADOPTED MAY 1, 2012 ES-1

CONTACT INFORMATION Local Points of Contact: Primary:

Douglas Jackson Fire Chief/Emergency Management Director Town of East Haven 200 Main Street East Haven, CT 0 6512 203-468-3221 [email protected]; [email protected]

Secondary:

Kevin White Town Engineer Town of East Haven 250 Main Street East Haven, CT 06512 203-468-3290 [email protected]


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Town of East Haven Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2012

The primary purpose of a Hazard Mitigation Plan is to identify natural hazards and risks, existing capabilities, and activities that can be undertaken by a community to prevent loss of life and reduce property damages associated with identified hazards. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires local communities to have a FEMA-approved mitigation plan in order to be eligible to receive Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program grants and Post-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds under the Hazard Mitigation Assistance program. The subject plan is an update to the Town of East Haven’s previous Hazard Mitigation Plan. Situated on the Connecticut coastline bordering Long Island Sound, the Town of East Haven's landscape has many different features that make the Town particularly vulnerable to an array of natural hazards. These hazards include but are not limited to areas of inland flooding, coastal flooding, shoreline change, erosion, hurricanes and tropical storms, summer storms, tornadoes, winter storms and nor'easters, earthquakes, wildfires, and dam failures. This plan discusses each of these natural hazards in detail with the understanding that a particular hazard effect (i.e., damage from falling trees) can be caused by a variety of hazard events (e.g., high winds) that can be caused by a variety of storms (e.g., hurricanes, tropical storms, and winter storms). East Haven considers its critical facilities the high school (the town’s shelter), fire stations, police station, Town Hall, public works building, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, senior living facilities, the Lake Saltonstall water treatment plant, the bridges where local roads cross Interstate 95, and the Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport. The police station and public works buildings are located adjacent to floodplains. The primary hazard in East Haven is flooding. The major watercourses in town are the Farm River, which flows through much of the eastern section of the town before discharging into Long Island Sound; and Tuttle Brook/Morris Creek, which flow southward and join near the Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport. A broad area south of Interstate 95 is below the elevation of the 100-year coastal flood event, and this Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) merges with the Farm River and Tuttle Brook/Morris Creek SFHAs. The Farm River and Tuttle Brook corridors are characterized by significant residential and commercial development, respectively. Much of the coastal SFHA is residentially developed. A number of significant floods have occurred in East Haven. Most recently, the Cosey Beach area was devastated by the storm surge from Tropical Storm Irene. The Town has a number of measures in place to prevent flood damage including regulations and codes preventing encroachments and development near SFHAs and floodways. The Town intends to maintain and strengthen compliance with the NFIP regulations by continuing to administer the local flood damage prevention regulations (Chapter 9 of the Code of the Town of East Haven, Section 29 of the Zoning Regulations, and various provisions of the Coastal Area Management and Subdivision Regulations) and enforcing the requirements of the regulations.


The Town of East Haven has been extremely proactive with mitigation through acquisition and demolition of floodprone structures, promotion of flood insurance, outreach and education, installation of coastal evacuation signs, and structural projects such as replacement of bridges along the Farm River. Subsequent to approval of the last edition of this plan, five floodprone homes have been acquired and demolished, removing them from SFHAs along the Farm River; the Maple Street bridge over the Farm River was replaced; and several coastal homes were elevated using private funds. Given the recent devastation from Tropical Storm Irene, the Town believes that reconstruction of substantially damaged homes along the shoreline in the next few years will result in additional elevations. Additional home elevations, acquisitions, and demolitions are desired by the Town. Based on potential hazard as determined through the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection's (CT DEEP) Dam Safety Section of the Inland Water Resources Division, East Haven has one Class C dams, one Class BB dam, and three Class A dams. Failure of Classes BB, B, or C dams can cause moderate to great economic loss and possibly loss of life. East Haven's single Class C dam, the Lake Saltonstall Dam, is owned by the local water utility and has been subject to dam failure analysis mapping and development of an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). Additional EOPs are desired for dams in the town and recommended in this plan. In East Haven, wind damage occurs throughout the year. The amount of damage incurred from wind action is variable. Typically, wind damage is comparable to other shoreline communities. Most damage is caused by falling limbs and/or debris bringing about damage to public and private property. Although hurricanes and tornadoes are infrequent, they represent extreme wind events alongside select nor'easters. HAZUS-MH simulations predict that minimal wind damage will occur in East Haven for events with top wind speeds less than 65 miles per hour (approximately a 20-year event). Major winter nor'easters have the potential to occur every few years and produce above-average snowfall amounts and moderate to excessive wind damage. Utility line maintenance and underground installation, tree trimming, and selective wind load retrofits are all recommended for East Haven. While there are many geologic faults in East Haven, there are no active faults. East Haven is unlikely to experience a damaging earthquake in any given year. However, as the earthquake in Virginia reminded the United States in August 2011, east coast quakes can be felt for a great distance. Earthquake mitigation in East Haven will continue to include use of codes and control of development, although redundancy of critical facilities is recommended as well. The Town is at a relatively low risk for wildfires. Those areas at the highest risk are limited-access forests and other areas such as coastal marshes that are distant from the public water system, since tanker trucks must be relied on to fight a fire. Provision of water for fire suppression is recommended in remaining vulnerable areas. Recommendations are summarized in Sections 11.1 and 11.2. Section 11.3 summarizes the highest-ranking recommendations based on the Social, Technical, Administrative, Political,


Legal, Economic, and Environmental (STAPLEE) analysis and a review of the Town's vulnerabilities. Part 1 of Appendix A provides a line-by-line analysis of recommendations from the previous edition of the plan and commentary regarding why they were carried forward or not carried forward to this update. Part 2 of Appendix A provides more information for the selected recommendations as well as the STAPLEE evaluation.

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE 2012 EAST HAVEN, CONNECTICUT JANUARY 2012; ADOPTED MAY 1, 2012 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose

The goal of emergency management activities is to prevent loss of life and property. The four phases of emergency management include Mitigation, Preparedness, Response and Recovery. What sets them apart is the distinction that hazard mitigation is to eliminate or reduce the need to respond. The term hazard refers to an extreme natural event that poses a risk to people, infrastructure, or resources. In the context of disasters, pre-disaster hazard mitigation is commonly defined as any sustained action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people, property, and resources from hazards and their effects. The primary purpose of a hazard mitigation plan (HMP) is to identify natural hazards and risks, existing capabilities, and activities that can be undertaken by a community to prevent loss of life and reduce property damages associated with the identified hazards. This HMP update was prepared specifically to identify hazards in the Town of East Haven, Connecticut. The HMP is relevant not only in emergency management situations but also should be used within East Haven's land use, environmental, and capital improvement frameworks. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA), commonly known as the 2000 Stafford Act amendments, was approved by Congress and signed into law in October 2000, creating Public Law 106-390. The purposes of the DMA are to establish a national program for pre-disaster mitigation and streamline administration of disaster relief. The DMA requires local communities to have a FEMA-approved mitigation plan in order to be eligible to apply for and receive Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grants. East Haven’s previous HMP was approved by FEMA on January 4, 2005 and is on file at the Region 1 office. The plan was set to expire in 2010 but was granted a one-year exception to 2011. The HMA "umbrella" contains five competitive grant programs deigned to mitigate the impacts of natural hazards. This HMP update was developed to be consistent with the general requirements of the HMA program as well as the specific requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for post-disaster mitigation activities, as well as the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Management Assistance (FMA), Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC), and Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) programs. These programs are briefly described below.


Mitigation Funding

Applications for hazard mitigation grant funding are administered under the Unified

Hazard Mitigation Assistance program. More information on this and the following programs can be found at FEMA's website,

http://www.fema.gov/

Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program

The PDM program was authorized by Part 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5133. In Connecticut, the PDM program is administered by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), formerly known as the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) until its consolidation with another agency 2011.

The PDM program provides funds to states, territories, tribal governments, communities, and universities for hazard mitigation planning and implementation of mitigation projects prior to disasters, providing an opportunity to reduce the nation's disaster losses through pre-disaster mitigation planning and the

implementation of feasible, effective, and cost-efficient mitigation measures. Funding of pre-disaster plans and projects is meant to reduce overall risks to populations and facilities. PDM funds should be used primarily to support mitigation activities that address natural hazards. In addition to providing a vehicle for funding, the PDM program provides an opportunity to raise risk awareness within communities. The Town of East Haven has applied for PDM grants in the past, but the program has not been used to fund any mitigation in the town. Refer to Section 4.3 for details. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)

The HMGP is authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. In Connecticut, the HMGP is administered by the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP), formerly known as the Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEHMS) until its consolidation with another agency 2011.

The HMGP provides grants to states and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate


recovery from a disaster. A key purpose of the HMGP is to ensure that any opportunities to take critical mitigation measures to protect life and property from future disasters are not "lost" during the recovery and reconstruction process following a disaster. The Town of East Haven has keen interest in applying for HMGP grants, and is actively working with property owners to develop applications as of the date of this plan. Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program The FMA program was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4101) with the goal of reducing or eliminating claims under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In Connecticut, the FMA program is administered by DEEP. FEMA provides FMA funds to assist states and communities with implementing measures that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, homes, and other structures insurable under the NFIP. The long-term goal of FMA is to reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP through mitigation activities. Three types of grants are available under FMA. These are planning, project, and technical assistance grants. FMA funds have not been utilized in East Haven. Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) Program The RFC grant program was authorized by the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, which amended the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968. In Connecticut, the RFC program is administered by DEEP. Up to $10 million is available annually for FEMA to provide RFC funds to assist states and communities in reducing flood damages to insured properties that have had one or more damage claims under the NFIP. FEMA may contribute up to 100% of the total amount approved under the RFC grant award to implement approved activities if the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed activities cannot be funded under the FMA program. RFC funds have not been utilized in East Haven.


Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Program

The SRL grant program was authorized by the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, which amended the NFIA of 1968 to provide funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to SRL structures insured under the NFIP. In Connecticut, the SRL program is administered by DESPP.

The SRL program is meant to reduce or eliminate claims under the NFIP through project activities that will result in the greatest savings to the NFIF. A SRL property is defined as a residential property that is covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy and (a) has at least four NFIP claim payments (including building and contents) over $5,000 each, with the cumulative

amount of such claims payments exceeding $20,000; or (b) for which at least two separate claims payments (building payments only) have been made with the cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the market value of the building. For both (a) and (b), at least two of the claims must have occurred within any 10-year period and must be greater than 10 days apart. The Town of East Haven has applied for SRL grants in the past, and the program has resulted in the obligation of funds for flood mitigation in the town. Refer to Section 3.3 for details.

1.2 Hazard Mitigation Goals The primary goal of this hazard mitigation plan is to reduce the loss of or damage to life, property, infrastructure, and natural, cultural, and economic resources from natural disasters. This includes the reduction of public and private damage costs. Limiting losses of and damage to life and property will also reduce the social, emotional, and economic disruption associated with a natural disaster. Updating, adopting, and implementing this HMP is expected to:

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

Identify mitigation initiatives to be implemented if and when funding becomes

available. This HMP will update the mitigation recommendations, which can then be prioritized and acted upon as funding allows.


Connect hazard mitigation planning to other community planning efforts. This HMP can be used to guide the Town's development through interdepartmental and intermunicipal coordination.

Improve the mechanisms for pre-disaster and post-disaster decision making efforts.

This plan emphasizes actions that can be taken now to reduce or prevent future disaster damages. If the actions identified in this plan are implemented, damage from future hazard events can be minimized, thereby easing recovery and reducing the cost of repairs and reconstruction.

Improve the ability to implement post-disaster recovery projects through

development of a list of mitigation alternatives ready to be implemented.

Enhance and preserve natural resource systems. Natural resources, such as wetlands and floodplains, provide protection against disasters such as floods and hurricanes. Proper planning and protection of natural resources can provide hazard mitigation at substantially reduced costs.

Educate residents and policy makers about natural hazard risk and vulnerability.

Education is an important tool to ensure that people make informed decisions that complement the Town's ability to implement and maintain mitigation strategies.

Complement future Community Rating System (CRS) efforts. Implementation of

certain mitigation measures may increase a community's rating with the NFIP program and thus the benefits that it derives from FEMA. At this time, the Town of East Haven does not participate in the CRS. However, it has participated in the past as a Class 8 community, and will participate again in the future.

1.3 Identification of Hazards and Document Overview

As stated in Section 1.1, the term hazard refers to an extreme natural event that poses a risk to people, infrastructure, or resources. The previous HMP organized hazards into three categories: flooding, wind, and earthquakes. Based on a review of the Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan and other local plans in Connecticut, the list of hazards has been reorganized and expanded to include the following:

Inland Flooding Coastal Flooding, Sea Level Rise, and Shoreline Change Hurricanes and Tropical Storms Summer Storms and Tornadoes Winter Storms Earthquakes Dam Failure Wildfires


This document has been prepared with the understanding that a single hazard effect may be caused by multiple hazard events. For example, flooding may occur as a result of frequent heavy rains, a hurricane, or a winter storm. Thus, Tables 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 on the following pages provide summaries of the hazard events and hazard effects that impact the Town and include criteria for characterizing the locations impacted by the hazard, the frequency of occurrence of the hazards, and the magnitude or severity of the hazards. In order to better identify current vulnerabilities and potential mitigation strategies associated with other hazards, each hazard has been individually discussed in a separate chapter. This document begins with a general discussion of East Haven's community profile, including the physical setting, demographics, development trends, governmental structure, and sheltering capacity. Next, each chapter of this Plan that is dedicated to a particular hazard event is broken down into six or seven different parts. These are Setting; Hazard Assessment; Historic Record; Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures; Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment; and Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives and, for chapters with several recommendations, a Summary of Recommendations. These are described below.

Setting addresses the general areas that are at risk from the hazard. General land uses are identified.

Hazard Assessment describes the specifics of a given hazard, including general

characteristics and associated effects. Also defined are associated return intervals, probability and risk, and relative magnitude.

Historic Record is a discussion of past occurrences of the hazard and associated

damages when available.

Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures gives an overview of the measures that East Haven has undertaken in the past or is currently undertaking to mitigate the given hazard. These may take the form of ordinances and codes, home elevations and acquisitions, structural measures such as dams, or public outreach initiatives.

Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment focuses on the specific areas at risk to the

hazard. Specific land uses in the given areas are identified. Critical buildings and infrastructure that would be affected by the hazard are identified.

Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives identifies mitigation

alternatives, including those that may be the least cost effective or inappropriate for East Haven.


TABLE 1-1 Effects of Natural Hazards

Causes

Natural Hazard

Hur

rica

nes a

nd

Tro

pica

l Sto

rms

Sea

Lev

el R

ise

and

Shor

elin

e C

hang

e

Sum

mer

Sto

rms a

nd

Tor

nado

es

Win

ter

Stor

ms

Wild

fires

Ear

thqu

akes

Dam

Fai

lure

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

Table 1-2Hazard Event Ranking

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

Location Frequency of Magnitude / RankNatural Hazards Occurrence Severity

1 = small 0 = unlikely 1 = limited2 = medium 1 = possible 2 = significant3 = large 2 = likely 3 = critical

3 = highly likely 4 = catastrophic

Winter Storms 3 3 2 8Hurricanes and Tropical Storms 3 2 3 8Sea Level Rise and Shoreline Change 3 3 2 8Summer Storms and Tornadoes 2 3 2 7Earthquakes 3 1 2 6Wildfires 1 2 1 4Dam Failure 1 1 1 3

Location1 = small isolated to specific area during one event2 = medium mulitple areas during one event3 = large significant portion of the town during one event

Frequency of Occurrence0 = unlikely less than 1% probability in the next 100 years1 = possible between 1 and 10% probability in the next year; or at least one chance in next 100 years2 = likely between 10 and 100% probability in the next year; or at least one chance in next 10 years3 = highly likely near 100% probability in the next year

Magnitude / Severity1 = limited injuries and/or illnesses are treatable with first aid; minor "quality of life" loss; shutdown of critical

facilities and services for 24 hours or less; property severely damaged < 10%

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

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

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

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

Table 1-3Hazard Effect Ranking

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

Location Frequency of Magnitude / RankNatural Hazard Effects Occurrence Severity

1 = small 0 = unlikely 1 = limited2 = medium 1 = possible 2 = significant3 = large 2 = likely 3 = critical

3 = highly likely 4 = catastrophic

Nor'Easter Winds 3 3 2 8Snow 3 3 2 8Hurricane Winds 3 2 3 8Nor'Easter Storm Surge 3 3 2 8Coastal Flooding 3 3 2 8Riverine/Overbank Flooding 3 3 2 8Blizzard 3 3 2 8Hurricane Storm Surge 3 2 2 7Falling Trees/Branches 2 3 2 7Flooding from Poor Drainage 2 3 1 6Thunderstorm and Tornado Winds 2 2 2 6Coastal Erosion 2 2 1 5Ice 2 2 1 5Shaking 3 1 1 5Fire/Heat 1 2 2 5Lightning 1 3 1 5Hail 1 2 1 4Smoke 1 2 1 4Flooding from Dam Failure 2 1 1 4

Location1 = small isolated to specific area during one event2 = medium mulitple areas during one event3 = large significant portion of the town during one event

Frequency of Occurrence0 = unlikely less than 1% probability in the next 100 years1 = possible between 1 and 10% probability in the next year; or at least one chance in next 100 years2 = likely between 10 and 100% probability in the next year; or at least one chance in next 10 years3 = highly likely near 100% probability in the next year

Magnitude / Severity1 = limited injuries and/or illnesses are treatable with first aid; minor "quality of life" loss; shutdown of critical

facilities and services for 24 hours or less; property severely damaged < 10%

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

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

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

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


Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives

provides a summary of the recommended courses of action for East Haven that is included in the STAPLEE analysis described below.

This document concludes with an updated strategy for implementation of the HMP, including a schedule, a program for monitoring and updating the plan, and a discussion of technical and financial resources.

1.4 Discussion of STAPLEE Ranking Method

To prioritize recommended mitigation measures, it is necessary to determine how effective each measure will be in reducing or preventing damage. A set of criteria commonly used by public administration officials and planners was applied to each proposed strategy. The method, called STAPLEE, is outlined in FEMA planning documents such as Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3) and Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-5). STAPLEE stands for the "Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental" criteria for making planning decisions. The STAPLEE method was not used in the previous HMP but was selected as a tool to add as part of the update process. Benefit-cost review was emphasized in the prioritization process. Criteria were divided into potential benefits (pros) and potential costs (cons) for each mitigation strategy. The following questions were asked about the proposed mitigation strategies:

Social: Benefits: Is the proposed strategy socially acceptable to East Haven? Costs: Are there any equity issues involved that would mean that one segment of

East Haven could be treated unfairly? Will the action disrupt established neighborhoods, break up voting districts, or cause the relocation of lower-income people? Is the action compatible with present and future community values?

Technical:

Benefits: Will the proposed strategy work? Will it reduce losses in the long term with minimal secondary impacts?

Costs: Is the action technically feasible? Will it create more problems than it will solve? Does it solve the problem or only a symptom?

Administrative:

Benefits: Does the project make it easier for the community to administer future mitigation or emergency response actions?

Costs: Does East Haven have the capability (staff, technical experts, and/or funding) to implement the action, or can it be readily obtained? Can the Town perform the necessary maintenance? Can the project be accomplished in a timely manner?


Political:

Benefits: Is the strategy politically beneficial? Is there public support both to implement and maintain the project? Is there a local champion willing to see the project to completion? Can the mitigation objectives be accomplished at the lowest cost to the community (grants, etc.)?

Costs: Have political leaders participated in the planning process? Do project stakeholders support the project enough to ensure success? Have the stakeholders been offered the opportunity to participate in the planning process?

Legal:

Benefits: Is there a technical, scientific, or legal basis for the mitigation action? Are the proper laws, ordinances, and resolutions in place to implement the action?

Costs: Does East Haven have the authority to implement the proposed action? Are there any potential legal consequences? Will the community be liable for the actions or support of actions, or for lack of action? Is the action likely to be challenged by stakeholders who may be negatively affected?

Economic:

Benefits: Are there currently sources of funds that can be used to implement the action? What benefits will the action provide? Does the action contribute to community goals, such as capital improvements or economic development?

Costs: Does the cost seem reasonable for the size of the problem and the likely benefits? What burden will be placed on the tax base or local economy to implement this action? What proposed actions should be considered but be tabled for implementation until outside sources of funding are available?

Environmental:

Benefits: Will this action beneficially affect the environment (land, water, endangered species)?

Costs: Will this action comply with local, state, and federal environmental laws and regulations? Is the action consistent with community environmental goals?

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

For potential benefits, a score of "1" was assigned if the project will have a beneficial effect for that particular criterion or a "0" if the project would have a negligible effect or if the questions were not applicable to the strategy.

For potential costs, a score of "-1" was assigned if the project would have an unfavorable impact for that particular criterion or a "0" if the project would have a negligible impact or if the questions were not applicable to the strategy.

Technical and economic criteria were double weighted (x2) in the final sum of scores.


The total benefit score and cost score for each mitigation strategy were summed to determine each strategy's final STAPLEE score.

An evaluation matrix with the total scores from each strategy can be found in Part 2 of Appendix A. Strategies are prioritized in Section 11.3 according to final score. The highest scoring is determined to be of more importance economically, socially, environmentally, and politically and, hence, prioritized over those with lower scoring. In addition, structural projects were also evaluated qualitatively.

1.5 Discussion of Benefit-Cost Ratio Although a community may implement recommendations as prioritized by the STAPLEE method, an additional consideration is important for those recommendations that may be funded under the FEMA mitigation grant programs. To receive federal funding, the mitigation action must have a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) that exceeds one. Calculation of the BCR is conducted using FEMA's Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) toolkit. The calculation may be complex, varying with the mitigation action of interest, and is dependent on detailed information such as property value appraisals, design and construction costs for structural projects, and tabulations of previous damages or NFIP claims. Although it is beyond the scope of this plan to develop precise BCRs for each recommendation, the likelihood of receiving funding is estimated for each recommendation as presented in Part 2 of Appendix A. When pursuing grants for selected projects, this information can be used to help select the projects that have the greatest chance of successfully navigating through the application review process. Provision of cost estimates for recommendations is not inappropriate for a HMP, as this information can be misleading or inaccurate in several years and lead to problems when municipal personnel receive cost estimates from contractors. However, the potential cost of each recommendation is listed as “low,” “intermediate,” or “high” in Part 2 of Appendix A. These are defined as follows:

"Low" costs have either no cost or they can be handled by existing municipal personnel with few outside expenses.

"Intermediate" costs would require less than $100,000 to implement and may include studies or investigations.

"High" costs would require a greater level of funding with identified sources of the funding and may include capital expenditures for construction or infrastructure.

1.6 Documentation of the Planning Process

Public participation involved in creating East Haven’s first HMP consisted of a public hearing through the East Haven Planning and Zoning Commission, participation of the Farm River Homeowners Association, and participation of the homeowners in the Cosey


Beach area. The plan was first drafted by the Director of Emergency Management. This draft was presented to the Farm River Homeowners Association and The Shoreline Homeowners Association for input. Both groups had a number of suggestions that were included in the plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission was then presented with the plan, a public hearing was held and then a recommendation for approval was forwarded to the Town Council after comments were reviewed and included. Final approval was made by the Town Council on November 13, 2001. The East Haven HMP was updated again in 2004 and approved by FEMA on January 4, 2005. Mr. Douglas Jackson, Fire Chief of the East Haven Fire Department coordinated the update of the HMP. Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) developed the updated plan working with the Fire Department and the Town Engineer. Because the plan was an update rather than the development of a new plan, the timeline was somewhat compressed and meetings were held to a minimum. The following individuals from East Haven provided information, data, studies, reports, photographs, and observations and were involved in the update of the plan:

Mr. Douglas Jackson, Fire Chief Mr. Kevin White, Town Engineer Mr. David Anderson, Planning and Zoning Officer Mr. Frank Gentilesco, Administration and Management

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

A meeting with Mr. Douglas Jackson was held on October 17, 2011 to discuss the scope and process for updating the plan.

Field reconnaissance was conducted on November 27, 2011. Observations were made of problem areas within the Town based on preliminary correspondence with local officials and an understanding of damage from Tropical Storm Irene.

A public information meeting was held November 30, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. The project

was presented and public comments solicited. The newspaper announcements, a copy of the Town's website announcement, and a copy of the presentation are provided in Appendix B.

Public information meetings were held December 7, 2011 and December 14, 2011.

The meetings focused on the HMGP and SRL programs, and solicited community input or suggestions. The newspaper announcements and a copy of the Town's website announcement are provided in Appendix C.


The adoption of this Plan in the Town will be coordinated by the Town Council. A meeting to adopt the plan will be held in 2012 subsequent to conditional approval from FEMA. The final signed resolution will be included in Appendix I. A proposed resolution is included in Appendix I at the present time. Members of the public were involved with the development of the previous plan and were given continued opportunities to be involved. Residents, business owners, and other stakeholders in East Haven were invited to the public information meetings listed above via information posted on the Town website and in the East Haven Patch (a popular internet newspaper). Copies of these announcements are included in Appendices C and D as noted above. Unfortunately, few members of the public attended the initial public meeting on November 30, 2011. Approximately 37 people attended the public meeting on December 7, 2011, and 17 people attended the public meeting on December 14, 2011. These residents and property owners are overwhelmingly interested in flood mitigation along the shoreline. Final opportunities for the public to review the Plan will be implemented in advance of the public hearing to adopt this Plan, tentatively scheduled for early 2012, contingent on receiving conditional approval from FEMA. The draft that is sent for FEMA review will be posted on the Town website (www.townofeasthavenct.org) and will be made available in the East Haven Hagaman Memorial Library, each providing a public platform giving residents opportunities for public review and comment. Comments received from the public will be incorporated into the final draft where applicable. Upon receiving conditional approval from FEMA, the public hearing will be scheduled, at which time any remaining comments can be addressed. If any final Plan modifications are the result of the comment period leading up to and including the public hearing to adopt the Plan, these will be submitted to FEMA as page revisions with a cover letter explaining the changes. It is not anticipated that any major modifications will occur at this phase of the project.

1.7 Coordination with Neighboring Communities The Town of East Haven has coordinated with its neighboring municipalities in the past relative to hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness, and continues to do so. The four adjacent municipalities are the City of New Haven to the west, the Towns of North Haven and North Branford to the north, and the Town of Branford to the east. The City of New Haven developed FEMA-approved and locally adopted hazard mitigation plans in 2005 and 2010 and is considered current relative to hazard mitigation planning. Because New Haven has been through this planning process, the City Plan Department was contacted in December 2011 to solicit specific input to the East Haven


hazard mitigation plan update. On the other hand, the Towns of North Haven, Branford, and North Branford will commence the hazard mitigation planning process in 2012 as part of a multi-jurisdictional plan. These communities were not contacted to solicit direct input to East Haven’s plan. Relative to hazard mitigation, the Town of North Branford is the community that is most well-suited to work with East Haven toward flood hazard mitigation. This is because the majority of the Farm River watershed is upstream of East Haven in North Branford. Past efforts to work with North Branford on a flood control dam are described in Section 3.0 of this plan update. A flood control dam is no longer considered possible in the current regulatory climate, and East Haven has focused on local flood mitigation along the Farm River through bridge replacements and acquisition and demolition of floodprone structures. Nevertheless, East Haven will continue to look for opportunities to work with North Branford regarding Farm River flood mitigation, such as during the upcoming planning process for North Branford. The Town of East Haven shares relatively fewer opportunities for mitigation with New Haven, Branford, and North Haven because these communities are not upstream of East Haven. In the case of Branford, most of the municipal border with East Haven is coincident with Lake Saltonstall and Furnace Pond. These impoundments are owned by the Regional Water Authority and are not operated for flood control. They have very limited SFHAs and are in watersheds where development is prohibited. As such, East Haven and Branford have few (if any) opportunities to cooperate on flood mitigation. East Haven and New Haven have historically shared several opportunities for hazard mitigation, mostly related to Morris Creek. Morris Creek flows southwesterly through southern East Haven and forms the boundary between New Haven and East Haven for just over one mile. This area is floodprone and is dominated by the Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport. During recent improvements to the airport facilities, drainage on the New Haven side was improved and this is believed to have reduced the potential for flooding along the west edge of East Haven. In addition, maintenance of the Morris Creek tide gates in New Haven is believed to reduce tidal flooding in East Haven. Relative to emergency preparedness, East Haven cooperates continuously with other communities. As explained in Section 2.8, the Town of East Haven is a member of the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). This group shares funding from DESPP to prepare with the first responders of the City of New Haven and its six adjacent towns, one of which is East Haven. As explained in Section 2.9, the New Haven part of the Morris Cove neighborhood is particularly vulnerable to coastal flooding, and there have been situations when several hundred New Haven residents must evacuate into East Haven via South End Road and Silver Sands Road (Route 337). This matter was discussed with the New Haven City Plan Department in December 2011 during the development of this plan update. The City of New Haven remains concerned that these city residents would then be stranded in


southern East Haven due to the flooding that occurs along Coe Avenue and Hemingway Avenue. Evacuees would need to continue east into the Town of Branford. One of the recommendations of this plan update is to “Work with residents and the City of New Haven to develop an evacuation protocol for East Haven residents near Townsend Avenue.” Streams within the northwest section of East Haven flow into Hemingway Creek, which discharges to the Quinnipiac River estuary in New Haven. The headwaters of this creek originate in two impoundments at Alling Memorial Golf Course in East Haven. The impoundments are associated with Class A dams, which are not high-hazard. Nevertheless, one of the recommendations of this plan update is to “develop an EOP for the two Alling Memorial Golf Course dams.” The EOP would provide another layer of protection for residents located downstream of the dams along Hemingway Creek (in addition to the existing flood damage prevention regulations in New Haven).


2.0 COMMUNITY PROFILE

2.1 Physical Setting

The Town of East Haven is located on the north shore of Long Island Sound and has approximately two miles of coastline. The town stretches about eight miles in length north to south and has a width of approximately two miles resulting in a land area of roughly 12.57 square miles. Stony Island is located approximately 660 yards from the East Haven Town Beach and is part of the Town. Refer to Figure 2-1 for a map showing the regional location of East Haven. East Haven is located in southeastern New Haven County and borders the municipalities of North Branford and Branford to the east, North Haven to the north, and New Haven to the west. The Town is one of 27 municipalities that comprise New Haven County. East Haven was first settled in 1638 by a group of English Puritans. The Town is currently one of the 15 municipalities that comprise the South Central Regional Council of Governments (SCRCOG). The topography of East Haven generally increases in elevation moving from the shoreline inland toward the North Haven town boundary at the north. The southern portion of the Town south of Interstate 95 is characterized by dense urban development and generally flat topography. The northern portion of the town is less densely developed, with the northern extents exhibiting more variable topography. Lake Saltonstall forms a portion of the Town's eastern border with Branford. The lake is long and narrow, with a length of three miles and width of 0.3 mile. Saltonstall Ridge, a traprock mountain ridge, is located on the west bank of the lake and has a high point of 320 feet above sea level. The ridge, also known as Saltonstall Mountain, is roughly 5.75 miles long by 1.25 miles wide. The ridge is part of the Metacomet Ridge that extends from Long Island Sound to the Vermont border. The western side of the ridge is steep, with vertical ledges. A significant decrease in developed land cover density is evident north of I-95 in comparison to the south. Minimal farmland cover is isolated to area at the northern extents of the Town.

2.2 Existing Land Use

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

Kent

Sharon

StaffordSalisbury

Lebanon

Newtown Lyme

Goshen

Norfolk

Litchfield

Killingly

Woodstock

Guilford

Granby

Haddam

Suffield

TollandPomfret

Danbury

Cornwall

Hebron

New Milford

Ashford

Ledyard

Union

Salem

Enfield

Colchester

Oxford

Groton

Thompson

Mansfield

Montville

Plainfield

Canaan

Greenwich

Avon

Berlin

Preston

East Haddam

Glastonbury

Easton

Madison

Shelton

Stamford

Coventry

Wilton

Griswold

Bristol

Hamden

Hartland

Southbury

Somers

Torrington

Redding

Warren

Cheshire

Ellington

Windsor

Voluntown

Simsbury

Canterbury

Fairfield

Woodbury

Stonington

Middletown

Canton

Eastford

Sterling

Waterford

Wallingford

Norwich

Monroe

Ridgefield

East Lyme

Washington

North Stonington

Willington

Colebrook

Brooklyn

Roxbury

Winchester

Southington

Barkhamsted

Portland

Harwinton

Durham

Milford

Windham

Meriden

Burlington

Bozrah

Killingworth

Weston

Waterbury

Morris

Hampton

New Hartford

WatertownWolcott

Putnam

ShermanEast Hampton

Bethel

Norwalk

Bethany

Trumbull

Vernon

Chaplin

Farmington

Branford

Lisbon

Manchester

Orange

Old Lyme

Franklin

Bloomfield

Plymouth

Columbia

Chester

Westport

Bolton

Clinton

Scotland

Hartford

Stratford

Essex

East Windsor

South Windsor

Brookfield

Darien

Bethlehem

New Fairfield

Andover

Marlborough

New Canaan

North Branford

Sprague

Prospect

Seymour North Haven

New Haven

West Hartford

Woodbridge

Middlebury

Naugatuck

Westbrook

Bridgeport

East Granby

Bridgewater

North Canaan

East Hartford

Cromwell

Rocky Hill

Deep River

Newington

Old Saybrook

Middlefield

New BritainThomaston

Wethersfield

Plainville

Derby

Ansonia

LOCA

TION

MAP

EAST

HAV

EN N

ATUR

AL H

AZAR

DM

ITIG

ATIO

N PL

ANEA

ST H

AVEN

, CON

NECT

ICUT

BAM

Nov 2011

2731-02

H:\location_map.mxd

Figure 2-1

99 R

ealty

Driv

eCh

eshire

, Con

necti

cut 0

6410

(203)

271-1

773 F

ax (2

03) 2

72-97

33ww

w.mi

lonea

ndma

cbro

om.co

m

Scale:Date:

MMI#:MXD:

Map By:

SOUR

CE:

Base

Maps:

Conn

ecticu

t: CT D

EEP

Massa

chuse

tts: M

assGI

SNe

w Yo

rk: N

YSGI

SRh

ode I

sland

: RIG

IS

4

1 inch = 65,000 feet

East Haven

New York

Massachusetts

RhodeIsland

Long Island Sound


Table 2-1 summarizes the Town's 2006 land cover data, which was derived from satellite imagery. According to this data, under half of the Town's approximately 12.5 square miles is forested.

TABLE 2-1 Land Cover by Area (2006)

Land Cover Area (acres) Percent of Town

Developed 3525.51 43.81 Deciduous Forest 2276.15 28.28 Turf & Grass 759.14 9.43 Tidal Wetland 375.73 4.67 Water 238.62 2.97 Other Grasses 237.28 2.95 Agricultural Field 232.16 2.88 Barren 173.15 2.15 Forested Wetland 92.62 1.15 Coniferous Forest 74.46 0.93 Beach 35.68 0.44 Utility ROWs (Forest) 14.66 0.18 Non-Forested Wetland 12.34 0.15 Total 8047.48 100%

Source: UCONN Center for Land Use Education and Research (CLEAR) Figure 2-2 presents generalized land uses based on the 2006 land cover data. Areas shown as turf and grass are maintained grasses such as residential and commercial lawns or golf courses. The far northern area of East Haven and eastern area on the Saltonstall Ridge are predominantly forested. Agricultural land use areas are minor and are located only in the farthest northeast limits of the Town. As indicated in Table 2-1 and Figure 2-2, the majority of East Haven's land cover is designated as developed, with higher density apparent near Tweed Airport and the municipal center of town. The development patterns have historically been concentrated in four sections of the town: Foxon, High Ridge, Momauguin, and the Center:

Foxon is an area along State Route 80 that borders Branford and North Branford on the east, New Haven on the west to about Grannis Pond in the south. Landmarks include the high school, Foxon Park Beverage, and Camp Murray, a Girl Scouts of the USA day camp. The Foxon area is largely residential with scattered pockets of residential development north of Route 80.

XXXXX

East Haven NaturalHazard Mitigation Plan

East Haven, CTFigure 2-2: 2006 Land CoverLOCATION:

§̈¦95

§̈¦91

")80

")17

")10

")337

")100

")142

")103

")15

")34

")122

")146

UV1

UV5

SOURCE(S):

³ 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, CT 06410(203) 271-1773 Fax: (203) 272-9733


2731-02

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:

Date:1 inch = 5,000 feet

H:\Landcover.mxdMXD:Nov. 2011

BAM

LegendUniversity of Connecticut CLEAR 2006 Land Cover Class

AgricultureBarren LandConiferous ForestDeciduous ForestDevelopedForested Wetland

Non-forested WetlandOther GrassesTidal WetlandTurf & GrassUtility ROWsWater


The High Ridge is located along Route 100 and the Farm River. The High Ridge area

includes a relatively large expanse of residential development located east of Route 100 and along the Farm River, with many neighborhoods located in the floodplain of the river. These neighborhoods are bounded to the east by the Saltonstall Ridge.

The Center is the hub of most things administrative. Landmarks include the Town

Hall, Fire Department Headquarters, Hagaman Memorial Library, the old East Haven High School (now used as the East Haven Historical Society), the Senior Center, the Police Department, the Public Works Department, other administrative buildings, and the Town Green. A significant commercial area has developed along the north and south sides of I-95, offering retail and travel-related services to the many people utilizing I-95. Included in this section is the "West End" which borders New Haven and is currently undergoing revitalization.

Momauguin is an area located in the southern section of East Haven, from Morris Cove section of New Haven on the west to Branford on the east and starting at Short Beach Road in the north. This section is the shoreline of East Haven and includes the town beach, numerous condominiums, many summer cottages, and neighborhoods with significant year-round population. The area near Tweed New Haven Airport has an industrial park that includes Town Fair Tire Centers Headquarters and Calabro Cheese Corporation.

The Town is split into two relatively separate areas by I-95 and railroad tracks. This bifurcated nature of the Town has been reinforced by the land use patterns which have evolved over the years. As a result, East Haven does not have a strong single dominant business center. Instead, commercial and industrial activity is located in the areas described above. Specifically, commercial development has been focused in three areas: the industrial park in the south, along the Route 1/Interstate 95 corridor, and along the Route 80 corridor in Foxon. The 2001 Town of East Haven Hazard Mitigation Plan noted that there were 10,777 residentially zoned and 1,950 commercially zoned properties in the Town. Of the residential units, 1,984 are either condominiums or privately owned elderly housing units. The Town also includes a 35-acre golf course and the Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport that accounts for approximately 75 acres of land use.

2.3 Geology

Geology is important to the occurrence and relative effects of natural hazards such as earthquakes. Thus, it is important to understand the geologic setting and variation of bedrock and surficial formations in East Haven. The following discussion highlights East Haven's geology at several regional scales. Geologic information discussed in the following section was acquired in Geographic Information System (GIS) format from the United States Geological Survey and the Connecticut DEEP.


Bedrock Geology Connecticut bedrock geology is comprised of several "terranes." Terranes are geologic regions that reflect the role of plate tectonics in Connecticut's natural history.

East Haven lies almost entirely in the region of Connecticut called the "Coastal Slope," a zone that begins approximately 12 miles north of the coastline and extends toward the continental shelf. In this zone, the plane of hilltop elevation decreases at a slope of about 50 feet per mile, about twice the slope of zones further inland. Maximum elevation near East Haven's northern border is approximately 337 feet above sea level. In comparison, the Town center lies just 20 feet above sea level. In terms of North American bedrock geology, East Haven is located in the northeastern part of the Appalachian Orogenic Belt, also known as the Appalachian Highlands, which extend from Maine southward to Mississippi and Alabama. The Appalachian Highlands were formed when Pangaea assembled during the late Paleozoic era. The region is generally characterized by deformed sedimentary rocks cut through by numerous thrust faults. East Haven is located entirely within the Connecticut Valley Synclinorium of the Iapetos Geologic Terrane. East Haven contains various bedrock types, which lie in fairly diagonal bands. The greatest variation of bedrock types occurs along the eastern boundary of Town, associated with the Saltonstall Ridge. Bedrock maps are generalized; so many borders between rock types are approximate. The various bedrock types are depicted in Figure 2-3. Table 2-2 lists the bedrock geology within East Haven.

TABLE 2-2 Bedrock Geology

Formation Area

(acres) Percent of

Town New Haven Arkose 3580.20 44.49 Light House Gneiss 1288.92 16.02 Shuttle Meadow Formation 1205.33 14.98 Talcott Basalt 1071.71 13.32 Holyoke Basalt 424.35 5.27 Buttress Dolerite 233.94 2.91 East Berlin Formation 191.16 2.38 West Rock Dolerite 27.44 0.34 New Haven Arkose and Buttress Dolerite, undivided 24.43 0.30 Total 8047.48 100%

Source: Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection GIS Data

XXXXX


East Haven, CTFigure 2-3: Bedrock GeologyLOCATION:

Eastern Border Fault

§̈¦95

§̈¦91

")80

")17

")10

")337

")100

")142

")103

")15

")34

")122

")146

UV1

UV5

SOURCE(S):



2731-02

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:


H:\Bedrock_Geology.mxdMXD:Dec. 2011

BAM

LegendBedrock Geology Unit

New Haven Arkose and Buttress Dolerite undividedButtress DoleriteEast Berlin FormationHolyoke BasaltLight House GneissNew Haven ArkoseShuttle Meadow FormationTalcott BasaltWest Rock Dolerite


As shown numerically in Table 2-2 and visually in Figure 2-3, the New Haven Arkose Formation dominates the bedrock geology of East Haven. The New Haven Arkose Formation is a red, pink, and gray coarse-grained, locally conglomeratic, poorly sorted and indurated arkose, interbedded with brick-red micaceous, locally shaly siltstone and fine-grained feldspathic clayey sandstone. The New Haven Arkose Formation is of the Triassic age. The next three largest formations in order from largest to smallest are:

Light House Gneiss: This formation is composed of light-pink or gray to red,

medium-grained, well-foliated granitic gneiss. Shuttle Meadow Formation: Comprised of reddish-brown silty shale. Talcott Basalt Formation: Consists of dark-gray, orange- to brown-weathering basalt

(traprock).

There are numerous faults within the East Haven town limits. The southernmost fault line is the "Eastern Border Fault" which extends from Morris Cove to the Farm River estuary, cutting a path through the Momauguin section of East Haven in a southwest to northeast direction. The Eastern Border Fault was created following the spreading of the Atlantic Ocean during the middle of the Mesozoic Era. The Eastern Border Fault stretches 130 miles from New Haven, Connecticut to Keene, New Hampshire. The fault is classified as "FH," a high angle fault that is mostly Jurassic and is currently inactive. There are three short "stem" faults that branch off the Eastern Border Fault. These faults are classified as "F" faults. Three parallel fault lines are orientated from west to east below Interstate 95. The two southerly faults are approximately 5,000 feet in length each. The northern fault is a high angle fault; mostly Jurassic that generally follows the orientation of I95 through the eastern half of East Haven, and continues through Branford. Upon reaching Connecticut State 146, the fault angles to the northeast and joins the Eastern Border Fault in northern Branford. A series of intercrossed fault lines are located within the northern section of East Haven. Multiple near north to south fault lines traverse the northern section, crossing Foxon Road. High angle east-west faults cross the north-south faults in multiple locations, with the most significant fault line extending northward into North Branford, orientated nearly parallel to Totoket Mountain. Glaciers began forming in the northern hemisphere about three million years ago. Since then, the southernmost portions of these glaciers covered East Haven on at least two occasions. At the end of the ice age, the last of the glaciers' mineral holdings were released with the melting ice. East Haven's different surficial geologic formations include glacial till, stratified drift, outwash plains, and coastal formations. Refer to Table 2-3 and Figure 2-4 for a depiction of surficial geology.

XXXXX


East Haven, CTFigure 2-4: Surficial GeologyLOCATION:

§̈¦95

§̈¦91

")80

")17

")10

")337

")100

")142

")103

")15

")34

")122

")146

UV1

UV5

SOURCE(S):



2731-02

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:


H:\Surficial_Geology.mxdMXD:Nov. 2011

BAM

LegendSurficial Materials

Alluvium / Sand and Gravel Artificial FillBeachFinesSalt MarshSand and GravelSandSwampTillWater


TABLE 2-3 Surficial Geology

Surficial Material Area

(acres) Percent of

Town Till 5026.84 62.46 Sand 766.70 9.53 Salt marsh and estuarine deposits 604.07 7.51 Sand overlying fines 553.52 6.88 Alluvium overlying sand and gravel 295.32 3.67 Artificial fill 245.97 3.06 Water 208.97 2.60 Sand and gravel 185.34 2.30 Fines 50.25 0.62 Beach 44.06 0.55 Swamp 34.15 0.42 Sand and gravel overlying sand 32.30 0.40 Total 8047.48 100% Source: Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection GIS Data

As shown above, both in acreage and percent coverage, East Haven is covered primarily by glacial till; 62.46% of the Town is covered by till. Till contains an unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders deposited by glaciers as a ground moraine. Till is present from the shoreline of the Long Island Sound north to East Haven's Town boundary with North Haven. The area west of the Saltonstall Ridge along the Farm River is characterized by corridors of sand and alluvium overlying sand and gravel. The portion of the town south of I-95 is characterized by pockets and sand as well as sand overlying fines. Areas of salt marsh and estuarine deposits are located along the coastline of Long Island Sound and adjacent to Morris Creek. In terms of soil types, East Haven is diverse. The Town's most common soil types are those that make up the Holyoke-Rock outcrop complex and the Cheshire-Holyoke complex. The remaining approximately 69% of East Haven contains the other various soils that are listed in Table 2-4. Approximately 24% of East Haven is covered by soils listed as being either "Prime Farmland Soils" or "Additional CT Important Farmland Soils." The remaining approximately 76% of Town consists of the many other rocky

The amount of stratified drift present in the Town is important as areas of stratified materials are generally coincident with floodplains. These materials were deposited at lower elevations by glacial streams, and these valleys were later inherited by the larger of our present day streams and rivers. However, the smaller glacial till watercourses throughout East Haven can also cause flooding. The amount of stratified drift also has bearing on the relative intensity of earthquakes and the likelihood of soil subsidence in areas of fill.


soils, various sandy loams, silt loams, wetland soils, urban land, and others listed in Table 2-4.

TABLE 2-4 Soil Classifications

Soil Type Area

(acres) Percentage of

Town Adrian and palms soils 19.79 0.25 Bash silt loam 257.79 3.20 Beaches-Udipsamments complex 21.46 0.27 Belgrade silt loam 11.90 0.15 Branford-Holyoke complex 37.43 0.47 Branford-urban land complex 322.60 4.01 Branford silt loam 254.86 3.17 Canton and Charlton soils 0.00 0.00 Carlisle muck 29.14 0.36 Cheshire-Holyoke complex 1176.93 14.62 Cheshire-urban land complex 337.88 4.20 Cheshire fine sandy loam 434.20 5.40 Deerfield-urban land complex 118.37 1.47 Deerfield loamy sand 101.44 1.26 Dumps 7.84 0.10 Ellington silt loam 49.07 0.61 Holyoke-rock outcrop complex 1278.12 15.88 Ludlow silt loam 1.19 0.01 Manchester-urban land complex 173.71 2.16 Manchester gravelly sandy loam 167.62 2.08 Narragansett silt loam 0.01 0.00 Ninigret-urban land complex 20.54 0.26 Adrian and palms soils 19.79 0.25 Penwood-urban land complex 535.72 6.66 Penwood loamy sand 246.99 3.07 Pits, quarries 4.40 0.05 Raynham silt loam 28.31 0.35 Raypol silt loam 78.66 0.98 Rock outcrop-Holyoke complex 10.74 0.13 Saco silt loam 11.66 0.14 Scarboro mucky loamy sand 20.53 0.26 Udorthents 297.65 3.70 Udorthents-pits complex 10.26 0.13 Udorthents-urban land complex 522.03 6.49


TABLE 2-4 (continued) Soil Classifications

Soil Type Area

(acres) Percentage of

Town Urban land 378.04 4.70 Walpole sandy loam 112.84 1.40 Watchaug-urban land complex 34.74 0.43 Watchaug fine sandy loam 51.78 0.64 Water 228.98 2.85 Westbrook mucky peat 299.91 3.73 Wethersfield-urban land complex 12.59 0.16 Wethersfield loam 156.27 1.94 Wilbraham and Menlo soils 63.69 0.79 Wilbraham silt loam 30.79 0.38 Yalesville-urban land complex 10.48 0.13 Yalesville fine sandy loam 78.51 0.98 Total 8047.48 100%

Source: 2007 Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for the State of Connecticut The following soil descriptions are taken in part from the official series descriptions from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) website.

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

The Cheshire-Holyoke complex includes the following:

o The Cheshire soils are typically very deep and well drained, and their parent

material is coarse-loamy melt-out till derived from basalt and/or sandstone and shale.

o Additionally, Cheshire soils typically have moderate to moderately rapid permeability, a high capacity of water availability, a very strong acid to moderately acid reaction, a depth of greater than 72 inches to a restrictive feature, a depth of greater than six feet to the seasonal water table, and no flooding.

o The Holyoke soils are typically shallow to moderately deep and are also typically well drained. The soils are extremely acid to moderately acid in their reaction, and the depth to restrictive feature is 10 to 20 inches to bedrock (lithic).

o Holyoke soils are also derived from loamy eolian deposits over melt-out till derived from basalt and/or sandstone and shale. The soils' permeability is


The continued increase in precipitation only heightens the need for hazard mitigation planning as the occurrence of floods may change in accordance with the greater precipitation.

moderate, and they have a low available water capacity. The depth to seasonal water table is greater than six feet, and there is no flooding.

2.4 Climate

East Haven has an agreeable climate characterized by moderate but distinct seasons. The mean annual temperature is approximately 52 degrees Fahrenheit as reported by CLRChoice, Inc. Summer temperatures rise in the mid 80s, and winter temperatures dip into the upper 20s to mid-30's as measured in Fahrenheit. Extreme conditions can raise summer temperatures to near 100 degrees and winter temperatures to below zero. Additionally, according to CLRChoice, Inc., median snowfall is approximately 25 inches per year. Mean annual precipitation is 42 inches, normally with an increase in the spring.

By comparison, average annual statewide precipitation based on more than 100 years of record is nearly the same at 44.8 inches. However, average annual precipitation in Connecticut has been increasing by 0.95 inches per decade since the end of the 19th century (Miller et al., 1997; NCDC, 2005). An extremity within this trend was the winter of 2010-2011, which saw upwards of 80 inches of snow

fall on parts of Connecticut. Likewise, total annual precipitation in the Town has increased over time. The increase in precipitation, along with sea level rise, must be accounted for in East Haven's planning.

2.5 Drainage Basins and Hydrology

East Haven is divided among four sub-regional watersheds as shown in Figure 2-5. All four drainage basins either directly or indirectly drain to Long Island Sound. Streams in the extreme northern part of Town drain into Fivemile Brook, which flow northerly to the Muddy River, a primary tributary of the Quinnipiac River. Streams flowing through the majority of the eastern portion of East Haven flow into the Farm River, which eventually discharges into Long Island Sound just to the west of the East Haven Town boundary with Branford in East Haven's southeastern corner. The Farm River originates below the Pistapaug Mountain, in an area where Durham, Northford, and Wallingford, Connecticut meet. The Farm River flows southward along Route 17, then to Route 22, winding through farms and residential areas. It flows into Pages Millpond, near the intersection of Mill Road and Totoket Road in North Branford, Connecticut. Continuing southward, it runs into Route 80 where it follows down Route 80 to Route 100. Flowing along the west side of Saltonstall Ridge, it eventually discharges into the East Haven River just south of Lake Saltonstall.

XXXXX


East Haven, CTFigure 2-5: Subregional WatershedsLOCATION:

Farm Rive

r

Tuttle

Brook

Morris Creek

Maloney

Brook

Fivemile B

rook

§̈¦95

§̈¦91

")80

")17

")337

")100

")142

")22

")103

")10

")146

")15

")34

UV1

UV5

SOURCE(S):



2731-02

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:


H:\Watersheds.mxdMXD:Dec. 2011

BAM

LegendSubregional Watersheds

Farm RiverMuddy RiverQuinnipiac RiverSouth Central ShorelineTuttle BrookMorris Creek


The main tributary to the Farm River in East Haven is Maloney Brook, which originates just south of Jeffrey Road. Additional small perennial and intermittent streams discharge to the Farm River throughout east and central East Haven. Streams within the northwest section of East Haven flow into Hemingway Creek, which discharges to the Quinnipiac River in New Haven just south of Interstate-91. The headwaters of this creek originate at Alling Memorial Golf Course in East Haven. Streams within the southwest section of East Haven flow into Morris Creek, eventually discharging directly to the Sound at East Haven's southwestern corner. Morris Creek originates at a wetland area near the intersection of Coe Avenue and Proto Drive, flowing southwesterly through southern East Haven and forming the boundary between New Haven and East Haven for approximately 6,000 feet. Tuttle Brook is the main tributary to Morris Creek and originates approximately 150 feet north of the oil tank storage facility just north of Interstate 95. The brook flows southward, along the west boundary of Tweed New Haven Airport before discharging to Morris Creek at the southern end of the airport runway. The remaining, southern portion of East Haven discharges directly to Long Island Sound via two primary tidal marsh streams along the coastline. The western tidal estuary spans the region between Route 337 and South Shore Drive, discharging to the sound at the western limits of Cosey Beach Avenue. The eastern tidal estuary spans the region between Hoop Pole Road at its northern limits, and Cosey Beach Avenue at tis southern limits, including the estuary north of Mansfield Grove Road. This estuary drains to the Sound at the eastern end of Cosey Beach Avenue. Lake Saltonstall is East Haven’s largest body of freshwater with the Branford-East Haven town line through the middle of the lake. The lake covers 380 acres and is confined by two north-south running ridges. Lake Saltonstall is approximately two miles long extending north from the railroad causeway and one-half mile wide. Its maximum depth is 108 feet, but is shallowest near the south end of the lake. The natural watershed of Lake Saltonstall is only 1.6 square miles, which is small for a lake of that size. Two watercourses have been diverted into the reservoir to increase its supply of water. There is a small diversion from Hosley Brook in Branford and a much larger diversion from the Farm River into the northern end of the Lake. Lake Saltonstall is a very important resource to the town as well as the region. It is one of the largest lakes in south-central Connecticut and within one of the largest tracts of open space in the urbanized greater New Haven area. As such, it is a major regional recreation area. Its large tracts of open space also have intrinsic ecological value. Perhaps most importantly however, it is a major drinking water supply source for the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority. Furnace Pond is a 25-acre pond south of the railroad causeway from Lake Saltonstall, located along the Branford - East Haven boundary. Like Lake Saltonstall, it is owned by


the Regional Water Authority, but it is not used as a source of drinking water. The water quality of the pond does not meet the standards as a water supply as it is at a lower elevation than Lake Saltonstall and it receives runoff from Interstate 95. Grannis Pond is another significant lake in East Haven. The 20-acre lake and surrounding land was formerly a scout camp and was used recreationally. There are also several smaller ponds throughout Town.

2.6 Population and Demographic Setting Demographic trends for the Town are similar to many other communities in Connecticut and are closely tied to the state's economy. According to the Census Bureau's 2009 population estimate, the Town was the 54th largest municipality of Connecticut's 169 municipalities. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, East Haven had a year-round population of 28,189 people. The recently released 2010 census data reveals a population of 29,257, an increase of approximately 1,068 persons since Census 2000. The city of New Haven plays a role in the Town's demographics and population. East Haven’s close proximity to New Haven, its fine education system, its cultural events, easy access to rail, air and highway transportation and its location along Long Island Sound have been, and continue to be, the driving forces behind people’s desire to live here. A large majority of the residents commute from East Haven to New Haven daily to work. The suburbanization that characterized the United States after World War II from the late 1940s through the 1970s, with the construction of new roads (in particular the Connecticut Turnpike or I-95) and the enhanced availability of the automobile and federally funded housing programs, yielded a boost in population size in East Haven. The completion of I-95 in Connecticut in 1956 played a major role in the increase of East Haven's year-round population. This increasing population trend has been and continues to be evident in East Haven and many other areas subject to metropolitan expansion along the eastern seaboard since the 1940s. According to Census 2010, approximately 20% of the population of East Haven was under 18 years of age, 62% was between the ages of 18 and 64, and only 18% was 65 years and older. The 2000 estimated population density of East Haven is approximately 2,299 people per square mile. However, East Haven Center and the neighborhoods south of I-95 are home to more residents than other areas in the community. Population density by census block is illustrated in Figure 2-6.

Census Tracts:U.S. Census Bureau


East Haven, CTFigure 2-6: Population DensityLOCATION:

Census Tract 1806.02


Census Tract 1805

Census Tract 1804

Censu

s Trac

t 1802

Censu

s Trac

t 1803

Census Tract 1801

1,331 People/Square Mile







SOURCE(S):



2731-02

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:


H:\Census.mxdMXD:Nov. 2011

BAM


Following the explosion in population after the completion of the Connecticut Turnpike, East Haven's population has seen a continuous increase in total amount. Under current zoning, there is potential for a population of 34,545, or a 21 % increase over 2010 census population reports. According to the University of Connecticut, Connecticut State Data Center, the projected Town population in 2030 is 27,586. These population projections are based on 2000 Census Data. The projections estimate that the population in East Haven may decrease from 2005 through 2025, and increase between 2025 and 2030. East Haven houses populations of people who are elderly and/or possess disabilities. These are depicted by census blocks in Figures 2-7 and 2-8. Not surprisingly, the more populated census block groups include a higher percentage of individuals who may require special assistance or different means of notification before and during natural hazards. These needs will be discussed in subsequent sections.

2.7 Development Trends As noted above, much of the residential development in East Haven is concentrated between Interstate 95 and the shoreline, with the highest population densities occurring in the area immediately adjacent to downtown East Haven. This is the typically the case for commercial development within East Haven as well. Other developed areas are found in the Foxon, High Ridge, and Momauguin neighborhoods. The overall land use patterns of East Haven are established. Almost all developable parcels south of I-95 have been developed to date. Residential neighborhoods are fundamentally sound. The primary potential threat to many residential areas is adverse impacts for incompatible land uses. Under current zoning, there is potential for a population of 34,545. Although certain development opportunities exist through the Town, the focus in most of the Town is on either maintaining or improving the existing patterns of development. At the same time, East Haven desires economic growth, and the identification of areas capable of supporting economic development is a priority of the Town. Many of the areas that are ideal for economic growth have some constraint to development, so it is important to identify methods of overcoming those constraints if possible. For example, extensive areas of the Town are subject to riverine or coastal flooding, including many currently developed areas as well as areas that have vacant land. Much of the vacant land in East Haven contains some other environmental constraints to development such as steep slopes. In some areas, the environmental constraints are significant enough to prevent development, while in others they can be included within a well designed development plan.

Census Tracts:U.S. Census Bureau(Elderly Population numbers based on U.S. Census 2000"Elderly: Age 65+" Applied to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2009 population estimate


East Haven, CTFigure 2-7: Elderly Population LOCATION:



Census Tract 1805

Census Tract 1804

Censu

s Trac

t 1802

Censu

s Trac

t 1803

Census Tract 1801

516 People

720 People

488 People

1,207 People

844 People

317 People

480 People

SOURCE(S):



2731-02

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:


H:\Elderly.mxdMXD:Nov. 2011

BAM

Census Tracts:U.S. Census Bureau(Elderly Population numbers based on U.S. Census 2000"Elderly: Age 65+" Applied to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2009 population estimate


East Haven, CTFigure 2-8: Disabled Population LOCATION:



Census Tract 1805

Census Tract 1804

Censu

s Trac

t 1802

Censu

s Trac

t 1803

Census Tract 1801

524 People

615 People

704 People

1,129 People

1,077 People

536 People

821 People

SOURCE(S):



2731-02

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:


H:\Disabled.mxdMXD:Jan. 2012

BAM


The water and sewer systems of East Haven are capable of supporting all anticipated growth with service extensions. Although some expansion of other public facilities will be necessary to accommodate the future population of the Town, the Town’s public facilities and utilities are not constraints to growth. Similar to residential and commercial development trends across Connecticut and the rest of the United States, East Haven has seen a virtual halt in development during the economic hardships over the past few years beginning in 2008. Nevertheless, growth is anticipated and will likely be concentrated as follows:

The greatest amount of residential development potential is north of Foxon Road outside of flood hazard areas.

Redevelopment is anticipated in downtown East Haven and west along Route 1 toward the New Haven city line.

Additional redevelopment is possible in the frontage road commercial areas along Interstate 95.

Limited redevelopment is anticipated in coastal neighborhoods as cottages are replaced with larger homes.

2.8 Governmental Structure

The Town operates under a Mayor-Town Council form of government, with the Mayor acting as the Chief Executive Officer of the community. Many municipal departments, commissions, and boards are involved with hazard mitigation. The various town departments, boards and commissions which may play a role in the implementation of this plan include: Public Works Department, Building Department, Engineering Department, Fire and Police, Department of Social Services, Planning and Zoning, Flood and Erosion Control Board, Town Attorney and Parks and Recreation. The American Red Cross and East Shore Health District are also involved in activities related to hazard mitigation and emergency management. The following subsections describe general departmental responsibilities, and duties related to hazard mitigation. Where applicable, one or more of the six types of mitigation (prevention, property protection, natural resource protection, structural projects, emergency services, and public education) are identified as relevant for each department. The mayor’s office would play a leadership role in coordination with the Fire Chief/ Emergency Management Director in the event of a large scale emergency. The Town of East Haven is a member of the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). This group shares funding from DESPP to prepare with equipment and training the first responders of the City of New Haven and the six adjacent towns. The Town has a signed mutual aid agreement with the other six agencies.


Emergency Management Office The mission of the Emergency Management Office is to maximize survival of people, prevent and/or minimize injuries, and preserve property and resources in the Town by making use of all available manpower, equipment, and other resources in the event of natural or technological disasters or national security threats. In addition to coordinating activities during disasters, the Emergency Management Office coordinates all early warning activities and is involved in educating the public on how to react during emergency situations. The East Haven Police Department and Fire Department play vital roles in assisting the Emergency Management Office with coordination of emergency activities. The Town of East Haven has an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in place signed by the Mayor, approved by the Town Council and it does extend the duties and powers of the Mayor and/or his designee in the event of a declared emergency. In the event of an emergency the public will be notified and kept informed as events unfold and situations change. The Town utilizes the state-sponsored Everbridge system as a primary notification which calls the telephone numbers in the areas predicted to be affected. This system broadcasts in the event of a power failure and residents with a standard phone can receive messages. The Town also utilizes the Government Access Channel on the cable TV system (Channel 20 on cable), and a “crawl” located on the town website. The "crawl" provides pertinent emergency information for residents. In a large power outage event, the town may utilize multiple emergency vehicles equipped with speaker systems to broadcast emergency information. If the event manages to interrupt the Town's communications systems for a longer period of time, post emergency vehicles will be posted at major intersections so that a call for assistance can be relayed to the Emergency Management Office and help can be dispatched.

Department of Fire – Rescue – EMS The Fire Commission consists of five members appointed by the Mayor and has jurisdiction over and general control of the Fire Department. The Fire Department is the primary agency involved with hazard mitigation through emergency services and public education. The Fire Department generally handles the coordination, staging locations, and the incident command structure during emergency events. This can include planning and coordination of personnel, equipment, shelters, and other resources necessary during an emergency. The logistics of the response to events are also handled by the Fire Department in coordination with the Emergency Management Director. The Fire Chief and Fire Marshal are appointed by the Mayor.


Police Department The Police Commission consists of five members appointed by the Mayor, and has jurisdiction and general control of the Police Department. The Chief of Police is appointed by the Mayor in accordance with State Statutes. Day-to-day duties of the Police Department include crime prevention, criminal investigations, traffic enforcement, motor vehicle accident investigations, and patrols. Duties related to hazard mitigation are typically those related to traffic control. Communication and coordination with the Fire Department is critical before, during, and after natural hazard emergencies. Public Works Department

The Public Works Department is subdivided into three units and directs the Parks Department. The Main Unit’s responsibilities include construction and maintenance of roadways, sidewalks, and drainage systems; maintenance of all parks and school properties; leaf and Christmas tree pick up; street sweeping, sanding, and snow removal; the preservation, care and removal of trees within the Town’s rights–of–way and/or public places; and maintenance of Town vehicles and equipment. The Sanitation Unit monitors access to the Town's Landfill. The Building Maintenance Unit performs maintenance activities on Town owned buildings. The Parks Department maintains school grounds, municipal grounds, beach grounds and playing fields. The Public Works department is staffed by full-time workers with expertise in heavy equipment and tree work as well as snow removal and general labor. As is common throughout Connecticut, the Public Works Department is often charged with implementing numerous structural projects that are related to hazard mitigation. Specifically, roadway/infrastructure maintenance and complaint logging/tracking are the two primary duties of the Public Work Department. For example, the Public Works Department tracks, plans, prepares for, and responds to flooding, inundation, and/or erosion of roads and infrastructure. The Public Works Department also conducts snow removal and deicing on roads; tree and tree limb removal in rights-of-way; and maintains and upgrades storm drainage systems to prevent flooding caused by rainfall. Because of the duties described above, the Public Works Department is often the de facto first responder during emergencies. The Public Works Department must maintain access for the Police and Fire Departments to respond to emergencies. Building Department The Building Official administers the Town's building inspection program adhering to and enforcing all code requirements of the State of Connecticut relating to building construction. Additional responsibilities include administering and enforcing all related state codes for the safety, health, and welfare of persons and properties in Town, supervising departmental policies and procedures, and providing technical assistance to Town officials.


The Building Official has a unique responsibility when it comes to hazard mitigation as he or she is responsible for overseeing a number of codes such as those related to wind damage prevention as well as those related to inland and coastal flood damage prevention. Although other departments and commissions may review development plans and develop or revise regulations, many important types of pre-disaster mitigation are funneled through and enforced by the Building Department. For example, the Building Department enforces A- and V-zone standards for floodproof construction and building elevations, maintains elevation certificates, and enforces building codes that protect against wind and fire damage. Thus, the types of mitigation that are administered by the Building Department include prevention and property protection. The primary role of the Building Department during disaster situations is to provide damage assessment, inspect damaged buildings and issue permits for temporary structures and actions necessary to maintain safety standards. A comprehensive list of the Building Department’s emergency responsibilities is provided in the East Haven EOP. Engineering Department The Town Engineer plans, directs, and coordinates engineering contracts and construction projects, including bridges, sanitary, and marine development. This official provides technical consultation to Town boards and commissions and serves as Town liaison with various state agencies. As such, the Town Engineer will often need to review issues related to drainage, flood conveyance, and flood mitigation and related elements of structural hazard mitigation. Department of Social Services Among the many adult and family support services provided by the Social Services director, this department is responsible for information regarding emergency shelters. Planning and Zoning Department The Planning and Zoning Department enforces the local zoning and subdivision regulations, provides staff assistance to the planning and Zoning Commission, and performs long term planning activities related to land use and community development. This department drafts, updates and implements the goals and objectives of the Town Plan of Development. The planning office provides assistance to the Health Department and Building and Engineering Departments and is responsible for housing and economic development planning. The Zoning Enforcement Officer enforces the zoning regulations and is the administrator of the inland wetlands regulations and coastal site plan decisions on issues of zoning compliance.


Because the Planning Department assists the applicable commissions with administration of the Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, and Inland Wetland Regulations (described below in Section 2.8), the department is responsible for elements of almost all six facets of mitigation (prevention, property protection, natural resource protection, structural projects, emergency services, and public education). Flood and Erosion Control Board Chapter 9 of the 1982 Code of Ordinances established a Flood and Erosion Control Board. The five members are appointed by the Mayor. This board was created pursuant to the authority of Public Act No. 509 of the General Assembly, now Sections 25-84 through 25-94 of the Connecticut General Statutes. The board is comprised of five members who are electors of the town and are appointed by the Town Council. The Town Engineer is responsible for the administration, implementation, and enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance. The East Haven Zoning Board of Appeals hears and decides upon requests for requirements specified in the code. The Flood & Erosion Commission’s role in hazard mitigation is very important. Wetlands preservation is one of the purest forms of hazard mitigation due to the natural functions and values of wetlands, including stream bank and shoreline stabilization, and flood water storage. In this capacity the Flood & Erosion Commission administers the Waterway Protection Line Ordinance in conjunction with the Flood and Erosion Control Board, the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, and the Aquifer Protection Regulations. Parks and Recreation Department The Parks and Recreation Department oversees town open space parks. This responsibility includes the properties acquired by the town for hazard mitigation purposes and converted to open space. This department’s responsibilities during emergencies are also outlined in the EOP. In addition to open space properties managed by the Parks and Recreation Department, there are several non-profit organizations active in acquiring and preserving environmentally sensitive land in East Haven. Some properties held by these organizations contain wetland and floodplain areas. While not municipal agencies, activities conducted by these organizations have enabled the town to receive additional credit points under the CRS in the past. Town Attorney The Town Attorney's office plays a critical role in hazard mitigation. The office administers grant applications and projects under the HMA programs such as HMGP and PDM.


Additional Groups In addition to Town offices, the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the East Shore Health District and ARES-Ham Radio Operators provide services related to mitigation and emergency management. The American Red Cross and the Salvation Army help provide shelter and vital services during disasters and participates in public education activities. The Health District regulates several types of businesses that include operations that are potential threats to public water and the environment. It also maintains a list of residents who require assistance during emergencies. ARES-Ham Radio Operators will establish back-up communications at all shelters to the EOC.

2.9 Review of Existing Plans The Town has two primary plans which act to address elements of hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness. Plan of Conservation and Development (2007) The Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) was adopted on September 5, 2007 with contributions from local boards and commissions, citizens, and citizen groups. The purpose of the plan is to balance growth with maintaining the quality of life that citizens within the Town embrace. The plan does not directly address pre-disaster mitigation or natural hazards, however it does provide strategies for addressing development in floodplains, near steep slopes, and in coastal hazard areas. Chapter C of the POCD addresses strategies for Environmental Preservation throughout East Haven. This section identifies the need for protection of tidal marshes, fresh water, groundwater resources, inland wetland areas, and property in flood-prone areas. Specific strategies address periodic flooding of neighborhoods along the Farm River and in coast areas, noting that structural improvements and floodplain regulations have the potential to alleviate many of the problems. The POCD recommends the new development in coastal hazard areas be strongly discouraged and that beach erosion control measures be implemented. Specifically, the POCD notes that "prevention of coastal flooding and damage be accomplished primarily through the prevention of substandard development, instead of expensive and complicated flood control projects." Strategies in Chapter K (Land Use) of the POCD include the recommendation that zoning regulations utilize the concept of "buildable area," which would not include areas of steep slopes (in excess of 30%), water bodies or wetlands. This section also recommends that there be some regulation of the alteration of slopes to prevent against improper excavation, instability, and falling material. Emergency Operations Plan The Town of East Haven has an EOP in place signed by the Mayor, approved by the


Town Council, and extending the duties and powers of the Mayor and/or his designee in the event of a declared emergency. The EOP was most recently updated in 2008. Sections I through III of the EOP provide its authority, mission and purpose. The EOP explains that East Haven is exposed to a number of hazards that may require the implementation of the EOP. These hazards include natural disasters such as hurricanes, Nor-Easters, and river flooding. The EOP identifies additional facilities that may pose risks:

Tweed New Haven Regional Airport: The airport supports commercial as well as general aviation. Currently US Airways conducts up to 50 passenger turbo-prop aircraft. There are numerous small private jets and private carriers in operation during all hours day and night as well. This facility could be a target of terrorism and the site of a disaster if an aircraft were to crash land either on or near the airport.

New Haven Terminal: Contains nine large oil storage tanks supplying gasoline and

heating oil for most of southern New England. It could be a terrorist target and or a major spill or fire hazard. Its location in very close proximity to I-95 would cause traffic interruption in the event of a visible incident as well.

South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority water treatment facility: The

facility utilizes various chemicals to treat water supplied East Haven, Branford and New Haven with water.

Interstate 95 and Am-Trak & Penn Central Railroad: Incidents involving the rail line,

or the Interstate, could involve the need to protect a large population including two schools, one elderly housing unit and the entire business district of town. A large incident would quickly require assistance from out of town. A rail accident involving chemicals could cause complete evacuation of the town.

United Illuminating High Voltage Power Transmission lines: These lines bi-sect the town in an East-West corridor in the southern half of the town.

Section IV of the EOP describes situations and assumptions. This section describes the location and existing infrastructure within the Town of East Haven, including schools, fuel supply, transportation corridors, emergency facilities and various utilities. The assumptions section notes that:

Flooding may occur during any season of the year; Outside assistance may not be available; A hurricane, tornado, wind storm, electrical storm, severe ice and/or snow storm,

blizzard, etc. affecting the municipality can cause the loss of power, telephone service, and other utilities;

Incidents involving extremely hazardous substances at a fixed site have been identified in the town’s Local Emergency Response Plan;


The Everbridge alerting system would be used in addition to mobile vehicles alerting the public;

The T. William Webster Bridge, if seriously damaged or destroyed, could cut off the north and south parts of town; and

Town services would not be adequate to handle a disaster emergency of great severity without additional support.

Section V of the EOP describes organizational logistics, defining the roles of the Chief Executive Officer, the Emergency Management Director and the Civil Preparedness Forces. Section VI of the EOP describes the concept of operations. Section VII of the EOP describes the plan activation procedure. Section VIII of the EOP describes the continuity of government Section IX of the EOP describes specific mission assignments and includes various annexes:

Annex A Direction and Control Annex B Law Enforcement Annex C Fire Department Annex D Public Services Department Annex E Warning Annex F Emergency Communications Annex H Evacuation Annex I Shelter Management Annex K Public Health Annex L Board of Education Annex M Damage Assessment Annex O Resource Management Annex P Mobile Annex S Weapons of Mass Destruction

Section X of the EOP describes the various support organization that will assist residents during emergency scenarios. These include the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, Senior Citizens Center, Public Utilities, Emergency Medical Services, and the Water Department. Section XI of the EOP describes the direction and control at the Emergency Operations Center and "On-Scene." Section XII of the EOP describes alternate operating sites. Section XIII of the EOP describes special requirements, including plan distribution, specific departmental annexes, and disaster emergency records. Sections XIV through XV of the EOP include the Glossary, Promulgation, and Attachments such as how to declare an emergency and the Town's hazards area map.


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

Flood Damage Prevention Flood damage prevention is covered by Chapter 9 of the Code of the Town of East Haven. This section is the Town’s articulation of the NFIP regulations. The Code requires that any development activities that will occur in a special flood hazard area will must be granted a floodplain development permit from the Town Engineer. The lowest floor elevation shall be verified for: 1. A structure in zone A or AE is the top of the lowest floor including basement 2. A structure in zones V or VE is the lowest horizontal structural member (excluding

pilings or columns) 3. A nonresidential structure that has been dry floodproofed is the elevation to which

the floodproofing is effective (i.e. one foot above the base flood elevation). In coastal high hazard areas (zones V and VE), certification shall be obtained that the structure is designed to be adequately anchored pilings or columns in order to withstand velocity waters and hurricane wave wash. The Town Engineer is also responsible for reviewing plans for the adequacy of breakaway walls. The Flood Damage Prevention and Control Code requires the following for areas of special flood hazards: 1. New construction, substantial improvements, and repair to structures that have

sustained substantial damage shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage.

2. New construction, substantial improvements, and repair to structures that have sustained substantial damage shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage.

3. New construction, substantial improvements, and repair to structures that have sustained substantial damage shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy.

4. New construction, substantial improvements, and repair to structures that have sustained substantial damage cannot be constructed or located entirely or partially over water unless it is a functionally dependent use or facility.


5. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning equipment, HVAC ductwork, other service facilities, or any machinery or utility equipment or connections servicing a structure shall be elevation to or above the base flood elevation (BFE) to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding, this includes, but is not limited to, furnaces, oil or propane tanks, air conditioners, heat pumps, hot water heaters, ventilation ductwork, washer and dryer hook-ups, electrical junction boxes, and circuit breaker boxes.

6. New and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system.

7. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system and discharges from the system into floodwaters.

8. On-site waste disposal systems shall be located and constructed to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding.

9. Above-ground storage tanks (oil, propane, etc.) which are located outside or inside of the structure must either be elevated above the BFE on a concrete pad, or be securely anchored with tie-down straps to prevent flotation or lateral movement, have the top of the ill pipe extended above the BFE, and have a screw fill cap that does not allow for the infiltration of floodwater.

10. In any portion of a watercourse that is altered or relocated, the flood-carrying capacity must be maintained. Notify adjacent communities and the CTDEEP, Inland Water Resources Division prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse.

11. If any portion of a structure lies within the SFHA, the entire structure is considered to be located within the SFHA. The entire structure must meet the construction requirements of the flood zone. The structure includes any attached additions, garages, decks, sunrooms, or any other structure attached to the main structure. Decks or porches that extend into a more restrictive flood zone will require the entire structure to meet the standard of the more restrictive zone.

12. If a structure lies within two or more flood zones, the construction standards of the most restrictive zone apply to the entire structure. The structure includes any attached additions, garages, decks, sunrooms, or any other structure attached to the main structure.

13. Compensatory storage. The water holding capacity of the floodplain, except those areas that are tidally influenced, shall not be reduced. Any reduction caused by filling, new construction or substantial improvements involving an increase in footprint to the structure, shall be compensated for by deepening and/or widening of the floodplain.

14. Equal conveyance. Within the floodplain, except those areas which are tidally influenced, as designated on the FIRM for the community, encroachments resulting from filling, new construction or substantial improvements involving an increase in footprint of the structure, are prohibited unless the applicant provides certification by a registered professional engineer demonstrating that such encroachments shall not results in any increase in BFE. Work within the floodplain and the land adjacent to


the floodplain, including work to provide compensatory storage shall not be constructed in such a way as to cause an increase in flood stage or flood velocity.

In A Zones where base flood elevations have not been determined, the lowest floor, including basement, must be elevated to two feet above the highest adjacent grade next to the structure. In AE Zones where a floodway has not been designated, the Town Engineer must require that no new construction, substantial improvements, repair to structures which have sustained substantial damage or other development, including fill, shall be permitted which will increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community when all existing and anticipated development is considered cumulatively with the proposed development. For development in Zones A and AE, specific construction standards apply: 1. Residential construction. All new construction, substantial improvements, and repair

to structures that have sustained substantial damage which are residential structures shall have the bottom of the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above the BFE. Electrical, plumbing, machinery or other utility equipment that service the structure must be elevated to or above the BFE.

2. Nonresidential construction. All new construction, substantial improvements, and repair to structures that have sustained substantial damage which are commercial, industrial or non-residential structures shall: a. Have the bottom of the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above the

BFE; or b. In lieu of being elevated, non-residential structures may be dry floodproofed to

one foot above the BFE provided that together with all attendant utilities and sanitary facilities the areas of the structure below the required elevation are watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, and provided that such structures are composed of structural components having the capability or resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. A registered professional engineer or architect shall review and/or develop structural design specifications and plans for the construction, and shall certify that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with acceptable standards of practice for meeting the provisions of the code.

c. Electrical, plumbing, machinery or other utility equipment that service the structure must be elevated to or above the BFE.

3. Fully enclosed areas below the base flood elevation of elevated buildings. All new construction, substantial improvements, and repair to structures that have sustained substantial damage, whether residential or non-residential, that include fully enclosed areas formed by a foundation and other exterior walls below the based flood elevation of an elevated building shall be designed to preclude finished living space and be designed to allow for the entry and exit of floodwater to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls (wet


floodproofing). Designs for complying with this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect, or meet the following minimum criteria listed below: a. Provide a minimum of two openings (hydraulic flood vents) having a total net

area of not less than one square inch for every one square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. These hydraulic openings must be located on at least two different walls. Only the area that lies below the BFE can be used in the calculation of net area of vents required. If the structure has more than one enclosed area, openings must be installed in the exterior walls of each enclosed area so that floodwaters can enter directly from the outside;

b. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above the finished grade adjacent to the outside of the foundation wall. At least on entire side of the structure's fully enclosed area must be at or above grade. Fill placed around the foundation walls must be graded so that the elevation inside the enclosed area is equal to or higher than the adjacent outside elevation on at least one side of the building. The finished floor of the enclosed area shall be no lower than the bottom of the foundation openings. The foundation slab of a residential structure, including the slab of a crawlspace, must be set equal to the outside finished grade on at least one side of the building.

c. The openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other coverings or devices provided they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters in both directions without any external influence or control such as human interventions, including the use of electrical and other non-automatic mechanical means. These coverings must not block or impede the automatic flow of floodwaters into and out of the enclosed area. Other coverings may be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer or approved by the East Haven Town Engineer;

d. The area cannot be used as finished living space. Use of the enclosed area shall be the minimum necessary and shall only be used for the parking of vehicles, building access or limited storage. Access to the enclosed area shall be the minimum necessary to allow for the parking of vehicles (garage door) or limited storage of maintenance equipment used in connection with the premises (standard exterior door) or entry to the living area (stairway or elevator). The enclosed area shall not be used for human habitation or partitioned into separate rooms;

e. All interior walls, floor, and ceiling materials located below the BFE shall be unfinished and resistant to flood damage.

f. Electrical, plumbing, HVAC ductwork, machinery or other utility equipment and connections that service the structure (including, but not limited to, furnaces, oil or propane tanks, air conditioners, heat pumps, hot water heaters, ventilation, washer and dryer hook-ups, electrical junction boxes, circuit breaker boxes and food freezers) are prohibited in the fully enclosed area below the BFE. Utilities or service equipment located in this enclosed area, even if elevated above the BFE in the space, will subject the structure to increased flood insurance rates.


g. A residential building with a structurally attached garage having the floor slab below the BFE is considered an enclosed area below the BFE. A garage attached to a residential structure, constructed with the garage floor slab below the BFE, must be designed to allow for the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters in both directions. Flood openings or vents are required in the exterior walls of the garage or in the garage doors. Garage doors that must be manually opened do not meet the flood vent opening requirements. In addition to the automatic entry of floodwaters, the areas of the garage below BFE must be constructed with flood-resistant materials. Garages attached to non-residential structures must also meet the aforementioned requirements or be dry floodproofed.

Relative to coastal high hazard areas (Zones V and VE), the following provisions shall apply: 1. All new construction, substantial improvement and repair to structures that have

sustained substantial damage shall be located at least 25 feet landward of the reach of the mean high tide.

2. All new construction, substantial improvement and repair to structures that have sustained substantial damage shall be elevated so that the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member (excluding pilings or columns) is located at or above the BFE, with all space below the lowest horizontal supporting member open and free of obstruction so as not to impede the flow of water. Electrical, plumbing, machinery or other utility equipment that service the structure must be elevated to or above the BFE and cannot be located below the structure. Any service equipment that must be located below the BFE must be floodproofed to prevent water from entering during conditions of flooding.

3. All new construction, substantial improvement and repair to structures that have sustained substantial damage shall be securely anchored on pilings or columns.

4. All pilings and columns and the attached structures shall be anchored to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement due to the effect of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building components. The anchoring and support system shall be designed with wind and water loading values required by applicable state or local building codes.

5. A registered professional engineer or architect shall develop structural specifications and plans for the construction and shall certify that the design, specifications, and plans for construction are in accordance with acceptable standards and are in compliance with the provisions contained in subsections (b)(1)-(4).

6. There shall be no fill used as structural support. Limited non-compacted fill may be used around the perimeter of a building for landscaping/aesthetic purposes provided the fill will wash out from storm surge, thereby rendering the building free of obstruction, prior to generating excessive loading forces, ramping effects, or wave deflection. The Town Engineer shall approve design plans for landscaping/aesthetic fill only after the applicant has provided an analysis by an engineer, architect, and/or soil scientist which demonstrates that the following factors have been fully


considered: (1) Particle composition of the fill material does not have a tendency for excessive natural compaction; (2) Volume and distribution of fill will not cause wave deflection to adjacent properties; and (3) Slope of fill will not cause wave run-up or ramping.

7. There shall be no alteration of sand dunes which would increase potential flood damage.

8. Prior to construction, plans for any structures that will have breakaway walls, lattice work or screening must be submitted to the Town Engineer for approval.

9. Non-supporting breakaway wall, latticework, or mesh screening shall be allowed below the base flood elevation provided that it is not part of the structural support of the structure and is designed so as to break away, under abnormally high tides or wave action, without damage to the structural integrity of the structure on which it is to be used and provided that the following design specifications are met: (1) Design safe loading resistance of each wall shall not be less than 10 nor more than 20 pounds per square foot; or (2) If more than 20 pounds per square foot, a registered professional engineer or architect shall certify that the design wall collapse would result from a water load less than that which would occur during the base flood event, and the elevated portion of the building and supporting foundation system shall not be subject to collapse, displacement, or other structural damage due to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building components prior to or during the collapse of such wall.

10. If breakaway walls, latticework, or screening are utilized, the resulting enclosed space shall not be designed to be used for human habitation, but shall be designed to be used only for parking of vehicles, building access, or limited storage of maintenance equipment used in connection with the premises.

11. Any alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement to a structure shall not enclose the space below the lowest floor except with breakaway walls, latticework, or screening as provided for in Subsections (b)(8) and (b)(9) of this section.

Relative to manufactured (mobile) homes and recreational vehicles (RVs) in special flood hazard areas, the following requirements shall apply: 1. In SFHA with zones A and AE, any manufactured (mobile) home to be newly placed,

undergoing a substantial improvement or repaired as a result of substantial damage, shall be elevated so that the bottom of the lowest floor is at or above the BFE. The manufactured home must also meet all the construction standards for zones A and AE as per subsection (a). This includes SFHAs outside a manufactured home park or subdivision, in a new manufactured home park or subdivision, in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or on a site in an existing manufactured home park in which a manufactured home has incurred substantial damage as a result of a flood.

2. In SFHA with zones V and VE, any manufactured (mobile) home to be newly placed, undergoing a substantial improvement or repaired as a result of substantial damage, shall be elevated so that the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member is at or above the BFE. The manufactured home must also meet all the construction


standards for zones V and VE as per subsection (b). This includes SFHAs outside a manufactured home park or subdivision, in a new manufactured home park or subdivision, in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or on a site in an existing manufactured home park in which a manufactured home has incurred substantial damage as a result of a flood.

3. All manufactured (mobile) homes within SFHA shall be placed on a permanent foundation which itself is securely anchored and to which the structure is securely anchored so that it will resist flotation, lateral movement and hydrostatic pressures. Anchoring may include, but not be limited to, the use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors.

4. All manufactured (mobile) homes within SFHA shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Adequate access and drainage should be provided. Elevation construction standards include piling foundations placed no more than ten feet apart, and reinforcement is provided for piers more than six feet above ground level.

5. Recreational vehicles placed on sites within zones A and AE in the SFHA shall either be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, and be fully licensed and ready for highway use, or meet all the general standards of section 9-76 and the elevation and anchoring requirements of subsections (c)(1), (c)(3), and (c)(4). A recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if it is on wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and has no permanently attached additions.

6. Recreational vehicles placed on sites within zones V and VE in the SFHA shall either be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, and be fully licensed and ready for highway use, or meet all the general standards of section 9-76, the V zone construction requirements of subsection (b), and the elevation and anchoring requirements of subsections (c)(1), (c)(3), and (c)(4).

Relative to subdivisions in special flood hazard areas, the following requirements shall apply: 1. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage. 2. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas,

electrical, and water systems, located and constructed to minimize flood damage. 3. All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure

to flood hazards. 4. The Town Engineer shall require the applicant to provide BFE data for all subdivision

proposals, including manufactured home parks and subdivisions, as per subsection 9-70(12). In all SFHA where BFE data is not available, the applicant shall provide a hydrologic and hydraulic engineering analysis performed by a registered professional engineer that generates BFEs for all subdivision proposals and other proposed development, including manufactured home parks and subdivisions.


Zoning Regulations In East Haven, the Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with administering the Zoning Regulations. Farm River Floodplain Overlay District The Farm River Floodplain Overlay District is described in Section 29 of the Zoning Regulations. The overlay district extends from the river's point of origin at the East Haven/North Branford town line and runs in a generally southern direction along the centerline of the entire length of the Farm River to a point located immediately north of the Interstate 95 overpass. The easterly and westerly limits of the overlay district extend to all areas of special flood hazard for the 100 year storm. The Zoning Administrator and Town Engineer are responsible for administering and implementing district provisions. The regulations articulate a permitting process for new or substantially improved structures in accordance with the provisions of the Flood Damage Prevention and Control Ordinance (described above). Specifically, this section prohibits the construction, reconstruction, expansion or relocation of any structure; and the filling or development of land area or storage of goods, materials, and equipment within this overlay district. Activities which may be permitted so long as there is no impact on flooding include minor internal alteration of buildings, in-ground pools, open design fencing, relocation of detached accessory structures, and elevated structures in less vulnerable fringe areas beyond the floodway. Stormwater Management Stormwater requirements were strengthened in the Zoning Regulations per amendment and are found in Section 48. The regulations provide required design practices and technical standards, generally following the state's Stormwater Quality Manual. Coastal Area Management The Coastal Area Management regulations, detailed in Section 46, outline measures to protect the coastal area of the town in a matter consistent with the Connecticut Coastal Management Act. The Coastal Area is defined on the Coastal Boundary Map and consists of all that area seaward of the Coastal Boundary. The Coastal Boundary is a continuous line, formed by the farther inland of: the 100 year flood line, 1,000 feet from the main high tide line, or 1,000 feet from the inland boundary of tidal wetlands. The regulations specify that no activity involving the use of land, buildings and other structures situated fully or partially within the Coastal Area shall be approved until the Coastal Site Plan Review requirements and procedures set forth in Sections 22A-105 through 22A-109 of the General Statues of the State of Connecticut have been satisfied.


The following uses are exempt from the Coastal Site Plan Review requirements: (1) gardening, grazing and harvesting of crops; (2) minor additions or modifications of existing buildings or detached accessory buildings except within 50 feet of Wetlands, Beaches and Dunes or Coastal Bluffs and Escarpments; (3) Construction or modification of structures including fences, walls, walks, utilities; (4) construction of an individual single family residential structure except within 100 feet of Wetlands, Beaches and Dunes or Coastal Bluffs and Escarpments; (5) activities related to conserving or preserving soil, vegetation, water, fish, shellfish, wildlife and other coastal land and water resources; (6) interior modifications to buildings or structures; and (7) minor changes in the use of a building except those adjacent to coastal waters. Subdivision Regulations Subdivision of land is defined in Chapter 14 of the Town of East Haven Code. In East Haven, the Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with administering Subdivision Regulations. Components of the regulations that directly or indirectly address hazard mitigation (flooding, public safety, etc.) are listed below:

Section 7.1, General: Subdivisions proposed in areas of special flood hazard, including their utilities and drainage facilities, shall be located and designed to be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage.

Section 7.2, Building Lots: Proposed building lots shall be of such shape, size,

location, topography and character that buildings can be reasonably constructed thereon, and that they can be occupied and used for building purposes without danger to the health, safety and welfare of the occupants and the public. Any lot which is found to be unsuitable for occupancy and/or building by reason of water or flooding conditions, unsuitable soil, topography, ledge or rock outcroppings, depressions or other conditions shall be combined with another continuous lot that is suitable, or shall be marked "this is not an approved lot" on the subdivision map...additional design standards are provided).

Section 7.2.1, Lot Size: Each lot shall conform to the Zoning Regulations of the

Town of East Haven. In addition, where the lot is not to be served by the public water supply and/or sanitary sewers, each lot shall have sufficient area and suitable dimensions to provide ample space to accommodate a private water supply system [where adequate public water supply is not available] and/or to accommodate the proper layout, installation and future extension of private sewage disposal system [where sanitary sewers are not available]. Both as needed by the intended use of the lot and both in accordance with good engineering practice and the applicable requirements of the Connecticut State Department of Health and the Director of Health for the Town of East Haven.

Section 7.3.2, Street Planning: Proposed streets and rights-of-way shall be planned in such a manner as to provide safe and convenient access to proposed lots and safe and


convenient circulation within the neighborhood in which the subdivision is located…. (additional design standards are provided).

Section 7.3.10, Dead end Streets: No permanent dead end street shall be planned

except when topography or physical conditions make it impractical to extend it or connect it with another proposed or existing street….(additional design standards are provided).

Section 7.3.17, Street Utilities: All utilities for residential subdivisions shall be placed underground...

Section 7.4.1, Pipes and Ditches: Sufficient pipe shall be installed within the subdivision to carry existing watercourses… and to drain the proposed streets and streets which may be reasonably expected to be constructed at some future date on adjoining land which normally drains across the area of the proposed subdivision….

Section 7.4.4, Discharge: the discharge of all storm water from the subdivision shall

be into suitable streams or rivers, or into Town drains, ditches or other Town drainage facilities with an adequate capacity to carry the additional water (additional design standards are provided).

Section 7.6, Sanitary Sewers: In areas of "special flood hazard," sanitary sewers shall be located and designed to avoid impairment and to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system and discharge from the system into flood waters.

Section 7.7, Water Supply: In areas of special flood hazard, water supply systems shall be located and designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system.

Section 7.9, Channel Lines: Channel and Building lines shall be provided along any major stream or river for the purpose of preventing encroachment upon, and constriction of the natural water channel by buildings, filling operations or other facilities and construction...

Inland Wetland and Watercourses Regulations In East Haven, the Inland Wetlands Commission is charged with administering the Inland Wetland and Watercourses Regulations. In Connecticut, wetlands are identified as related to flood hazard mitigation within the state enabling regulations, and this is often stated as such in the title section of local regulations.


2.11 Critical Facilities, Sheltering Capacity, and Evacuation The Town considers that several categories of facilities are critical for these are needed to ensure that emergencies are addressed while day-to-day management of the community continues:

Emergency Services – Police and Fire Departments Municipal Facilities – Town Hall, shelters, Public Works facility Health Care – assisted living and other facilities Air Transportation – Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport The three underpasses below Interstate 95 that connect the northern and southern

parts of the town The telecommunications tower near the police station The Lake Saltonstall water treatment plant (owned by the South Central Connecticut

Regional Water Authority) and various wastewater pumping stations owned by the Town of East Haven

A list of critical facilities is provided in Table 2-5 on the next page. Figure 2-9 depicts locations of critical facilities. A few notable categories of critical facilities are discussed below. Fire and Police Department Facilities The fire headquarters is located at 200 Main Street. Outlying fire stations are located at 1420 North High Street (Foxon Fire Station 3), 85 George Street (Bradford Manor Station 4), and 84 Short Beach Road (Riverside Fire Station 6). None of the fire stations are located in hurricane surge zones or flood zones. The Police Department Headquarters is located at 471 North High Street, and is located in a flood zone associated with the Farm River. The POCD noted that significant new residential development in the northeast area of the Town could necessitate the construction of a new fire station in the vicinity of upper Thompson Street/Borrelli Road. The Plan also recommended the renovation and expansion of the Fire Department Headquarters at its present location. However, current call volumes do not support a more northern station with its associated costs. The Fire Department’s current intention is to co-locate the fire headquarters near Dodge Avenue and Hemmingway Avenue with Station 4 for a more responsive and less duplicative usage of apparatus and personnel, more response options, more efficient management of resources, and limited effect on response times. Public Works Facilities The Public Works facility is located in a flood zone associated with the Farm River. A flood or hurricane surge could damage the facility, making it impossible for the Public Works Department to operate during and after a disaster.


TABLE 2-5 Critical Facilities

Facility Address or Location Emergency Power Supply? Shelter?

In Floodplain or Coastal Flood Hazard Area?

In Surge Zones?

Emergency Services Police Station 471 North High Street Yes No Yes No Fire Headquarters 200 Main Street Yes No No No Foxon Fire Station 1420 North High Street Yes Yes No No Bradford Manor Station 85 George Street Yes Yes No No Riverside Fire Station 82 Short Beach Road Yes No No No Municipal Facilities Town Hall 250 Main Street No No No No DPW Facility 461 North High Street Yes No Yes No Shelter: East Haven Senior Center 91 Taylor Ave Yes Yes No Cat. 4 Shelter: East Haven High School 35 Wheelbarrow Lane Yes Yes No No Health Care and Senior Living Facilities The Village at Mariner's Point (senior living) 111 South Shore Drive Yes No No No Woodview Elderly Housing (senior living) 1270 North High Street Limited No No No Talmadge Park Health Care (nursing home) 38 Talmadge Avenue Yes No No Cat. 3 Laurel Woods Convalescent Home 451 N High S Yes No No No Stewart Rest Home (nursing home) 93 High Street Yes No No No Caroline Manor (nursing home) 37 Clark Avenue Yes No No No Other Infrastructure and Facilities Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport 155 Burr St. (New Haven) Yes No Yes Cat. 1 Sewer pumping stations Various Yes No Yes Various Lake Saltonstall Water Treatment Plant Main Street Yes No No No Telecommunications station 471 North High Street Yes No No No North High Street underpass at I-95 North High Street NA NA No No Laurel Street underpass at I-95 Lauren Street NA NA No No Frontage Road underpass at I-95 Frontage Road NA NA No No


East Haven, CTFigure 2-9: East Haven Critical FacilitiesLOCATION:

#I#I

#I

#I

#I

#I

#I#I

#I

#I

#I

#I#I

#I

#I

#I

#I

#I#I#I

#I

Foxon Fire Station

Bradford Manor Station

Fire Dept Hdqtrs.Town Hall

Riverside Fire Dept

East Haven Senior Center

Community Food Bank

Laurel Woods

Police Dept./Public Works

Woodview Elderly Housing

Stewart Rest Home

Talmadge Park Health Care

Caroline Manor

The Village at Mariner's Point

Tweed-New Haven Airport

East Haven High School

Saltonstall WTP

I-95 Bridge (Laurel St.)

I-95 Bridge (North High St.)

I-95 Bridge (Frontage Rd.)

Telecommunications Station

SOURCE(S):



2731-02

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:


H:\CriticalFacilities.mxdMXD:Jan. 2012

BAM


Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport The Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport is located on the New Haven-East Haven boundary. The airport is considered a critical facility and is located within the FEMA coastal flood zone (Zone A) and within a Category 1 Hurricane Surge zone. As such, limited availability should be expected during disasters. After disasters, rapid recovery of the airport would be imperative. Shelters Emergency shelters are considered to be an important subset of critical facilities as they are needed in emergency situations. Town officials have designated the East Haven High School, the senior center, Foxon Fire Station, and Bradford Manor Station as the shelters. These are not to be confused with safe rooms or individual storm shelters, such as designated rooms in certain buildings that are meant to provide increased levels of protection from winds. Notification will be made as to which shelters will be open prior to the event on Public Access TV, the town website, the East Haven Fire Department website (www.easthavenfire.com) and local radio and TV stations. In a power outage situation, portable or car radios can be utilized. WPLR 99.1 FM and WELI 960 AM are local stations. As explained in the EOP, the Emergency Management Director is the liaison between the Human Services Department, the Superintendent of Schools, and the Red Cross in determining which schools will be opened as public shelters. The Superintendent of Schools develops a student evacuation plan. He or she coordinates with the Emergency Management Director to use buses for transport of students and/or evacuees and to work out arrangements to use schools as shelters. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared the Connecticut Hurricane Evacuation Study and Technical Data Report in 1994. Refer to Appendix D for sections of the report such as the various tables that provide information for the Town of East Haven. According to the study report, four shelters were available as of the date of the study: Deer Run School (capacity 600), East Haven Middle School (capacity 1,500), Foxon Station #3 (capacity 200), and Hayes School (capacity 300). The ARC had not agreed to operate any of the shelters. According to the report, the following populations in East Haven are vulnerable to Category 1 and 2 hurricanes: Persons in mobile homes: ..................................................................................................10 Permanent population in evacuation zones ...................................................................9,740 Seasonal population in evacuation zones .........................................................................130 Total ..............................................................................................................................9,880


The following populations in East Haven are vulnerable to Category 3 and 4 hurricanes: Persons in mobile homes: ..................................................................................................10 Permanent population in evacuation zones .................................................................13,530 Seasonal population in evacuation zones .........................................................................150 Total ............................................................................................................................13,690 The estimated shelter capacity as of the date of the study (1994) was 2,600. The estimated shelter demand for a Category 1 or 2 storm was 9,880 whereas the estimated demand for a Category 3 or 4 storm was 13,690. Therefore, capacities were inadequate for the estimated evacuees. As noted above, the high school is currently the primary shelter and the elementary schools are secondary shelters for residents of the Town The ARC has published a guidebook entitled Standards for Hurricane Evacuation Shelter Selection (American Red Cross Publication #4496). The publication provides guidelines for selecting shelters relative to resilience from storm surges, flooding, and hurricane winds. While the publication recognizes that not all communities are able to identify an ideal shelter, it urges communities to consider as many of the criteria as possible. The ARC also had formal standards for shelters regarding space and internal facilities, but these standards are unrelated to structural resilience. A primary shelter should have the ability to operate with a standby source of power such as an emergency generator. While FEMA's mitigation programs are not able to fund generators, other funding programs are available for purchase of generators. The most notable example is the "Emergency Operations Center and Emergency Shelter Generator Grant Program" administered by Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS). This program specifically targets emergency operations centers and shelters, and awards can only be made for municipal facilities. It has long been recognized that several coastal areas of East Haven may become isolated from the mainland during coastal storms such as nor'easters and hurricanes. The primary area of concern is the Morris Cove neighborhood. Residents choosing to evacuate after a storm has caused flooding may not be able to reach the high school or one of the local elementary schools. In the event that supplies are requested and obtained from state or federal agencies for an incident lasting more than a few days, distribution points will be set up. These will be open during daylight hours only to distribute to the public in a “drive through” manner. East Haven High School will be utilized as the site for the POD (point of distribution).


Health Care Facilities The 1994 hurricane study report notes five medical and institutional facilities in East Haven: Lombardi Rest Home (now known as Caroline Manor), Talmadge Park Health Care, Stewart Rest Home, Teresa Rest Home, and Willow Rest Home. All but Willow Rest Home are still open. Caroline Manor and Stewart Rest Home are not located in a either a flood zone or a hurricane surge zone. Talmadge Park Health Care is located in a hurricane surge zone (Cat. 3,4). Teresa Rest Home is located in the adjacent City of New Haven. A more recent addition is the Laurel Woods Convalescent Home on North High Street. This facility is located within the flood zone of the Farm River. In addition to the above health care and assisted living facilities, two senior living facilities are considered by the Town to be critical facilities. These are the Village at Mariner's Point and Woodview Elderly Housing. Both are located outside flood hazard areas. Health care, assisted living and senior living facilities that are located in flood zones should be considered for floodproofing. In addition, the facilities in flood zones and those that may be cut off from flooding should develop site-specific evacuation plans that are understood by East Haven's Emergency Management Agency and upgrade their modes of egress as necessary. Evacuation Routes As part of the initial 2001 Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Town has developed a map showing evaluation routes. The map indicates two evacuation routes out of East Haven from the intersection of South End Road and Silver Sands Road at the southwest corner of the town (Morris Cove). The northerly route follows South End Road (Route 337) into neighboring New Haven and the easterly route follows Silver Sands Road (also Route 337) through south-central East Haven to Route 142. Once on Route 142 (Short Beach Road), evacuees would not be able to travel north along Coe Avenue or Hemingway Avenue, due to flooding from the Farm River estuary. Instead, evacuees would continue east on Route 142, cross the Farm River into Branford, and head north on one of several small streets to Route 1 and then Interstate 95. Refer to Appendix E for a copy of the map. The Town has installed evacuation signs in strategic locations that direct residents out of coastal flood zones. As explained in Section 1.7, the City of New Haven developed its first hazard mitigation plan in 2004-2005 and prepared an update in 2010. The New Haven part of the Morris Cove neighborhood is particularly vulnerable to coastal flooding, and there have been situations when several hundred New Haven residents must evacuate into East Haven via South End Road and Silver Sands Road (Route 337). The City of New Haven remains concerned that these city residents would then be stranded in southern East Haven due to the flooding that occurs along Coe Avenue and Hemingway Avenue. Evacuees would need to continue east into Branford as noted above.


With very limited connectivity between the northern and southern parts of East Haven, which are far apart due to the elongated shape of the community, the Town of East Haven considers the Interstate 95 bridges over Frontage Road, Laurel Street, and North High Street to be critical facilities. In particular, North High Street is the primary means of traveling between the Foxon and High Ridge in the north, to the downtown and shoreline areas to the south. Laurel Street provides only marginal backup to this major north-south route. The evacuation map should be tied to the concept of evacuation routes connected to primary shelters throughout the town, and evacuation routes should not include roads that can become submerged during coastal storms and riverine flooding. Any changes in shelter status or shelter locations will necessarily require modifications to the evacuation map. In addition, any changes in routing will necessarily require modifications to the evacuation map. FEMA and CitizenCorps have published disaster planning guides known as the "Are You Ready?" series (www.ready.gov/america/publications/index.html). These are considered among the best of the planning guides that are available from disaster-related planning and response organizations. Key publications from the series should be available to all East Haven residents. Citizen Volunteer Organizations East Haven has a Citizens Emergency Response Team (CERT). The members of this team have received training in many areas involving disaster situations such as first aid, sheltering management, and traffic control and commodities distribution along with other related tasks. This group fills a void that exists especially during large scale incidents where standard public safety staffing cannot fulfill all the necessary operations. Recommendations for Critical Facilities, Emergency Operations, and Evacuation The following recommendations are suggested; these will be revisited in subsequent sections of this plan that address inland and coastal flooding as well as other hazards:

Review and update the evacuation route map at least once annually and post it to the Town's website.

Continue to review and update EOP at least once annually. Pursue floodprooding for the Public Works Facility. Pursue floodprooding for Police Department Headquarters. Consider floodproofing measures for Laurel Woods Convalescent Home at 451 North

High Street and/or elevate the structure. Develop a site-specific evacuation plan for Laurel Woods. Work with residents to develop a satellite shelter for residents that may become

isolated during coastal flooding. Improve lighting in shelters by wiring battery conditioners to generator circuits.


Develop an emergency evacuation plan for Morris Cove residents. Work with residents and the City of New Haven to develop an evacuation protocol

for East Haven residents near Townsend Avenue. Obtain copies of the disaster planning guides and manuals from the "Are You

Ready?" series (http://www.ready.gov/america/publications/index.html) and make them available at the Town Hall and Senior Center.

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


3.0 INLAND FLOODING

3.1 Setting According to FEMA, most municipalities in the United States have at least one clearly recognizable floodprone area around a river, stream, or large body of water. These areas are outlined as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) and delineated as part of the NFIP. Floodprone areas are addressed through a combination of floodplain management criteria, ordinances, and community assistance programs sponsored by the NFIP and individual municipalities. Many communities also have localized flooding areas outside the SFHA. These floods tend to be shallower and chronically reoccur in the same area due to a combination of factors. Such factors can include ponding, poor drainage, inadequate storm sewers, clogged culverts or catch basins, sheet flow, obstructed drainage ways, sewer backup, or overbank flooding from minor streams. In general, the potential for flooding is widespread across East Haven, with the majority of major flooding occurring along established SFHAs. The areas impacted by overflow of river systems are generally limited to river corridors and floodplains. Indirect flooding that occurs outside floodplains and localized nuisance flooding along tributaries is also a common problem in different inland areas in East Haven. The frequency of inland flooding in East Haven is considered likely for any given year, with flood damage potentially having significant effects during extreme events (refer to Tables 1-2 and 1-3). The EOP notes that the Farm River can cause 120 homes to become flooded with only four to six inches of rain occurring within a short time period. This section addresses true inland flooding as well as nuisance flooding. Coastal flooding is discussed in Section 4.0. Refer to Figure 3-1 for the areas of East Haven susceptible to inland flooding based on FEMA flood zones.

3.2 Hazard Assessment

Flooding is the most common and costly natural hazard in Connecticut. The state typically experiences floods in the early spring due to snowmelt and in the late summer/early autumn due to frontal systems and tropical storms although localized flooding caused by thunderstorm activity can be significant. Flooding can occur as a result of other natural hazards, including hurricanes, summer storms, and winter storms. Flooding can also occur as a result of ice jams or dam failure and may also cause landslides and slumps in affected areas. According to FEMA, there are several different types of inland flooding:


East Haven, CTFigure 3-1: FEMA Flood Zones with Critical FacilitiesLOCATION:

#I#I

#I

#I

#I

#I

#I#I

#I

#I

#I

#I#I

#I

#I

#I

#I

#I#I#I

#I

Bradford Manor Fire Stn

Fire Dept HdqtrsTown Hall

Riverside Fire Dept

Senior Center

Community Food Bank

Laurel WoodsPolice Dept./Public Works


Stewart Rest Home

Talmadge Park Health CareCaroline Manor


Tweed Airport


Foxon Fire Station


I-95 Bridge (Frontage Rd)

I-95 Bridge (Laurel St)

I-95 Bridge (No High St)

Saltonstall WTP

SOURCE(S):



2731-02

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:


H:\FEMA FloodZones.mxdMXD:Jan. 2012

BAM

FEMA Flood Zones:FEMA (12/17/2010)

Legend#I Critical Facilities

FEMA Flood ZonesSpecial Hazard Areas

X (Unshaded)500 Year Flood Zone/0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood HazardAAEVE

X (Unshaded) - Area of minimal flood hazard, usually the area betweenthe limits of the 100-year and 500-year floods.500 Year Flood Zone/0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard - Areaof moderate flood hazard, usually the area between the limits of the 100-year and 500-year floods.Zone A - Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance offlooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage. Because detailed analysesare not performed for such areas; no depths or base flood elevations areshown within these zones.Zone AE - The base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided.AE Zones are now used on new format FIRMs instead of A1-A30 Zones.Zone VE - Coastal areas with a 1% or greater chance of flooding and anadditional hazard associated with storm waves. These areas have a 26%chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage. Base floodelevations derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected intervalswithin these zones.

FEMA Flood ZonesSpecial Flood Hazard Areas


Riverine Flooding: Also known as overbank flooding, it occurs when channels

receive more rain or snowmelt from their watershed than normal, or the channel becomes blocked by an ice jam or debris. Excess water spills out of the channel and into the channel's floodplain area.

Flash Flooding: A rapid rise of water along a water channel or low-lying urban area,

usually a result of an unusually large amount of rain and/or high velocity of water flow (particularly in hilly areas) within a very short period of time. Flash floods can occur with limited warning.

Shallow Flooding: Occurs in flat areas where a lack of a water channel results in

water being unable to drain away easily. The three types of shallow flooding include: o Sheet Flow: Water spreads over a large area at uniform depth o Ponding: Runoff collects in depressions with no drainage ability o Urban Flooding: Occurs when man-made drainage systems are overloaded by a

larger amount of water than the system was designed to accommodate Flooding presents several safety hazards to people and property and can cause extensive damage and potential injury or loss of life. Floodwaters cause massive damage to the lower levels of buildings, destroying business records, furniture, and other sentimental papers and artifacts. In addition, floodwaters can prevent emergency and commercial egress by blocking streets, deteriorating municipal drainage systems, and diverting municipal staff and resources. Furthermore, damp conditions trigger the growth of mold and mildew in flooded buildings, contributing to allergies, asthma, and respiratory infections. Snakes and rodents are forced out of their natural habitat and into closer contact with people, and ponded water following a flood presents a breeding ground for mosquitoes. Gasoline, pesticides, poorly treated sewage, and other aqueous pollutants can be carried into areas and buildings by floodwaters and soak into soil, building components, and furniture. In order to provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the 100-year flood has been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for purposes of floodplain management and to determine the need for insurance. This flood has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. The risk of having a flood of this magnitude or greater increases when periods longer than one year are considered. For example, FEMA notes that a structure located within a 100-year flood zone has a 26% change of suffering flood damage during the term of a 30-year mortgage. Similarly, a 500-year flood has a 0.2

Floodplains are lands along watercourses that are subject to periodic flooding; floodways are those areas within the floodplains that convey the majority of flood discharge. Floodways are subject to water being conveyed at relatively high velocity and force. The floodway fringe contains those areas of the 100-year floodplain that are outside the floodway and are subject to inundation but do not convey the floodwaters at a high velocity.


percent chance of occurring in a given year. The 500-year floodplain indicates areas of moderate flood hazard. The Town has voluntarily participated in the NFIP since 1978. SFHAs in East Haven are delineated on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The FIRM delineates areas within East Haven that are vulnerable to flooding and was most recently published on December 17, 2010 combined with the remainder of New Haven County. The current Town of East Haven FIS was also published on December 17, 2010 along with the remainder of New Haven County. The original FIS and FIRMs for flooding sources in the Town are based on work completed in January 1977 (publication of the initial flood hazard boundary) and published on February 1, 1978 (the date of the initial FIRM), with revisions in September 1982, March 1983, January 1991, November 1997 and January 2003. The Town has also participated in the CRS in the past. Although it is not participating at the present time, future participation is planned. The majority of the inland watercourses and water bodies in East Haven are mapped as Zone AE while Lake Saltonstall, portions of Tuttle Brook north of I-95, Hemingway Creek (at Alling Memorial Golf Course), Grannis Pond, Foxon Pond, and tributaries to the Farm River in the northernmost extents of the Town are mapped as Zone A. Refer to Figure 3-1 for the areas of East Haven susceptible to flooding based on FEMA flood zones. Table 3-1 describes the various zones depicted on the FIRM panel for East Haven, which includes both inland flooding and coastal flooding (Section 4.0).

TABLE 3-1

FIRM Zone Descriptions

Zone Description A An area inundated by 100-year flooding, for which no base flood elevations

(BFEs) have been determined. AE An area inundated by 100-year flooding for which BFEs have been determined.

This area may include a mapped floodway. X An area that is determined to be outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains.

VE A coastal area with a 1% or greater chance of flooding and an additional hazard associated with some waves. BFEs are shown at selected intervals within these zones.

Flooding can occur in some areas with a higher frequency than those mapped by FEMA. This nuisance flooding occurs during heavy rains with a much higher frequency than those used to calculate the 100-year flood event and often in different areas than those depicted on the FIRM panels. These frequent flooding events occur in areas with insufficient drainage; where conditions may cause flashy, localized flooding; and where poor maintenance may exacerbate drainage problems. During large storms, the recurrence interval level of a flood discharge on a tributary tends to be greater than the recurrence interval level of the flood discharge on the main channel downstream. In other words, a 100-year flood event on a tributary may only contribute to


a 50-year flood event downstream. This is due to the distribution of rainfall throughout large watersheds during storms and the greater hydraulic capacity of the downstream channel to convey floodwaters. Dams and other flood control structures can also reduce the magnitude of peak flood flows. The recurrence interval level of a precipitation event also generally differs from the recurrence interval level of the associated flood. An example would be Tropical Storm Floyd in 1999, which caused rainfall on the order of a 250-year event while flood frequencies were slightly greater than a 10-year event on the Naugatuck River in Beacon Falls, Connecticut. Flood events can also be mitigated or exacerbated by in-channel and soil conditions, such as low or high flows, the presence of frozen ground, or a deep or shallow water table, as can be seen in the following historic record.

3.3 Historic Record The Town has experienced various degrees of inland flooding in every season of the year throughout its recorded history. Similar to other municipalities in the northeast, melting snow combined with early spring rains has caused frequent spring flooding. Numerous flood events have occurred in late summer to early autumn resulting from storms of tropical origin moving northeast along the Atlantic coast. Winter floods result from the occasional thaw, particularly during years of heavy snow or periods of rainfall on frozen ground. Other flood events have been caused by excessive rainfalls upon saturated soils, yielding greater than normal runoff. According to the 2010 FEMA FIS, at least 26 major storms occurred in Connecticut since 1693. The notable historical floods in the early 20th century occurred in March 1936, September 1938, January 1949, August 1955, October 1955, and September 1960. In terms of damage to the Town, the most severe of these was damage associated with the flood of October 1955, which had a return period of 80 years. This flood was the result of high intensity rainfall falling on saturated ground. The year 1955 was a devastating year for flooding in Connecticut. Connie was a declining tropical storm (described in Section 5.0) when it hit Connecticut in August 1955, producing heavy rainfall of four to six inches across the state. The saturated soil conditions exacerbated the flooding caused by Tropical Storm Diane five days later, the wettest tropical cyclone on record for the northeast. The storm produced 14 inches of rain in a 30-hour period, causing destructive flooding conditions along nearly every major river system in the state. The Mad and Still Rivers in Winsted and the Naugatuck River, the Farmington River, and the Quinebaug River in northeastern Connecticut caused the most damage. However, flooding occurred in East Haven as well. The August and October 1955 floodwaters resulted in over 100 deaths, left 86,000 unemployed, and caused an estimated $500 million in damages (1955 United States Dollars, or USD) in Connecticut. To put this damage value in perspective, consider that


the total property taxes levied by all Connecticut municipalities in 1954 amounted to $194.1 million. In general, inland flooding problems are widespread throughout East Haven. Extreme events along defined floodplains often result in damage to insured structures. The most extreme damage associated with inland flooding occurs to homes and businesses along the Farm River and Morris Creek corridors resulting from extreme rainfall events. The Flood Warning Assessment for the Farm River was published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1994. Refer to Appendix F for a copy. The report lists notable floods in East Haven and along the Farm River:

June 19, 1972: Six inches of rain within 24 hours caused flooding along the Farm River.

January 1979: Storms caused rain and flooding in East Haven. Homes along the

Farm River were flooded.

June 4-6, 1982: Twelve inches of rain caused major flooding along the Farm River. According to newspaper articles, families along Hudson Street had to be rescued from water that rose five to six feet above ground level.

June 5-6, 1992: Flooding again occurred along the Farm River.

Other notable flood events along the Farm River include:

1971: A dam in North Branford broke during heavy spring rains, causing over 150 homes to be evacuated.

1991-1996: A heavy spring rain again caused flooding and major damage. The Farm River overtopped its banks again in 1992 and in April 1996 when approximately 115 homes were flooded.

The following are descriptions of more recent examples of floods in and around East Haven as described in the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Storm Events Database and based on correspondence with municipal officials. Note that inland flooding was not necessarily limited to the described areas. Information on disaster declarations was taken from articles within FEMA's Connecticut Disaster History database.

June 30, 1998: Two waves of thunderstorms produced frequent lightening and heavy

rain, which forced the Quinnipiac River in Wallingford to rise 0.60 feet above flood stage.


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

September 16, 1999: Torrential record rainfall preceding the remnants of Tropical

Storm Floyd caused widespread urban, small stream, and river flooding in Connecticut. Fairfield, Litchfield, and Hartford Counties were declared disaster areas (FEMA-1302-DR-CT). Serious widespread flooding of low-lying and poor drainage areas resulted in the closure of many roads and basement flooding across Fairfield, New Haven, and Middlesex Counties. At the Tweed-New Haven Airport, rainfall was recorded as 4.92 inches.

August 27-28, 2011: As a result of Tropical Storm Irene (Federal Disaster declaration

#4023), minor inland flooding occurred in East Haven. The more significant flooding was coastal in nature and is described in Section 4.3.

3.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures

The Town has in place a number of measures to mitigate for flood damage. These include regulations, codes, and ordinances preventing encroachment and development near floodways; and monitoring efforts and emergency services. The Town of East Haven has been active in the area of flood damage mitigation, resulting in its inclusion in FEMA’s “best practices” portfolio. Refer to Appendix G for a copy of the best practices summary paper. Recent and ongoing flood mitigation is described below. Flood Control Structural Projects There have been several plans to alleviate flooding along the Town’s rivers and streams. Several drainage studies have been done, with most recommending channel and culvert improvements. In the past, a dam was proposed for the Farm River in North Branford to control downstream flooding. This was vigorously opposed by North Branford residents. Given current fiscal realities and environmental sensibilities, it is unlikely that this dam will be constructed. Consequently, one difference between the Town of East Haven and many other Connecticut municipalities is that structural flood control projects such as flood control dams, levees, berms, diversion channels, and river channelization are largely absent from the town and upstream areas. However, a few structural projects have been completed:

Channel improvements and floodway clearing between Willow Street and Corbin Road

Dry floodway from I-95 culverts to Moulthrop Street Dry floodway from Middle School to rear of Gloria Place


Coastal flood control and dams are discussed in subsequent sections of this plan. Bridge Replacements, Drainage, and Maintenance In the mid-1970s, three of five bridges over the Farm River were replaced to reduce blockage of flood conveyance. Two more bridges were replaced in the late 1990s. These five bridges were:

Willow Street Bridge Hellstrom Road Bridge (south) Hellstrom Road Bridge (north) Corbin Road Bridge River Road Bridge

The most recent bridge replacement (Maple Street over the Farm River) was completed in December 2011. The Public Works Department is in charge of the maintenance of the Town's drainage systems and performs clearing of bridges and culverts and other maintenance as needed. Drainage complaints are routed to the department and recorded. The Town uses these reports to identify potential problems and plan for maintenance and upgrades. Individual stream improvements projects are done continuously and are budgeted for in the annual public works department budget. These include culvert installation, stream clearing, and on-going maintenance operations. The town is committed to continuing to support and implement stream improvement projects and to foster a cooperative and shared vision between the Flood and Erosion Control Board and the Inland Wetlands Commission. Tuttle Brook in the center of town has been cleared of debris from Main Street south. It was part of the I-95 improvement project in the early 2000s and was outfitted with new culverts under the highway. The brook behind Pardee Place Extension was cleared of debris and encroachments by homeowners in the summer of 2003. Over the years the Farm River channel has been overgrown with brush and small trees. In the area between Corbin and Willow Street bridges, town crews have cleared the channel, improving flows through this area. Other sections of the river have been cleared of debris annually by volunteers from the Department of Corrections. Insurance In the past, the physical alteration of a river through the construction of dams and levees was the standard response to a flooding problem. These manmade physical controls


cannot always be relied upon. They are also relatively expensive, sometimes costing more to construct than the value of the property that they were intended to protect. That is why the contemporary philosophy as embodied in floodplain regulations is to prevent inappropriate development form occurring within the floodplain. Unfortunately, much of the situation in East Haven is somewhat problematic as development has already occurred within floodplain areas. In fact, while current federal policy and regulations restrict to some extent new development in the floodplain, their overall impact is to maintain the level of the existing development there through the NFIP. The NFIP will pay for repairs to a structure in floodplain area numerous times that encourages property owners to keep improving structures in the floodplains. The flood insurance pricing system also does not differentiate between the different levels of risk. Therefore, a pre-FIRM property owner who is damaged by floods annually pays the same premiums as a pre-FIRM property owner who is located in a relatively low risk section of the floodplain. The unintended consequences of these policies have been coming into greater attention lately with the unusual number of natural disaster occurring in recent years. There has been some discussion of altering these policies. One way in which this might be done is for the Federal government, through FEMA, to purchase property subject to ongoing flood damage rather than just pay for repairs, which would probably be less expensive for the Federal government over the long term. This has been done to some extent. Approximately 1,100 homeowners in East Haven purchase flood insurance. Flood insurance is the most fundamental tool available to recover from damaging flood events. Although the Town does not currently participate in CRS, it may again participate in the future. One of the recommendations of this plan is to re-enroll in the CRS. Regulations, Codes, and Ordinances The Town's Code, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, and Inland Wetland and Watercourses Regulations were described in detail in Section 2.10. Vast sections of these codes and regulations are dedicated to flood damage prevention. In particular, Chapter 9 of the East Haven Town Code is entitled "Flood Damage Prevention and Control," and the Zoning Regulations provide for the permitting process connected to flood damage prevention. The Planning and Zoning Commission, Inland Wetlands Commission, and the Building and Engineering Department are all charged with reviewing projects and developments in SFHAs as well as projects not located in SFHAs that will alter hydrology and runoff. Development or alterations within the SFHA are restricted by local regulations. Development activities that are permitted must conform with standards related to safety and the impact on floodwaters. Generally, development within the floodway fringe is permitted if it is adequately floodproofed, and has the lowest floor (including basement) above the base flood elevation (level of the 100-year flood), while development within


the floodway is more restricted. These standards have been incorporated within Town regulations. They have been adopted to be in compliance with FEMA regulations, so that properties in Town are eligible for federally sponsored flood insurance. In 1998 the East Haven Zoning Enforcement Board established a building moratorium on all new construction in the basin of the Farm River. This moratorium is an attempt by the Town to limit construction in and near the Farm River that would exacerbate flooding. Another form of flood protection carried out by the Town of East Haven is its policy of “no-net-increase in runoff.” Though the Town’s subdivision regulations mandate designing for a 25-year storm event, smaller individual property improvement projects are also held to the no-net increase in runoff policy. No zoning permits for residential or commercial construction, major additions, tennis courts, or pools are issued until the Engineering Department review drainage and grading plans to ensure that adjacent and/or downstream properties are not adversely affected. The Town intends to strengthen compliance with the NFIP regulations by continuing to administer and enforce the local flood damage prevention regulations. As noted in Section 2.0 and above, these are found collectively in Chapter 9 of the Code of the Town of East Haven, Section 29 of the Zoning Regulations, and various provisions of the Coastal Area Management and Subdivision Regulations. Acquisitions and Elevations The Town of East Haven first participated in the acquisition of floodprone homes in the late 1990s. In 1997, FEMA required the Town of evaluate flood mitigation options for five homes that were constructed post-FIRM in a manner that was counter to the NFIP regulations in the SHFA of the Farm River. The next year, the Town purchased the three homes that were located in the Farm River floodplain in order to avoid enforcement action from FEMA. It would have been too costly to mitigate the three homes (located on Moulthrop Street and Liberty Street) in place, so they were acquired for demolition. The other two homes were not located in the Farm River floodplain and were mitigated in place. In 2008, the Town of East Haven filed SRL applications with DEMHS for the elevations of 13 properties that had experienced significant and repetitive flooding. The following year, five of the applications were modified to request acquisitions instead of elevations. The SRL grant was obligated on June 25, 2010 for an amount of $1,546,475 with $1,391,827 as the federal share and $154,648 as the local share to accomplish the five acquisitions. The term of the obligation expires on June 24, 2013. Three homes were on Hudson Street, one is on Raymond Court, and one is on Moulthrop Street. All five were in the floodplain of the Farm River. Subsequent to the grant obligation in autumn 2010, all five homes were acquired and demolished. The properties are now held as vacant open space.


Flood Watches and Warnings The National Weather Service issues a flood watch or a flash flood watch for an area when conditions in or near the area are favorable for a flood or flash flood, respectively. A flash flood watch or flood watch does not necessarily mean that flooding will occur. The National Weather Service issues a flood warning or a flash flood warning for an area when parts of the area are either currently flooding, highly likely to flood, or when flooding is imminent. The Town receives regular weather updates through DESPP Region 2 email alerts and can also access the Automated Flood Warning System (a portion of which is installed along the Farm River system in neighboring North Branford) to monitor precipitation totals and river stage changes. The Connecticut DEEP installed the Automated Flood Warning System in 1982 to monitor rainfall totals as a mitigation effort for flooding throughout the state. Open Space The East Haven Land Trust is charged to keep an inventory of all open space land and advise the town concerning open space acquisitions and the appropriate use of existing land holdings. State law also enables this trust to accept donations of land, easements and other grants in furtherance of these purposes. From 1999 through 2004, over 51 acres of land/wetlands has been transferred to the Trust. In February 1997, the Town Council established an ordinance setting aside funding to continually purchase additional open space. Other lands (over 40 acres) have been purchased by the town and deeded to the land trust. Education and Outreach In 1997 a local group of residents formed an association “Farm River Homeowners Association” which had over 150 members. This association worked at educating residents of the area about flood insurance, processing claims, and motivating elected officials to push for action on a dam in North Branford. The association in conjunction with the Mayor’s office held an emergency evacuation drill and meetings with officials from North Branford. An emergency booklet was also prepared and distributed to homeowners. In 1998, the Mayor’s office sponsored a “Flood Fair” to assist in the education of local citizens and make Federal, State and Local officials available to citizens. Representatives from FEMA, OEM, DEP and local public safety were on hand for the fair. It was well attended.

The Emergency Management Agency and the Fire Department are responsible for monitoring local flood warnings. The Town can access the National Weather Service website at http://www.weather.gov/ to obtain the latest flood watches and warnings before and during precipitation events.


The town has expanded its annual public outreach programs. One existing project is the distribution of an informational booklet to residents in the repetitive loss areas. The booklet has been distributed to these areas since the early 2000s. The booklet focuses on flood loss reduction and public safety measures. This is expected to remain an annual activity. Capabilities In addition to the programs, activities and regulations described above, East Haven has a history of committing financial and human resources to the prevention of damage and safety issues associated with natural disasters. Through the community’s recent experiences with the HMGP, ISTEA and other federal and state grant programs, it has developed the expertise necessary to efficiently and effectively prepare grant applications. East Haven staff also has the technical, legal and environmental expertise to develop and implement necessary regulations, ordinances and policies. Throughout the Town’s past efforts, it has developed good working relationships with the federal and state levels of government involved in flood management. While there is currently no municipal budget specifically for flood hazard mitigation, dollars are spent for the reduction of flood damage through the acquisition of open space, drainage systems improvements, education, staffing and other areas. Recent projects have also shown an increase in the willingness of East Haven residents to use their own funds to protect their families and property from flood damage. This is especially true in coastal flood hazard areas as described in Section 4.4. Summary In summary, the Town attempts to mitigate flood damage and flood hazards by utilizing a wide range of measures: restricting activities in floodprone areas, replacing bridges, promoting flood insurance, acquiring floodprone structures, maintaining drainage systems, through education and outreach, and utilizing warming systems.

3.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment

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


3.5.1 Vulnerability Analysis of Areas Along Watercourses

Flooding is known to occur along several watercourses in the Town. As discussed previously, large areas of the Town are within the 100-year floodplain. These areas are described below, grouped by drainage basin. Farm River – The Farm River corridor (Figures 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4) is the primary area of vulnerability from inland flooding in East Haven. Flooding of the Farm River watershed within the Town of East Haven has long been a serious concern. There are hundreds of residences, numerous businesses, and several municipal properties, including a middle school, which are within the SFHA. In the northern section of Town, the Farm River’s floodplain is up to one-quarter mile in width. Many of the problems occur along North Main Street, resulting in hazardous conditions on the main north-south route through East Haven and also with the center of the town near municipal facilities. Several studies of the Farm River were prepared in the 1970s, culminating in the replacement of four major bridges, construction of channel improvements, selected areas of floodway clearing, institution of the NFIP, and establishment of the East Haven Flood and Erosion Control Board. A comprehensive study was prepared in January 1975 by Griswold and Fuss, Inc. of Manchester, Connecticut, for the Water Resources Unit of the Connecticut DEP entitled “Study for a Flood Protection Plan of the Farm River, East Haven, Connecticut.” This study focused on the section of the Farm River from I-95 north to the North Branford town line, and included detailed analysis of hydrology, hydrogeology, climate, geology, ecological evaluation, water quality, and river hydraulics. The Griswold and Fuss study utilized the U.S. Soil Conservation Service computer program TR-20, which is based on the National Engineering Handbook Method NEH-4, to develop the hydrology for the Farm River. The study then utilized the Soil Conservation Service computer program WS-2 to compute water surface profiles at various flow discharges to determine the hydraulics of the river. The study also utilized photogrammetric mapping of the study area prepared by A. D. R. Associates in 1974. The study evaluated alternative solutions to provide flood control improvements for the Farm River and presented short and long-term recommendations. The survey data, hydrology and river hydraulics developed by the Griswold and Fuss study were utilized in the FIS for the Town of East Haven issued in July 1977. The FIS established floodways, limits of 100-year and 500-year floods, and flood insurance rates. Revised flood boundary and floodway maps and flood insurance rate maps were issued in 1983 and 2003 by FEMA. The Town of East Haven enacted an ordinance establishing a Flood and Erosion Control Board on February 15, 1978. The purpose of the Flood and Erosion Control Board is to review and regulate all proposed construction within the 100-year flood limits.

Aerial Photography:Microsoft Virtual Earth (2007-2008)FEMA Flood Zones:FEMA (12/17/2010) East Haven Natural

Hazard Mitigation Plan

East Haven, CTFigure 3-2: FEMA Flood Zones

Upper Farm RiverLOCATION:

#*

#*

#*

Areas of Repetitive Loss Properties

Area of SevereRepetitive Loss Properties

Farm River


Foxon Fire Station


Farm

River

Lake Saltonstall

Maloney Brook

SOURCE(S):



2731-02

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:Date:

1 inch = 1,000 feet

UpperFarmRiver.mxdMXD:

BAM

Jan. 2012

Legend#* Critical Facilities

Special Hazard AreasX (Unshaded)500 Year Flood ZoneZone AEZone AFloodway




Central Farm RiverLOCATION:

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

Area of SevereRepetitive Loss Properties


Farm

River

Police Dept/DPW

Laurel Woods

Community Food Bank

Stewart Rest Home

Senior Center

Fire Dept Hdqtrs

Town Hall

Farm River

Lake

Salto

nstall



I-95 Bridge (Laurel St)

I-95 Bridge (No. High St) Saltonstall WTP

SOURCE(S):



2731-02

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:Date:

1 inch = 1,000 feet

LowerFarmRiver.mxdMXD:

BAM

Jan. 2012


Special Hazard AreasX (Unshaded)500 Year Flood ZoneZone AEZone AFloodway




Lower Farm RiverLOCATION:

#*

#*

#*

#*


East Haven Town Hall

Farm River

Caroline Manor

Talmadge Park Health Care

Riverside Fire Dept.

Farm River State Park

Farm River Gut

SOURCE(S):



2731-02

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:Date:

1 inch = 1,000 feet

LowerFarmRiver.mxdMXD:

BAM

Jan. 2012


Special Hazard AreasX (Unshaded)500 Year Flood ZoneZone AEZone AZone VEFloodway


The engineering firm of Flaherty-Giavara Associates, P.C., of New Haven prepared designs for bridge and channel improvements for the East Haven Flood and Erosion Control Board in 1978 based on the first priority recommendations made in the 1975 Griswold and Fuss study. These improvements included a dry floodway from the I-95 culvert to Moulthrop Street, a dry floodway from the Middle School north to the vicinity of Gloria Place, replacement of bridges at Willow Road, Hellstrom Road North, Hellstrom Road South, and Corbin Road, and channel improvements and floodway clearing between Willow Road and Corbin Road. In the course of preparing their designs, Flaherty-Giavara prepared several studies of the Farm River, including:

Hydraulic Study, Southern Portion of the Farm River for the Town of East Haven and the DEP.

Hydraulic Computations, Farm River Flood Control Project, East Haven, Connecticut, Main Street to I-95.

Hydraulic Computations, Farm River Flood Control Project, East Haven, Connecticut, Willow Road to Corbin Road.

Schematic Design Report, Farm River Flood Control Project, for the Town of East Haven, Connecticut and the Department of Environmental Protection.

Simultaneously and in cooperation with the above referenced studies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Services (now known as the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service) was pursuing studies in the hopes of initiating a PL566, “Small Watershed Project.” Many alternatives were investigated with the most promising being a Floodwater Detention Structure at Pages Mill Pond in North Branford, known as Site 6. A summary of the work done by the Soil Conservation Service was published in a report prepared by the Connecticut DEP in November 1983, entitled “Farm River Watershed, New Haven and Middlesex Counties, Connecticut, Report for the Watershed Committee.” Work on this study began as early as 1973. The 1975 Griswold and Fuss Report discusses the PL566 project and utilized a 3,000 cfs design storm as criteria for improvements recommended in the study with the assumption that the Soil Conservation Service would provide additional flood control protection for the 100-year storm (4,905 cfs). The Griswold and Fuss Study recommended that the four major bridges proposed for replacement be designed based on the 100-year storm. The Schematic Design Report for the Farm River Flood Control Project prepared by Flaherty-Giavara Associates in 1977 also made reference to the Soil Conservation Service PL566 project. This study indicates that the Willow Road, Hellstrom Road South and Corbin Road bridges were designed for minimum head loss at a flow of 3,000 cfs. All three of these bridges have a span of 65 feet. The Hellstrom Road North bridge, with a span of 120 feet, was designed to pass the 100 year flood with a head loss of 0.5 feet. This was done to insure access to the residential areas on the east bank of the Farm River even during a 100-year flood event. This particular location was chosen because the surrounding ground is high enough to prevent flooding of the bridge approaches.


Historically there has been a lack of interaction between the towns of North Branford and East Haven. Implementation of the PL566 project at Site 6 would require construction of a 4,000 foot long earth dam about 2,300 feet upstream of Pages Mill Pond Dam in North Branford. It would require excavation of an emergency spillway in rock and diversion of several small drainage courses. While there are areas in North Branford that are prone to flood from the Farm River, including a trailer park and a commercial area along Route 80, there are much larger areas in East Haven that would benefit from increased flood protection. It was difficult to generate much positive interest for the project in North Branford. The landowners would be directly impacted by construction of the project on and adjacent to their land in North Branford formed a vocal group opposed to the project. For these reasons the project was eventually dropped by the Soil Conservation Service and by the Connecticut DEP. The Farm River Watershed Report prepared by the Soil Conservation Service looked at a total of 12 potential flood detention structure sites singly and in combination. The only cost effective detention site identified was Site 6. Other alternatives considered included a diversion tunnel to convey excess storm flow to Lake Saltonstall, which was eliminated because of its high cost; improvements downstream of I-95 which have minimal effect on the portion of the Farm River above I-95; and various combinations of dikes and floodwalls. North of Interstate 95, chronic flooding occurs in residential neighborhoods between the Saltonstall Ridge and North High Street. There has been periodic flooding of many residential areas along the Farm River, particularly along Hellstrom Road and Raymond Court. Other developed areas within the floodplain include the Kenneth Street-Thompson Avenue area, Grove Street-Robert Street-Dodge Avenue, along Gerrish Avenue, the north side of Vista Drive and Wilson Street-Doran Street-Columbus Avenue. South of Interstate 95, chronic flooding occurs along Route 42 and in areas adjacent to the large tidal marsh to east of Route 42. The Farm River will continue to pose a flooding hazard until corrections are made. Mitigation described in Section 3.4 has been heavily focused on the Farm River, including three acquisitions in 1998 and five acquisitions in 2010. The eight acquisitions resulted in the conversion of eight residential lots to open space in the Farm River SFHA. Upper Tuttle Brook – Several homes on Pardee Place Extension and businesses on Main Street and Frontage Road experience flooding from Tuttle Brook. Tuttle Brook at the intersection of Main Street frequently floods during significant rain events. The Frontage Road plaza parking lots flood frequently, leaving automobiles in the parking lot under water. Much of the flooding from smaller streams is associated with lack of channel maintenance on private property. Flows become constricted or diverted by debris and fallen tree limbs curing times of high water.


Morris Creek and Tuttle Brook – Much of the section of East Haven south of I-95 is within a SFHA, either along the Farm River as described above, or within the Morris Creek/Tuttle Brook SFHA in the western section of Town. It is important to note that much of the SFHA for Morris Creek/Tuttle Brook has a base flood elevation of 11 feet and is continuous with the coastal SFHAs in East Haven. A true division between inland and coastal flooding is not possible in some parts of southern East Haven, such as around the airport. The lower (downstream) reaches of the Morris Creek/Tuttle Brook area experience flooding at a lower frequency than other parts of East Haven because tide gates are present in the lower reaches of Morris Creek. Nevertheless, portions of the SFHA are floodprone, and the airport is a critical facility. The Town of East Haven is responsible for responding to emergencies in the eastern side of the airport and must traverse floodprone areas. Potential flooding along the upper Morris Creek corridor (Figure 3-5) is even more widespread than for the larger Farm River, given its confluence with Tuttle Brook and the large low-lying area in the region surrounding the airport. As seen on historical topographic mapping, much of this area was under water up until the construction of the airport and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Many of the retail businesses along the North and South Frontage Roads are within the SFHA. In 1993 the Town employed Cascio & Bechir to conduct a comprehensive drainage study south of Interstate 95. This was completed in June 1994. The purpose was to isolate drainage deficiencies and offer solutions to remediate and improve existing conditions. The area south of Interstate 95 encompasses approximately 4.4 square miles. Areas of specific interest as reported by Town officials were as follows:

Gerrish Avenue Dodge Avenue Thompson Avenue South Street/Pequot Street Morgan Terrace Short Beach Road Meadow Street Cosey Beach Road Elliot Street Sorrento Avenue Redfield Avenue Wilkenda Avenue Stevens Street



East Haven, CTFigure 3-5: FEMA Flood ZonesMorris Creek & Tuttle Brook

LOCATION:


Morris C

reek

draina

ge di

tch

SOURCE(S):



2731-02

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:1st Version:

1 inch = 666.67 feet

MorrisCreekFEMA.mxdMXD:12/19/2011

BAM

11/22/2011Revision:

LegendSpecial Hazard Areas

500 Year Flood ZoneZone AEZone X (Unshaded)


The study of existing storm drainage south of Interstate 95 showed that virtually all existing drainage facilities in the area were incapable of handling the storm water flows. Inadequacy of existing drainage is based upon the undersized pipe systems or the lack of an adequate point of discharge. Proposed drainage systems would correct these problems and direct collected storm water to the nearest discharge point that is capable of handling such discharge. The plan identified the problems and presented solutions addressing inadequate drainage facilities throughout the southern half of the Town. As a result of the study it was recommended that the improvements be made in three phases. The phases were broken down as follows:

Phase I Drainage improvements the Thompson Avenue, Dodge Avenue, Gerrish Avenue and South Street

Phase II Drainage improvements to Cosey Beach Road, Elliot Street, Wilkenda Avenue and Stevens Street

Phase III Drainage improvements to Morgan Terrace, Short Beach Road, Meadow Street, Sorrento Avenue and Redfield Avenue

Some of these areas involve coastal flooding and will be addressed in Section 4.5. Other Areas – In addition to the areas identified above, several other historically flood prone areas exist. The vulnerability of these areas has been determined by consensus of the planning team members from professional experience and their combined tenure with East Haven. Troubled areas on some smaller brooks and creeks experience flooding as do areas with insufficient drainage.

3.5.2 Vulnerability Analysis of Private Properties The software platform ArcGIS was utilized along with 2008-2009 aerial photography to determine the number of properties located within the various SFHAs within the Town as discussed above. The East Haven floodplains include large areas that have been developed. For example, most of the retail businesses along the North and South Frontage Roads are within a floodplain. According to the 2010 FEMA FIRM GIS data layers, a total of 1,888 acres of land in East Haven is located within the SFHA, and a total of 2,151 acres of land is located within the 500-year flood boundary (which includes the areas within the SFHA boundary). Based on correspondence with the State of Connecticut NFIP Coordinator, a total of 105 repetitive loss properties (RLPs) are located in East Haven. General areas containing RLPs are depicted on the maps in this HMP and the RLPs related to inland flooding are listed in Table 3-2. The properties are located along the Farm River, Tuttle Brook, Morris Creek, and Long Island Sound. Each of the structures is located within the 100-year floodplain except for three which are mapped in the 500-year floodplain and one that is not in a mapped floodplain.


TABLE 3-2 Inland Flooding Repetitive Loss Properties

Type Flooding Source Mapped

Floodplain 30 Single Family Homes Farm River 100-Year 3 Single Family Homes Farm River 500-Year 1 Multi-Family Home Farm River 100-Year 1 Commercial Bldg. Farm River 100-Year 6 Single Family Homes Morris Creek 100-Year Single Family Home Unnamed stream None mapped

Many structures in East Haven are located within the 500-year floodplain, the SFHA, and the floodway delineated by FEMA. The software platform ArcGIS was utilized to determine the number and value of properties located within the various floodplains within the city as discussed below. There are over 1,010 structures in East Haven with at least a portion of the structure located within the mapped 100-year floodplain, 84 structures within the mapped floodway of Farm River, 13 structures within the floodways of Tuttle Brook and Morris Creek, and 172 structures within the delineated velocity zone along the coast. The Town recognizes that many private properties may suffer flood damage that is not reported because the structures are not insured under the NFIP. These residents and business owners are likely repairing structures on their own. Flood mitigation as recommended in this plan will likely help many of these properties owners.

3.5.3 Vulnerability Analysis of Critical Facilities The list of critical facilities provided by the Town (Section 2.9) was used with Microsoft Virtual Earth aerial photography to locate each critical facility throughout the Town. Four critical facilities were found to be associated with either a 100-year or 500-year inland floodplain. Table 3-3 lists these critical facilities.

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

Name or Type Address Flooding Source

Public Works Facility 461 North High Street Farm River Police Station 471 North High Street Farm River Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport 155 Burr St. (New Haven) Morris Creek East Haven Middle School/Carbone School 67 Hudson Street Farm River

These facilities are not believed to have significantly flooded in recent years, although the potential exists for severe flooding.


3.5.4 HAZUS-MH Vulnerability Analysis

HAZUS-MH is FEMA's loss estimation methodology software for flood, wind, and earthquake hazards. The software utilizes year 2000 U.S. Census data and a variety of engineering information to calculate potential damages (specified in year 2006 USD) to a user-defined region. The software was utilized to perform a basic analysis to generate potential damages in East Haven from a 100-year riverine flood event occurring along Tuttle Brook (upstream of Dodge Avenue), Maloney Brook, and the Farm River (upstream of Route 1). These watercourses have 100-year flood elevations defined by FEMA. Other 100-year flood areas defined by FEMA that do not have elevations did not appear to affect structures and were ignored. Streams dominated by coastal flooding such as Morris Creek and the lower reaches of the Farm River are considered in the coastal flooding section. Hydrology and hydraulics for the streams and rivers were generated utilizing FEMA cross sections for each watercourse and the 10-food Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data prepared by the University of Connecticut’s Center for Land Use Education and Research (CLEAR). These DEMs were based on the 2000 LiDAR survey of Connecticut. Summary reports for the 100-year flood event along each watercourse are included in Appendix H. The following paragraphs discuss the results of the HAZUS-MH analysis. The FEMA default values were used for each of the Town's seven census tracts in the HAZUS simulation. A summary of the default building counts and values is shown in Table 3-4. Approximately 2.2 billion dollars of building value was estimated to exist within the Town.

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

Occupancy Dollar Exposure (x 1,000) (2006 USD)

Residential $1,726,611 Commercial $319,179 Other $163,797 Total $2,209,587

The HAZUS-MH simulation estimates that during a 100-year riverine flood event 113 residential buildings will be at least moderately damaged in the Town from inland flooding. A total of 26 of these buildings on the Farm River will be substantially damaged and uninhabitable. Table 3-5 presents the expected damages based on building type.


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

Occupancy 1-10% Damaged

11-20% Damaged

21-30% Damaged

31-40% Damaged

41-50% Damaged

Substantially Damaged

Tuttle Brook Residential 0 1 1 1 0 0 Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 0 1 1 1 0 0

Maloney Brook Residential 0 0 0 2 2 0 Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 0 0 0 2 2 0

Farm River Residential 0 3 8 31 38 26 Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 0 3 8 31 38 26 Overall Total 0 4 9 34 40 26

HAZUS-MH utilizes a subset of critical facilities known as "essential facilities" that are important following natural hazard events. These include fire stations, hospitals, police stations, and schools. HAZUS-MH recognized that one fire station, one “hospital” (assisted living facility), one police station, and 12 schools as essential facilities in East Haven.

Tuttle Brook: The software noted that under the 100-year flood event no essential facilities will incur moderate or greater damage, and no loss of use is reported.

Maloney Brook: The software noted that under the 100-year flood event no essential

facilities will incur moderate or greater damage, and no loss of use is reported.

Farm River: The software noted that under the 100-year flood event no essential facilities will incur moderate or greater damage, and no loss of use is reported.

The HAZUS-MH software estimated the amount of debris that would be caused by flooding along each watercourse. Finishes include items such as drywall and insulation, structural items include materials such as wood and brick, and foundations include materials such as concrete slabs, blocks, and rebar. Results are presented in Table 3-6. The HAZUS-MH simulation estimated that a significant amount of debris would be generated by flood damage for the 100-year flood scenario, particularly along the Farm River.


TABLE 3-6 HAZUS-MH Flooding Scenarios – Debris Generation (Tons)

Flooding Source Finishes Structural Foundations Total

Estimated Cleanup Truckloads

(25 Tons / Truck) Tuttle Brook 132 0 0 132 5 Maloney Brook 69 8 7 84 3 Farm River 1,840 467 285 2,592 104 Total 2,041 475 292 2,808 112

HAZUS-MH calculated the potential sheltering requirement for the 100-year flood event. Results are presented in Table 3-7. The model estimates that a significant number of households will be displaced due to flooding of any of the watercourses. Displacement includes households evacuated from within or very near to the inundated areas. The predicted sheltering requirements for inland flood damage could be accommodated only partially by the four shelters described in Section 2.9.

TABLE 3-7 HAZUS-MH Flooding Scenarios – Shelter Requirements

Flooding Source Number of Displaced Households

Short-Term Sheltering Need (Number of People)

Tuttle Brook 106 310 Maloney Brook 38 91 Farm River 420 1,005 Total 564 1,406

HAZUS-MH also calculated the predicted economic losses due to the 100-year flood event. Economic losses are categorized between building-related losses and business interruption losses. Building-related losses (damages to building, content, and inventory) are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. Business interruption losses are those associated with the inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the flood and include lost income, relocation expenses, lost rental income, lost wages, and temporary living expenses for displaced people. Results are presented in Table 3-8.


TABLE 3-8 HAZUS-MH Estimated Direct Losses from Flooding Scenarios (x $1,000)

Flooding Source Estimated Total Building Losses

Estimated Business Interruption Losses

Estimated Total Losses

Tuttle Brook 5,530 60 5,590 Maloney Brook 3,040 None 3,040 Farm River 44,940 310 45,250 Total 53,510 370 53,880

A 100-year flood along either of the smaller streams would generate several million dollars in damage. A 100-year flood along the Farm River alone is estimated to generate approximately $45 million in damages, with municipal losses totaling approximately $5 million of this total. It should be noted that a comparison of published FEMA floodplain mapping and the results of the HAZUS-MH software output for anticipated flooding shows an underestimation by the software of the number of affected properties along Tuttle Brook. Anticipated flood damage costs and number of displaced residents associated with flooding of Tuttle Brook would most likely exceed the estimates from the program, and could have significant impact on the capacity of the existing shelters as detailed in Table 3-7 and Section 2.11.

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

3.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives A number of measures can be taken to reduce the impact of a flood event. These include measures that prevent increases in flood losses by managing new development, measures that reduce the exposure of existing development to flood risk, and measures to preserve and restore natural resources. These are listed below under the categories of prevention, property protection, structural projects, public education and awareness, natural resource protection, and emergency services. All of the recommendations discussed in the subsections below are reprinted in a bulleted list in Section 3.7.

3.6.1 Prevention Prevention of damage from flood losses takes the form of floodplain regulations and redevelopment policies that restrict the building of new structures within defined areas. These are usually administered by building, zoning, planning, and/or code enforcement offices through capital improvement programs and through zoning, subdivision,


floodplain, and wetland ordinances. It also occurs when land is prevented from being developed through the use of conservation easements or conversion of land into open space. Prevention may also include maintenance of existing mitigation systems such as drainage systems. Open Space Preservation: Municipal departments should identify areas for acquisition to remove the potential for flood damage. Open space acquisition is indeed a high priority in East Haven. Acquisition of heavily damaged structures (particularly RLPs) after a flood may be an economical and practical means to accomplish this. Planning and Zoning: Zoning and Subdivision ordinances should regulate development in flood hazard areas. Flood hazard areas should reflect a balance of development and natural areas although ideally they will be free from development. Policies can also require the design and location of utilities to areas outside of flood hazard areas and the placement of utilities underground. In East Haven, the Planning and Zoning Commission has an active role in prevention of flood damage. Floodplain Development Regulations: Development regulations encompass subdivision regulations, building codes, and floodplain ordinances. Site plan and new subdivision regulations should include the following:

Requirements that every lot have a buildable area above the flood level Construction and location standards for the infrastructure built by the developer,

including roads, sidewalks, utility lines, storm sewers, and drainageways A requirement that developers dedicate open space and flood flow, drainage, and

maintenance easements

Building codes should ensure that the foundations of structures will withstand flood forces and that all portions of buildings subject to damage are above or otherwise protected from flooding. Floodplain ordinances should at minimum follow the requirements of the NFIP for subdivision and building codes. These could be included in the ordinances for subdivisions and building codes or could be addressed in a separate ordinance. All of the above are largely enforced in East Haven by various land use commissions and the Building and Engineering Department. FEMA Mapping: One recommendation that municipalities could consider is using more detailed town topographic maps (if available) to develop a more accurate flood hazard map using the published FEMA flood elevations. FEMA encourages communities to use more accurate topographic maps to expand upon the FIRMs published by FEMA. Many municipalities today have contour maps of one- or two-foot intervals that show more recently constructed roads, bridges, and other anthropologic features. Even in New

It is important to promote coordination among the various departments that are responsible for different aspects of flood mitigation. Coordination and cooperation among departments should be reviewed every few years as specific responsibilities and staff change.


Haven County where map modernization has occurred and the DFIRM is adopted, there is room for improvement. An alternate approach is to record high water marks and establish those areas inundated by a recent severe flood to be the new regulatory floodplain. Adoption of a different floodplain map is allowed under NFIP regulations as long as the new map covers a larger floodplain than the FIRM. It should be noted that the community's map will not affect the current FIRM or alter the SFHA used for setting insurance rates or making map determinations; it can only be used by the community to regulate floodplain areas. The FEMA Region I office has more information on this topic. Contact information can be found in Section 11. Reductions in floodplain area or revisions of a mapped floodplain can only be accomplished through revised FEMA-sponsored engineering studies or Letters of Map Change (LOMC). None of the above mapping commentary applies to insurance. The FIRM is the only map allowed for setting flood insurance rates, as noted above. Therefore, it has been more straightforward for East Haven to use the FEMA maps as the basis for regulating floodplain development. However, significant changes have been made in flood prone areas and several of East Haven’s watersheds in the last few decades. The FEMA maps represent a “snap shot in time” (including the DFIRMs resulting from MapMod) and do not reflect changes caused by development and other activities during the past few decades. Floodplain development, grading, and other actions have likely changed the characteristics of the floodplains. For that reason, improvements to the existing maps must eventually be made and approved by FEMA. However, it is FEMA’s policy to prioritize communities that have specific demonstrable problems with their mapping. Therefore, East Haven must be sure to bring identified problems to FEMA’s attention. Stormwater Management Policies: Development and redevelopment policies to address the prevention of flood damage must include effective stormwater management policies. Developers should be required to build detention and retention facilities where appropriate. Infiltration can be enhanced to reduce runoff volume, including the use of swales, infiltration trenches, vegetative filter strips, and permeable paving blocks. Generally, post-development stormwater should not leave a site at a rate higher than under predevelopment conditions. Standard engineering practice is to avoid the use of detention measures if the project site is located in the lower one-third of the overall watershed. The effects of detention are least effective and even detrimental if used at such locations because of the delaying effect of the peak discharge from the site that typically results when detention measures are used. By detaining stormwater in close proximity to the stream in the lower reaches of the overall watershed, the peak discharge from the site will occur later in the storm


event, which will more closely coincide with the peak discharge of the stream, thus adding more flow to the peak discharge during any given storm event. Developers should be required to demonstrate whether detention or retention will be the best management practice for stormwater at specific sites regarding the position of each project site in the surrounding watershed. Drainage System Maintenance: An effective drainage system must be continually maintained to ensure efficiency and functionality. Maintenance should include programs to clean out blockages caused by overgrowth and debris. Culverts should be monitored, repaired, and improved when necessary. The use of GIS technology can greatly aid the identification and location of problem areas. A rip-rapped area along the Farm River has become overgrown since the improvements were accomplished in the 1970s. A regular program of river inspection and maintenance should be instituted for the Farm River. Creation of a maintenance road along Farm River would facilitate future maintenance. The road could serve as a pathway for crews to keep the river clear of brush and debris. Education and Awareness: Other prevention techniques include the promotion of awareness of natural hazards among citizens, property owners, developers, and local officials. Technical assistance for local officials, including workshops, can be helpful in preparation for dealing with the massive upheaval that can accompany a severe flooding event. Research efforts to improve knowledge, develop standards, and identify and map hazard areas will better prepare a community to identify relevant hazard mitigation efforts. Wetlands: The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission administers the Wetland Regulations. The regulations simultaneously restrict development in floodplains, wetlands, and other floodprone areas. However, there is a need to continue to support, plan and implement stream channel improvement projects within the Public Works budget that will alleviate riverine related flooding in addition to the restoration and improvement of natural floodplain and wetland areas. There is a further need to expand maintenance activities and execute specific projects. This goal includes the need to foster a cooperative and share vision between the Flood and Erosion Control Board and the Inland Wetland Commission. Because a variety of regulations are related to flood damage prevention, the Town should develop a checklist that cross references the regulations and codes related to flood damage prevention that may be applicable to a proposed project and make this list available to potential applicants.

3.6.2 Property Protection Steps should be taken to protect existing public and private properties from flood damage. Measures for public property protection include relocation of structures at risk


for flooding (either to a higher location on the same lot or to a different lot outside of the floodplain), purchase of flood insurance, and relocating valuable belongings above flood levels to reduce the amount of damage caused during a flood event. General Improvements: FEMA offers suggestions to homeowners regarding potential home improvements that can mitigate flooding:

Relocate or elevate water heaters, heating systems, washers, and dryers to a higher floor or to at least 12 inches above the high water mark (if the ceiling permits). A wooden platform of pressure-treated wood can serve as the base.

Anchor the fuel tank to the wall or floor with noncorrosive metal strapping and lag bolts.

Install a septic backflow valve to prevent sewer backup into the home. Install a floating floor drain plug at the lowest point of the lowest finished floor. Elevate the electrical box or relocate it to a higher floor and elevate electric outlets to

at least 12 inches above the high water mark. Standard Flood Protection Techniques: Techniques applicable to property protection include home elevation, construction of barriers, dry floodproofing, and wet floodproofing techniques.

Home elevation involves the removal of the building structure from the basement and elevating it on piers to a height such that the first floor is located above the 100-year flood level. The basement area is abandoned and filled to be no higher than the existing grade. All utilities and appliances located within the basement must be relocated to the first floor level. Home elevations have occurred throughout East Haven, but are more prevalent along Long Island Sound than along the Farm River.

Barriers include levees, floodwalls, and berms that are useful in protecting areas

subject to shallow flooding. Such structural projects are discussed in Section 3.6.6.

For dry floodproofing, walls may be coated with compound or plastic sheathing. Openings such as windows and vents should be either permanently closed or covered with removable shields. Flood protection should extend only two to three feet above the top of the concrete foundation because building walls and floors cannot withstand the pressure of deeper water.

Wet floodproofing should only be

used as a last resort. If considered, furniture and electrical appliances should be moved away or elevated above the 100-year flood elevation.

All of the above property protection mitigation measures will continue to be useful for East Haven residents to prevent

Dry floodproofing refers to the act of making areas below the flood level watertight. Wet floodproofing refers to intentionally letting floodwater into a building to equalize interior and exterior water pressures.


damage from inland and nuisance flooding. The Building Official and Town Engineer should consider outreach and education in these areas where appropriate. Insurance: Although flood insurance does not prevent damage from occurring or remove structures from harm’s way, it does provide an excellent means of recovering from losses. Changes to the NFIP insurance products in the 1990s added mitigation insurance coverage (“increased cost of compliance”) at a very low cost. This coverage can provide people a portion of the additional financial resources needed to rebuild their repetitively flooded or substantially damaged homes and businesses to comply with local floodplain management regulations and building standards, therefore reducing the cost and amount of future flood damages.

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

3.6.3 Emergency Services A hazard mitigation plan addresses actions that can be taken before a disaster event. In this context, emergency services that would be appropriate mitigation measures for flooding include:

Forecasting systems to provide information on the time of occurrence and magnitude

of flooding A system to issue flood warnings to the community and responsible officials Emergency protective measures, such as an EOP outlining procedures for the

mobilization and position of staff, equipment, and resources to facilitate evacuations and emergency floodwater control

Implementing an emergency notification system that combines database and GIS mapping technologies to deliver outbound emergency notifications to geographic areas or specific groups of people, such as emergency responder teams

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


3.6.4 Public Education and Awareness The objective of public education is to provide an understanding of the nature of flood risk and the means by which that risk can be mitigated on an individual basis. Public information materials should encourage individuals to be aware of flood mitigation techniques, including discouraging the public from changing channel and detention basins in their yards and dumping in or otherwise altering watercourses and storage basins. Individuals should be made aware of drainage system maintenance programs and other methods of mitigation. The public should also understand what to expect when a hazard event occur, and the procedures and time frames necessary for evacuation. Public education in the areas of storm damage potential, mitigation activities, and preparedness have been identified as the top priority for flooding and each of the other hazards in this HMP. East Haven should develop an intensive and effective public education campaign. In addition to educating the public, professional groups such as builders, developers, architects and insurance agents must also be educated to broaden their perspectives and increase their awareness of their role in flood hazard mitigation. Finally, East Haven officials must continue education and training in their areas of expertise as related to flooding hazards. This is necessary to maintain knowledge of new technologies and techniques that can be implemented to help reach East Haven’s goals. Based on the above guidelines, a number of specific proposals for improved public education are recommended to prevent damage from flooding. These are listed in Section 3.7.

3.6.5 Natural Resource Protection Floodplains can provide a number of natural resources and benefits, including storage of floodwaters, open space and recreation, water quality protection, erosion control, and preservation of natural habitats. Retaining the natural resources and functions of floodplains can not only reduce the frequency and consequences of flooding but also minimize stormwater management and nonpoint pollution problems. Through natural resource planning, these objectives can be achieved at substantially reduced overall costs. Projects that improve the natural condition of areas or restore diminished or destroyed resources can reestablish an environment in which the functions and values of these resources are again optimized. Acquisitions of floodprone property with conversion to open space are the most common of these types of projects. Administrative measures that assist such projects include the development of land reuse policies focused on resource restoration and review of community programs to identify opportunities for floodplain restoration.


East Haven should continue with an aggressive agenda for acquiring flood prone properties and those that provide valuable recreational and flood storage potential that will benefit the greatest number of East Haven Residents. Land acquisition can take the form of outright purchases or the less expensive purchase of easements or development rights. Often land acquisition in hazard areas can be combined in recent planning vernacular as “multi-objective floodplain management.” Based on the above guidelines, the following specific natural resource protection mitigation measures are recommended to help prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding:

Pursue additional open space properties in floodplains by purchasing RLPs and other floodprone structures and converting the parcels to open space

Pursue the acquisition of additional municipal open space properties

Selectively pursue conservation objectives listed in the Plan of Conservation and Development and other more recent planning studies and documents

Continue to regulate development in protected and sensitive areas, including steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains

3.6.6 Structural Projects

General: Structural projects include the construction of new structures or modification of existing structures (e.g., floodproofing) to lessen the impact of a flood event. Stormwater controls such as drainage systems, detention dams and reservoirs, and culvert resizing should be employed to lessen floodwater runoff. On-site detention can provide temporary storage of stormwater runoff. Barriers such as levees, floodwalls, and dikes physically control the hazard to protect certain areas from floodwaters. Channel alterations can be made to confine more water to the channel and accelerate flood flows. Care should be taken when using these techniques to ensure that problems are not exacerbated in other areas of the impacted watersheds. Individuals can protect private property by raising structures and constructing walls and levees around structures. Channelization of rivers, construction of flood control dams, and other large-scale projects for inland flood mitigation would be inappropriate in East Haven and are not recommended. However, a number of areas would benefit from improved drainage and flood conveyance, including the many areas discussed in Section 3.5. Several projects are being investigated or are underway to mitigate flood damage by undertaking changes

Measures for preserving floodplain functions and resources typically include:

Adoption of floodplain regulations to control or prohibit development that will alter natural resources

Development and redevelopment policies focused on resource protection

Information and education for both community and individual decision makers

Review of community programs to identify opportunities for floodplain preservation


to man-made improvements. It is East Haven’s broad goal to complete certain projects and to actively identify and pursue funding mechanisms to complete future construction projects to mitigate flood damage. Farm River Dam: As explained in Section 3.4, a dam has previously been proposed for the Farm River in North Branford to control downstream flooding. This dam has been discussed in prior editions of this HMP. Several dam sites were evaluated and the preferred site is located such that it would control about 60% of the watershed of the Farm River and could be designed to handle a peak discharge that is 86% of the discharge experienced at the I-95 culverts. The dam could protect the majority of threatened properties in North Branford as well as the majority of threatened properties in East Haven. Modeling shows that this alternative would protect 160 out of 203 residential structures that are within the SFHA in East Haven. It would also have a positive effect on threatened homes downstream from I-95; however, that area was beyond the scope of this modeling study. The cost of the project was estimated to be $5,425,000 more than ten years ago, such that the current cost may be well over $5 million. No relocation of residents would be required to construct the dam. Although many people believe that the chances of building a flood control dam are low, this plan continues to include a description of this alternative in the interest of keeping it as a point of discussion. Hudson Street/Moulthrop Street: A system of flood walls, dikes and a storm water pumping station has been evaluated to protect the Hudson Street/Moulthrop Street area along the Farm River at a cost of approximately $1,400,000. This system of walls, dikes, and a pumping station has been discussed in prior editions of this HMP. However, it is possible that a 100-year flood and a 100-year tidal event could occur simultaneously and render the system incapable of meeting its intended level of protection. Farm River Downstream of Interstate 95: Downstream from I-95 there is considerable head loss in the Farm River channel encountered through a series of structures. For a 100-year frequency flood, there is a loss of 2.5 feet through the Main Street bridge, and another six feet through the combination of the Route 1 bridge, the railroad bridge, and the I-95 culverts. Downstream improvements that were considered by the Town include replacement of the Main Street bridge, a modified channel from Deborah Lane to U.S. Route 1, and improvements to the I-95 culverts including a reshaped inlet and flood walls between I-95 and the railroad bridge. Based on TR-20 and WSP-2 computer modeling conducted by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service in the period of 1976-1979, bridge replacement and channel improvements downstream from I-95 would result in a reduction in the 100-year flood water surface elevations from 22.1 to 17.2. While this would reduce damage from a flood, the reduction in flood elevations would not protect the lowest houses on Moulthrop and Hudson Streets, nor would it completely protect the ice rink at the middle school complex at the end of Hudson Street.


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

3.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives

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

The Town intends to strengthen compliance with the NFIP regulations by continuing to administer and enforce the local flood damage prevention regulations. The Town will continue to regulate activities within SFHAs to the greatest extent possible within the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations.

Consider requiring new buildings in floodprone areas to be protected to the highest

recorded flood level regardless of SFHA status.

Provide FEMA with any data obtained from other sources that would demonstrate the need to revise the DFIRM, then petition FEMA to review and revise the Town’s DFIRM.

Require developers to demonstrate whether detention or retention of stormwater is the

best option for reducing peak flows downstream.

Review Subdivision Regulations and evaluate the possibility of incorporating changes to place further limitations on areas of impermeable surfaces in new subdivision developments in flood prone areas. If warranted, make the necessary changes to the Subdivision Regulations.

Explore the possibility of adopting a series of ordinances that would place the

responsibility for stream maintenance on a property owner and would give East Haven enforcement power. Such ordinances would address stream dumping, channel maintenance, and land clearing disturbances.

Conduct annual inspection of flood prone areas that are accessible to town officials.

Determine if potential flood damage could be stormwater facility related. For instance, check to see if catch basins and culverts are clogged and if tide gates are functioning properly.


Develop a maintenance road long the Farm River to facilitate environmentally appropriate channel maintenance and clearing when necessary.

Develop an application of an ISTEA Grant for roadway Stormwater Pollution

Mitigation. This includes the identification and ultimately retrofitting and annual cleaning of catch basins to improve water quality and allow for more efficient processing of floodwaters. This activity would supplement the town’s ongoing annual effort of cleaning catch basins.

Property Protection

Re-apply and join the CRS program at Class 8 or better.

Incorporate information on the availability of flood insurance into all hazard-related

public education workshops.

Make available FEMA provided flood insurance brochures at public accessible places such as the Town Clerk’s office and the Planning and Zoning Department offices.

Make necessary changes to the Floodplain Zoning Regulations so that all insured

residents can be eligible for additional mitigation coverage (coverage for increased cost of compliance with flood regulations).

Provide technical assistance to owners of non-residential structures that suffer flood damage regarding floodproofing measures such as wet and dry floodproofing.

Pursue elevation of residential properties that suffer flood damage. Properties may be

classified as repetitive loss or not classified as repetitive loss, but RLPs should be prioritized as the Town has done in the past.

Pursue acquisition/demolition of floodprone residential properties for open space as

noted below under “Natural Resource Protection.” Properties may be classified as repetitive loss or not classified as repetitive loss, but RLPs should be prioritized as the Town has done in the past.

Public Education

Continue the Natural Hazards Awareness Week. This week was an expansion of the

activity proposed in the CRS plan which called for creating a Flood Awareness Week. The theme was expanded upon recognizing the need for public education related to other hazards as well.

During the Natural Hazards Awareness Week, conduct an annual “Flood Fair” so that

residents, business owners, insurance and real estate agents, and all interested parties can familiarize themselves with functions of a floodplain, the laws governing


development in a floodplain and the hazards associated, mitigation alternatives, and precautions necessary for living in flood prone areas.

Continue to visit schools (as is currently done under fire prevention) and educate

children about the risks of floods (and other natural hazards) and how to prepare for them.

Expand the annual public outreach projects, which cover the repetitive loss properties, to all properties in the entire community. This includes updating of the brochure which will outline the risks of flood prone areas and mitigation and preparedness strategies and contracts. The brochure would be handed out annually.

Re-establish a relationship with the Farm River Homeowners Association. If there is

enough interest, develop a workshop to educate interested residents in flood proofing techniques and strategies for flood prone residential properties in the district. Training would include audits of individual homes and recommendations for flood proofing measures.

Develop a Newcomer’s Club so that new residents may receive flood preparedness

information.

Organize a meeting with East Haven insurance agents and the NFIP representatives from FEMA’s insurance contractors to educate the agents on the program.

Encourage builders, developers, and architects to become familiar with the NFIP land

use and building standards by attending annual workshops.

Staff from appropriate town offices will attend the DEEP and other training workshops annually. Also, staff will rotate annually to attend FEMA sponsored training seminars at the Emergency Management Institute (EMI) in Emmitsburg, Maryland. All of these workshops are free of charge. Tuition, travel and lodging are provided by FEMA for the EMI training. Annual training sessions include emergency management, environmental reviews, the FEMA grant programs, the NFIP and CRS and others related to the other hazards.

The East Shore Health District, in cooperation with the American Red Cross, the East

Haven Housing Authority, the Department of Human Services and the Office of Emergency Management will continue to develop a neighborhood buddy system for neighbors to assist neighbors needing additional services and support during emergencies.

Creation of flood related information on the fire department’s web page would allow

people to access the information and download it at their convenience.


Natural Resource Protection

Pursue the acquisition of additional municipal open space in SFHAs.

Selectively pursue conservation recommendations listed in the Plan of Conservation and Development.

Identify new funding sources for open space acquisition.

Continue to regulate development in protected and sensitive areas, including steep

slopes, wetlands, and floodplains

Continue to aggressively pursue wetlands protection through existing wetlands regulations. Incorporate performance standards into subdivision reviews to include additional protective measures such as conservation easement areas around wetlands and watercourses.

Pursue acquisition/demolition of floodprone residential properties for open space.

Properties may be classified as repetitive loss or not classified as repetitive loss, but RLPs should be prioritized as the Town has done in the past.

Structural Projects

Continue to maintain a dialog with regulatory agencies, FEMA, and other entities regarding the possibilities for flood control structures such as a dam in North Branford.

Continue to use modeling techniques to evaluate different flood mitigation options along the Farm River including floodplain storage, channel clearing, diversions, berms, dikes, bridge replacement, and culvert replacement as well as home elevations and acquisitions.

Emergency Services

Identify funding sources and install staff gauges in smaller streams such as Tuttle Brook.

Revise and update the East Haven Flood Response Plan. This would complement the

EOP already adopted by East Haven, but it is specific to handling flood conditions and incorporates mitigation items outlined in this plan.

Investigate locations and necessary labor involvement for the pre-event stockpiling of

sand bags for use in the flood prone downtown areas.


Pursue mutual aid agreements with such organizations as the American Red Cross and the Boy Scouts of America to provide volunteer labor during flooding to fill sand bags and assist with other response activities.

Investigate and pursue the purchase of an automated sand bagger by the town.

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


4.0 COASTAL FLOODING AND SHORELINE CHANGE

4.1 Setting The shorefront of East Haven is somewhat varied, containing most categories of the coastal resources found in Connecticut and described by DEEP: Beaches and Dunes are defined in the Coastal Zone Management Act (CMA) as “beach systems including barrier spits and tombolos, barrier beaches, pocket beaches, land contact beaches and related dunes and sand flats.” Spits are projections of sand attached at one end to an island or the mainland but are separated from it by a body of water or marsh. Beaches have been further described as moderately sloping shores composed of water worked sand, gravel or cobble deposits, or areas of sandy beach fill. The beach is located between mean low water and bluffs/escarpment. Dunes consist of wind deposited sands positioned landward of and elevated above the beach. Beaches are generally considered to be erosion prone, but they were initially formed by the deposition of sand by currents and wave action. The characteristics of the beach are a result of the balance between erosional and depositional forces. Beaches are found along much of the East Haven shoreline. There is a spit at Four Beaches extending eastward towards Kelsey Island, and a small pocket beach approximately 1,000 feet to the north. From Mansfield Point, where the Farm River empties into Long Island Sound, Momauguin Beach extends approximately one-half mile west past Coe Avenue. This stretch includes the Town Beach. Another stretch of beach extends a half-mile west from South End Point (near Ellis Road) to a point near Pequot Street. There is a small beach area at Morgan Point, near Hampton Road. The most westerly stretch of beach in East Haven extends approximately 1,000 feet eastward from Morris Creek at the New Haven city line. Modified Beaches and Dunes are defined by the CMA as “beach systems temporarily stabilized by an erosion control structure positioned between the dune ridge and the beach.” The erosion control structure may be a seawall, revetment or bulkhead. Modified beaches and dunes are also considered to be erosion prone. The effectiveness of the stabilization structures varies, but generally stabilization structures are effective in either slowing the erosion process or shifting it to another area of the shoreline, rather than elimination. Therefore, erosion control is most effective when used to protect small areas of developed shorefront. There is one stretch of modified beaches and dunes in East Haven. It extends from the mouth of Caroline Creek eastward to a point west of Coe Avenue. There is intensive residential development along this beach, fronting on the south side of Cosey Beach Avenue.


Modified Bluffs and Escarpments are “coastal bluffs and escarpments that have been temporarily stabilized by erosion control structures (revetment, bulkhead or seawall) positioned seaward of the marine cliff or escarpment.” Coastal bluffs and escarpments are steep seaward sloping marine cliffs. The modified bluffs and escarpments along the East Haven shore primarily consists of stone seawalls several feet high which separate some stretches of the shorefront from residential development. There is a small area of modified beach and escarpment near the foot of Coe Avenue, abutting the homes along that stretch of Cosey Beach Avenue. The largest stretch of modified bluff and escarpment is along Morgan Point, except for a small “pocket beach.” This protects the homes along Morgan Avenue. Rocky Shorefronts are defined by the CMA as “shorefronts composed of bedrock, boulders and cobbles that are highly erosion resistant and are an insignificant source of sediments for other coastal landforms.” Rocky shorefronts may include nearly vertical rock cliffs, or gently seaward sloping rock and boulder lands. The largest extent of rocky shorefront in East Haven is along the tidal section of the Farm River. Other small areas of rocky shorefront are located just west of the end of Coe Avenue, at South End Point, Morgan Point and at the mouth of Morris Creek near the New Haven City line. Islands are defined in the CMA as “a land mass of bedrock or till encircled by coastal waters.” The only mapped island within the East Haven coastal area is Stony Island, a small rock island approximately 1,900 feet offshore Momauguin Beach. Tidal Wetlands include areas both designated and undesignated. Designated wetlands are those wetlands that have been inventoried and mapped by the DEEP as defined by vegetation and are subject to the state Tidal Wetland Regulations. Undesignated tidal wetlands include other areas with wetland vegetation. They have been unregulated by the State Tidal Wetland Program, until passage of recent amendments (Public Act 91-308) to the Connecticut Tidal Wetlands Act, which requires that undesignated tidal wetlands also be regulated. Tidal wetlands encompass tidal marshes and tidal mudflats. Both are result of the accumulation of fine-grained sediments. Tidal marshes are formed when the sediments accumulate as high as the mid-tide level, which is the intermediate point between high and low tides. Tidal mudflats are where the sediments are below the mid-tide elevation. Generally, tidal marshes are vegetated, while tidal mud flats are not. Tidal wetlands have been considered by the State and Federal governments worthy of special attention for the following reasons:


Marine Food Production – Tidal Wetlands are one of the most productive of the world’s ecosystems. Two-thirds of all commercially harvested fish and shellfish depend on the marsh-estuarine system at some point in their life cycle.

Wildlife Habitat – Tidal wetlands are important as breeding, nesting and feeding grounds.

Flood Control – The serve as a natural buffer, protecting upland and developed areas from storm tides and absorbing wave damage.

Recreation – Tidal wetlands provide opportunities for hunting and fishing. Pollution Control – Tidal wetlands serve as an important basin in which organic

pollutants are filtered and converted to nutrients. Sedimentation – Tidal wetlands absorb silt and organic matter which otherwise would

obstruct channels and harbors. East Haven has extensive areas of tidal wetlands, located primarily along the creeks and rivers as they empty into the Sound. The largest area of tidal wetlands is along the lower Farm River, especially in the area north of Vista Drive and Meadow Street, east of Hemingway Avenue. There are also extensive tidal wetland areas farther south along the Farm River. Other areas of tidal wetlands are located along Morris Creek and Caroline Creek, as well as the area west of Mansfield Grove Road.

Shellfish Beds are important coastal resources of the State. The shallow embayments of the Sound are the most productive shellfish habitats. New Haven Harbor is one of the prime shellfish habitats along the Connecticut shore, with a heavy concentration of shellfish beds. The growing conditions of the harbor, in terms of water temperature, salinity and other factors are ideal. The habitats are also ideal in that there are large areas of shallow, quiet water. There is a large shellfish bed at the southeastern mouth of the harbor, just offshore of Shell Beach and Lighthouse Park. There are other shellfish beds in the Farm River. Most of the shellfish concentrations in East Haven water are beds of eastern oysters. The eastern oyster requires a hard substrate for attachment. Unfortunately, due to poor water quality, the shellfish beds of East Haven waters are closed to recreational and direct commercial harvest. The only way in which the shellfish can be utilized is through commercial “relay,” which is the harvest from these beds and the transplant to areas of cleaner waters for filtering for several weeks, at which time they may be sold. The water quality off East Haven varies, and the shellfish concentrations that are farthest off shore and in the Farm River are at times almost clean enough for direct harvesting. An upgrade of general water quality may open some shellfish concentration areas to direct harvest. Coastal flooding is a well-documented natural hazard that threatens the Town far more frequently and in many more locations than inland flooding. A review of the flood zone map (Figure 3-1) reveals that the shoreline of East Haven consists of A (100-year) and V (100-year flood zones with wave velocity hazards) zones. The FEMA mapping implies


some level of flooding for vast areas south of Route 337 during 100-year coastal flood events. Flooding at tidal creeks can occur where the 100-year coastal flood zones extend far inland from the shoreline and merge with inland flood zones, cutting off access via critical roadways in the process. Sea level rise is a phenomenon that affects coastal and tidal areas and land areas with elevations close to sea level. As such, the entire shoreline of East Haven is vulnerable to sea level rise, extending inland in low-lying areas. The timing of the impacts from sea level rise will vary with distance from the shoreline. Coastal erosion and shoreline change are generally possible anywhere along the shoreline although they have been exacerbated by increased rates of sea level rise and are occurring far more rapidly in the low-lying areas between rocky shorefronts where tidal marshes tend to be present. The area of East Haven that has recently suffered from severe erosion is Cosey Beach. Cosey Beach was devastated by the effects of Tropical Storm Irene as described below.


Coastal Flooding Refer to Figure 3-1 in the previous section and Figure 4-1 on the next page for an overview and close-up of the areas of East Haven susceptible to coastal flooding, respectively, based on FEMA mapping. The FEMA flood zones are based on the 100- and 500-year flood events. As explained in Section 3.2, a 100-year flood event has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year while a 500-year flood has a 0.2% chance of occurring in any given year. Significant coastal flooding is typically associated with hurricanes and tropical storms, nor'easters, or other storm events that are discussed elsewhere this Plan. Figure 4-2 is a map of the hurricane surge zones for Category 1, 2, 3, and 4 hurricanes. In many locations, the Category 1 and 2 surge zones are coincident with the coastal flood zones mapped by FEMA. However, Category 3 and 4 storms are believed to have the potential to drive surges further inland. Hurricanes will be discussed in detail in Section 5.0 of this Plan. Even without the occurrence of hurricanes, tropical storms, nor'easters, or other storm events, astronomically high tides will cause shallow flooding of different parts of coastal East Haven every single year. Meanwhile, sea level rise will exacerbate coastal flooding, and erosion of the shoreline will allow it to affect populations and structures that previously enjoyed a higher degree of protection.


Hazard Mitigation Plan East Haven, CT

Figure 4-1: FEMA Flood ZonesEast Haven Coastline - Long Island Sound

LOCATION:

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

Areas of SevereRepetitive Loss Properties


Bradford Manor Fire Station


Morris Creek

Tuttle Brook

SOURCE(S):

³ 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, CT 06410(203) 271-1773 Fax: (203) 272-9733www.miloneandmacbroom.com

2731-02

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:MXD:

1 in = 1,500 ft

BAM

H:\2731-02\GIS\Maps\Coastline.mxdDate: Jan. 2012


Special Hazard AreasX (Unshaded)500 Year Flood ZoneZone AEZone AZone VE


East Haven, CTFigure 4-2: Hurricane Surge Inundation Areas and Critical Facilities

LOCATION:

#I#I

#I

#I

#I

#I#I

#I

#I

#I

#I#I

#I

#I

#I

#I

#I#I#I

Bradford Manor Fire Station

Tweed-New Haven Regional Airpor

Fire Dept Hdqtrs

Town Hall

Riverside Fire Dept

Senior Center

Community Food Bank

Laurel WoodsPolice Dept./Public Works

Stewart Rest Home

Talmadge Park

Caroline Manor


Telecommunications Stn


I-95 Bridge (Laurel St)I-95 Bridge (No High St)

Saltonstall WTP

SOURCE(S):



2731-02

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:


H:\HurricaneSurge.mxdMXD:Jan. 2012

BAM

Base Map:Microsoft Virtual Earth (2007-2008)Worse Case HurricaneSurge Inundation Mapping:FEMA (2008)Town Boundary:CT DEEP

LegendWorst Case Hurricane Surge Inundation AreasHurricane Category

1234

#I Critical FacilitiesTown Boundary


In summary, coastal flooding can occur as a result of astronomical high tides acting alone or concurrent with storms; as a result of nor'easters, hurricanes and tropical storms; or simply as a result of persistent strong winds. In addition, it is believed that coastal flooding will increase in frequency and magnitude as sea level rises. Sea Level Rise Although erosion and shoreline change have long been recognized as coastal hazards nationwide, it is only recently that the chronic problem of sea level rise has been projected to be closely connected to the acute threats of erosion and shoreline change. Indeed, continued increases in the rate of sea level rise will increase the incidence, severity, and adverse effects of erosion and shoreline change as well as flooding. Sea levels are currently rising along the Atlantic coast. Many believe that this is a result of climate change, which may be attributable to greenhouse gases or may be at least partly related to natural warming and cooling cycles that the Earth experiences. Regardless, a continued increase in the rate of rising sea levels will inundate low areas, increase erosion of beaches and tidal marshes, increase the incidence of flooding from storm surges, and enable saltwater to advance upstream and intrude further into estuaries and aquifers. Rising sea level affects both the natural and the human-made environments. Future sea level rise could result in the disappearance of a large percentage of East Haven's tidal wetlands unless they can advance as quickly as the rising level. Saltwater advancing upstream along estuaries can alter the point at which flocculation leads to sedimentation and the creation of shoals. As sea level rises, storm surges from hurricanes and nor'easters will reach further inland as they will be starting from a higher base level. It has been projected that by the end of the 21st century, it is possible that a Category 1 hurricane storm surge will be similar to what is now mapped as a Category 3 hurricane storm surge. Similarly, FEMA coastal base flood elevations would progressively rise along with sea level. This means that the 100-year and 500-year flood levels will affect lands that are currently at unaffected elevations. This would exacerbate the problem of coastal and near-coastal inland flooding within East Haven. As sea level rises, drainage systems become less effective. Rainstorms will have the potential to cause greater flooding. East Haven reportedly experiences increased problems with inadequate storm drainage south of the Town center and in several coastal areas. As sea level rises, these areas will likely experience decreased drainage capacity and increased flooding.


Erosion and Shoreline Change The Connecticut shoreline continues along the path that started 12,000 years ago after the last glaciation, slowly giving way to the advancing Atlantic Ocean. This net loss of land is due partly to active erosion of beaches and tidal marshes and partly to passive submergence caused by natural component of relative sea level rise. The erosion and submergence together cause a net loss of land resulting in shoreline change. While erosion itself is natural, it has the potential to damage coastal property and infrastructure. Coastal erosion and shoreline change can result in significant economic loss through the destruction of buildings, roads, infrastructure, natural resources, and wildlife habitats. In addition, erosion can expose septic systems and sewer pipes, contaminating shellfish beds and other resources; release oil, gasoline, and other toxins to the marine environment; and sweep construction materials and other debris out to sea. Public safety is jeopardized when buildings collapse or water supplies are contaminated. According to the USGS, four possible erosional outcomes can occur during a storm and storm surge event:

"Swash" occurs when the maximum elevation of wave runup is higher than the beach but still lower than the base of the dune or bluff, if one is present. This results in the erosion of the beach.

"Collision" occurs when the maximum elevation of wave runup is higher than the base of the dune or bluff but lower than the top of the dune or bluff. Collision results in severe erosion of the dune or bluff.

"Overwash" occurs when the maximum elevation of wave runup is higher than the top of the dune or bluff. Overwash can result in damage to structures behind the dune or bluff.

Finally, "inundation" occurs when the base tide and surge level is higher than the beach and dune. This is the most dangerous of the four outcomes with regard to flood damage.

These outcomes are possible in East Haven. They may be expected at sandy beaches such as Cosey Beach. Processes are somewhat different at the marsh fronts. Erosion events in a coastal setting are dependent upon many factors including sea level rise, surrounding conditions, storm events, and human alteration of drainage and currents. As noted above, it has been documented that sea level rise has occurred at an accelerated rate over the last 100 years. Some coastal states have reported subsidence or drowning of tidal wetlands because they can no longer accumulate peat fast enough to stay above sea level. In Connecticut, the effect depends on location. Sea level rise appears to be altering the zonation of plant communities in southeastern Connecticut, where the tidal range averages 0.75 meters. Studies have documented that at least two marsh systems are currently not keeping up with sea level rise. On Connecticut's western shore, with a tidal


range of up to two meters, extensive areas of low marsh vegetation have been drowned (e.g., Five-Mile River, Norwalk). Another ramification of the projected sea level rise is the tendency for marsh systems to migrate landward. As sea level rises, marshes that are able to stay above the rising water level will tend to move inland. For developed areas where seawalls, lawns, and other structures are at the very edge of the marsh, landward movement is limited. Complicating matters, the salt marshes of the entire eastern seaboard have been faced with a dilemma that is currently being termed by some scientists as "sudden wetland dieback." Although there is dispute between scientists surrounding what exactly is occurring, it is known that the health of salt marshes and the zonation of the vegetation that resides within the marshes are threatened. Results of salt marsh dieback include the development of tidal flats and pockets of holes in the absence of the various salt marsh grasses. In summary, erosion and shoreline change can result in significant economic and emotional loss in the current land use system of fixed property lines and ownership. However, attempting to halt the natural process of erosion with seawalls and other hard structures can shift the problem, subjecting other property owners to similar losses. The challenges are to (1) slow erosion where possible without adversely affecting nearby resources, and (2) site coastal development in a manner that allows natural physical coastal processes such as erosion to continue.

4.3 Historic Record Coastal Flooding East Haven experiences coastal flooding associated with astronomical high tides and coastal storms such as nor'easters, tropical storms, and hurricanes. Low pressures and strong winds that cause tidal flooding frequently accompany these weather events. Detailed discussions of hurricanes and nor'easters are provided in Sections 5.0 and 7.0 of this Plan, respectively. The Town has shared in the devastation of all the major storms that have struck Long Island Sound in the past century. Many of these hurricanes and nor'easters have caused coastal flooding in East Haven. For examples, the hurricanes of 1938 and 1954 (Carol) caused surges of 18 and 15 feet, respectively. By comparison, the coastal base flood elevation in East Haven is approximately 13 feet (V Zone) and 10-12 feet (AE Zone). The greatest level of flooding was experienced with the hurricane of September 21, 1938. Water elevations of 10 feet above sea level were recorded in East Haven. In September of 1944 a hurricane hit the Connecticut coast again resulting in moderately high tides. In August of 1954, Hurricane Carol struck the Connecticut coast. The hurricane surge with this storm added five to eight feet of water on top of the normal high tide resulting in the greatest damage recorded. The wave damage was generally worse to the east of New


Haven. In the following year, 1955, residents saw the torrential rains resulting from the back-to-back Hurricanes Connie and Diane. In more recent memory, flooding and winds associated with hurricanes and storm events have caused extensive shoreline erosion and related damages. Hurricanes Gloria and Bob caused very little water damage but resulted in extensive wind damage. Tropical and extra tropical storms have produced periods of locally heavy rainfall. These events have been recorded on June 4-7, 1982, May 16, 1989, October 31, 1991, December 10-12, 1992, and May 27-June 2, 1994. Emergency Management records show that widespread street and storm drain system flooding were associated with these events producing significant basement flooding. Other nor’easters and blizzards have also resulted in coastal and river flooding. Some of these events that resulted in multiple NFIP damage claims were in February of 1987, March of 1978, January of 1979, March of 1980 and March of 1984. Also, in December of 1992 the nor’easter storm named Beth brought high waters and damage to coastal areas. Even during lesser storm events and high tides, coastal flooding occurs in East Haven. Many of the coastal roads like Cosey Beach Avenue, Fairview Road, Brazos Road, and Coe Avenue have been identified by East Haven residents and Town officials as sites of chronic coastal-related flooding, where inundation occurs at least once every year and sometimes more frequently. The residents of many of these neighborhoods have become accustomed to the chronic flooding but remain very concerned nevertheless. Tropical Storm Irene When Hurricane Irene moved up the Atlantic coast in late August 2011, it caused severe and widespread flooding in North Carolina, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, and other states, leading to a series of federal disaster declarations. In Connecticut, the storm made landfall as a tropical storm. Significant coastal flooding in East Haven was caused by the storm surge from T.S. Irene on August 27-28, 2011. The storm surge was accompanied by damaging waves. Section 5.0 provides a discussion of tropical storms and hurricanes and describes the wind damage caused by the storm. Flood and wave damage from the storm is discussed here. T.S. Irene caused the most severe coastal flood damage in East Haven in decades. The damage in East Haven was covered by nationwide news organizations and the Associated Press. Photographs of the damage were distributed nationwide as well. The Cosey Beach area was visited by many national political figures in the weeks following the storm. Ultimately, the State of Connecticut received federal disaster declaration #4023 as a result of Irene. In the Town of East Haven, the waves from the storm washed over Cosey Beach and other low-lying coastal areas, aided by the elevation of the storm surge. Coastal flooding from Irene inundated the following streets with a water depth of several feet:


Cosey Beach Avenue Palmetto Trail, Catherine Street, Phillip Street, and Hobson Street at their

intersections with Cosey Beach Avenue Cosey Beach Extension, Ellis Road, and Caroline Road Fairview Road and Brazos Road Jamaica Court Seaview Avenue and First Avenue

A total of 17 homes were completely destroyed by the storm surge and waves. A total of 32 homes were classified as substantially damaged per the NFIP regulations and FEMA guidance, and another 49 homes were damaged but total costs fell below the threshold of substantially damaged. In the 300 block of Cosey Beach Avenue, many decks were destroyed. FEMA opened a recovery center in the Town of East Haven to provide administrative support to property owners seeking FEMA assistance. In addition, FEMA hosted a meeting on October 24, 2011 to facilitate outreach to residents and properties owners regarding applying for assistance, cleanup, recovery, and rebuilding. Prior to T.S. Irene, the Town of East Haven was working with approximately eight homeowners to potentially develop applications for mitigation grant funds under HMGP. Subsequent to the storm, interest in mitigation programs has increased. A meeting for homeowners and business owners who were interested in HMGP and SRL programs was held on December 7, 2011, and a follow up meeting for homeowners and businesses working on HMGP applications was held on December 14, 2011. Refer to Sections 4.4 and 4.6 for details about potential mitigation opportunities related to Irene. Even slightly inland, coastal flooding from Irene impacted East Haven. The primary route to the beach from the center of town, Coe Avenue, was under water for several hours where it meets Hemingway Avenue due to flooding of the Farm River estuary. Two cars, a truck and a van were stuck in the middle of the intersection.

Photograph of October 24, 2011 meeting courtesy of FEMA


Sea Level Rise The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes based on available data that there has been a global mean rise in sea level between 10 and 25 centimeters (cm) (approximately four to 10 inches) over the last 100 years (Neumann et al., 2000). Relative sea level rise at Boston and Woods Hole gauges over the same time period is estimated at 26 cm (10 inches) according to the USGS. In its landmark 2001 report, the IPCC projected that global sea level may rise nine to 88 centimeters during the 21st century. According to the much-publicized February 2007 report by the IPCC, these predictions have been somewhat refined using six models to predict a more narrow range of sea level rise of 28 to 43 cm (11 to 16.9 inches) in the 21st century. It is expected that the rate of sea level rise in Connecticut will remain slightly higher than the global projections due to the effects of regional subsidence. The basis for evaluating sea level rise in this HMP is the historic sea level rise for the Connecticut shoreline over the last 100 years as adjusted by local observations. Water level data from tide gauges demonstrate that in the late 19th century and early 1900s sea level was rising at a rate of one millimeter (mm) each year. Throughout most of the 20th century, the rate has been rising at two mm per year. More recently, tide gauge data was augmented by satellite altimeter readings, which indicate that between 1990 and 2008 the rate increased to three mm per year. In addition, subsidence along the Connecticut coast may have effectively caused an additional rise of three inches on a localized basis. Scientific studies have resulted in a wide range in the projected long-term sea level rise to the year 2100. A conservative approach to determine likely "short-term" rise from the present time to 2040 can be developed by using the historic rise over the last century and assuming that the threefold acceleration rate will continue in the short term projected into the future. As noted above, the observed rate over the last century is one to three mm/year resulting in a conservative estimate of an additional rise of five inches to seven inches by 2040. Land subsidence at some local shoreline areas is 0.01 inch per year, which increases the estimated rise to eight inches to 10 inches by 2040. The wide range of governmental and scientific projections reflects the fact that sea level rise and climate change in general will be affected by a wide number of factors, and their combined effect and timing of impact can have a variety of possible outcomes. These averages are global averages and must be further adjusted by local conditions and factors as they become understood. Erosion and Shoreline Change The beaches identified in Section 4.1 have experienced varying rates of erosion over the years. Most of the beaches are considered generally stable, but significant erosion occurs during storm events such as Tropical Storm Irene.


4.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Coastal Flooding Many of the existing programs, policies, and mitigation measures utilized in the Town for inland flood mitigation are also applicable to coastal flood mitigation. The Town's Code, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, and Inland Wetland and Watercourses Regulations were described in detail in Section 2.10. Sections of these codes and regulations are dedicated to flood damage prevention. In particular, Chapter 9 of the East Haven Town Code is entitled "Flood Damage Prevention and Control," and the Zoning Regulations provide for the permitting process connected to flood damage prevention. The Planning and Zoning Commission, Inland Wetlands Commission, and the Building and Engineering Department are all charged with reviewing projects and developments in coastal SFHAs. As explained in Section 3.4, the Town of East Haven has been active in the area of flood damage mitigation, resulting in its inclusion in FEMA’s “best practices” portfolio. Refer to Appendix G for a copy of the best practices summary paper. The Cosey Beach Avenue roadway was elevated in the early 1970s east of Coe Avenue after many storms and high tides caused flooding. At its current elevation, significant flooding only occurs at tides above an elevation of eight feet. This has reduced damage as well as the demand on emergency resources during storms. Two roadways leading northward, First Avenue and Sea View, were not raised and still flood with coastal storms. Many homes on Cosey Beach Avenue east of Coe Avenue were elevated and a number were removed over the years. A new condominium development was built in their place at proper coastal area management elevations. The Cosey Beach Avenue roadway was elevated west of Coe Avenue for approximately 1,000 feet along with a number of homes. The remainder of the road, approximately 1,800 feet, was not elevated and continued to experience flooding. In 1996 a study was completed by Cascio & Bechir to recommend options to prevent street flooding during spring tides and modest coastal storms. The study proposed to raise the Cosey Beach Avenue roadway for a length of about 1,700 feet. The roadway would be elevated up to 3.5 feet in some areas. Approximately 1,400 feet of this length would be shifted about 20 feet to the north resulting in a tidal wetland encroachment. The encroachment will effect only severely degraded tidal wetlands. To compensate for the loss of wetland, adjacent degraded tidal wetlands would be restored by removing sediment that was deposited over the years to an elevation where tidal wetland grasses could thrive. This project was completed in the spring of 1998.


Mitigation in the Meadow Street area along the Farm River estuary has been limited to placing evacuation signage and ensuring that new construction meets local coastal area management and NFIP requirements. In the Shell Beach/Morgan Point area, the town applied for and received two grants (one to design road changes, the second to complete alterations) of Old Town Highway. Both grants came from hazard mitigation funding. In 1996 the necessary repairs were designed and in 1998 the repairs were completed. This was a shared project with the town providing labor and equipment, and the grant providing materials. The roadway was not elevated, but drainage was improved to preclude flooding during normal high tides. Coastal storms continue to present flooding in the area. In 2005, the Town of East Haven filed PDM applications with DEP for the elevations of nine homes along Cosey Beach Avenue. Eight of the homes were repetitive loss properties and one was not a repetitive loss property, but all had experienced flooding. The grant was obligated and renewed by the State Attorney General’s Office through 2008, but none of the PDM-funded elevations were completed. In some cases, the homes were sold to new owners, and in some cases the owners did not accept the awards. As noted in Section 4.3, the Town of East Haven was working with approximately eight coastal homeowners to potentially develop applications for mitigation grant funds under HMGP prior to T.S. Irene. Subsequent to the storm, interest in mitigation programs has increased. A meeting for homeowners and business owners who were interested in HMGP and SRL programs was held on December 7, 2011, and a follow up meeting for homeowners and businesses working on HMGP applications was held on December 14, 2011. Submittal of HMGP applications is anticipated in 2012. Many coastal structures have been elevated through private funds. Examples of elevated homes can be found throughout the Cosey Beach area, with living areas located over garages, storage areas, or spaces that are free to flood. Many of these structures suffered little damage during Tropical Storm Irene because they were not flooded by the storm surge. The DEP and town have funded a shared coastal emergency notification system that continues to provide early notification of potential flooding situations to the town’s emergency communication center. The design was completed in October 1998 with installation completed in October 1999. As explained elsewhere in this HMP, the National Weather Service issues a flood watch or a flash flood watch for an area when conditions in or near the area are favorable for a flood or flash flood, respectively. A flash flood watch or flood watch does not necessarily mean that flooding will occur. The National Weather Service issues a flood warning or a flash flood warning for an area when parts of the area are either currently flooding, highly likely to flood, or when flooding is imminent.


East Haven has completed participation in a hurricane evacuation sign project. Twenty pairs of gauges and signs were installed at various locations throughout the town. The signs provide elevations above sea level from the ground up to twelve or sixteen feet above sea level. The signs indicate areas of town that would be inundated by hurricane-related flooding. Although installation of the signs will not provide protection to structures, they will allow residents to take steps to protect their safety and movable possessions. The sign installation was conducted by the East Haven Police Department, East Haven Emergency Management and the DEP. Although East Haven lacks inland flood control structures such as dams and channelized sections of rivers, the shoreline of East Haven contains many coastal flood control structures. Seawalls and bulkheads can be found in many of the residentially developed coastal neighborhoods. In summary, the Town primarily attempts to mitigate coastal flood damage and flood hazards by controlling and restricting activities in floodprone areas, elevating homes, reconstructing roadways, maintaining hard structures in good condition, and providing signage and warning systems. Erosion and Shoreline Change The use of shoreline flood and erosion control structures is discouraged by the DEEP. However, as noted in the state's Coastal Management Manual, a structural solution may be permitted when (1) it is demonstrated that it would protect a water-dependent use, infrastructural facilities, or an inhabited structure; (2) there is a clear demonstration of the need for protection; and (3) the use of the proposed structure is unavoidable because it is demonstrated that there is no feasible less environmentally damaging nonstructural alternative. With regard to preexisting structures that were constructed to reduce coastal erosion, examples include the handful of groins, jetties, seawalls, and bulkheads along the East Haven shoreline. Sea Level Rise Like many communities, the Town lacks existing policies and mitigation measures that are specifically designed to address sea level rise. Although East Haven does not currently have a specific plan to address sea level rise, important pieces are in place in the form of the codes and regulations cited in this HMP that have been enacted to minimize storm, erosion, and flood damage.



This section discusses specific areas at risk to coastal flooding within the Town. As shown by the historic record, coastal flooding can impact many roads and neighborhoods, cause severe damage, and impede transportation in the Town.

4.5.1 Vulnerability Analysis of Coastal Areas Morris Creek/Tuttle Brook – Much of the section of East Haven south of I-95 is within a SFHA, either along the Farm River as described in Section 3.4, or within the Morris Creek/Tuttle Brook SFHA in the southwest section of Town. As explained in Section 3.5, it is important to note that much of the SFHA for Morris Creek/Tuttle Brook has a base flood elevation of 11 feet and is continuous with the coastal SFHAs in East Haven. A true division between inland and coastal flooding is not possible in some parts of southern East Haven, such as around the airport. The Morris Creek/Tuttle Brook area experiences flooding at a lower frequency than other parts of East Haven because tide gates are present in the lower reaches of Morris Creek. Cosey Beach Avenue along Long Island Sound – The flood area consists of Cosey Beach Avenue from Caroline Creek eastward to Coe Avenue, including parts of the roads that lead north from Cosey Beach Avenue such as Catherine Street. Houses line the south side of Cosey Beach Avenue. The houses front directly onto Long Island Sound. Approximately 1,400 linear feet of the north side of Cosey Beach Avenue is adjacent to an extensive tidal wetland area that is principally flooded from tidal Caroline Creek. The remainder of the north side has homes facing the roadway. The existing roadway is frequently flooded due to spring tides and coastal storms. Many of the homes were constructed many years ago as summer residences. Over the years an informal berm was created along the north side of the road, which was presumably done to “keep the tide off the road.” Because the road is lower that the beach upon which the houses are built, as well as the berm backshore of the road, two penetrations through the berm exist to facilitate drainage. Over the years the portion of the tidal wetland area near the road has gradually filled with sediment to the extent where the ground elevations are too high for a tidal wetland to exist. The area is dominated by a thick growth of phragmites. Concrete fill, tires and other trash is littered throughout. The roadway is flooded several times each month during spring tides. Modest coastal storm surges also flood the roadway. This area has been depicted frequently on the local evening television news during many coastal storms over the years. This situation presents a serious risk to the safety of the neighborhood due to its inaccessibility to emergency vehicles.


Meadow Street along Farm River Estuary – The flood prone area consists of Meadow Street from Short beach Road to Vernon Street. Houses line both sides of the street, some facing easterly the Farm River built upon rock ledges 20 to 30 feet above the road surface. The westerly side homes face Cliff Street and are built 40 to 50 feet above the road surface on rock ledge. Meadow Street is frequently flooded due to high tides and coastal storms. The water enters from the river by rising above ground elevation at two points where ledge separates the roadway from the river. Old Town Highway in the Shell Beach/Morgan Point Area – This floodprone area consists of Old Town Highway, Sibley Lane and Morgan Avenue. These streets are lined with homes that were once summer cottages. Old Town Highway also fronts a tidal wetland that is associated with the lower part of Morris Creek. The roadway is flooded several times a month during high tides and during coastal storms. Water enters the roadway via the marsh land. Portions of the wetlands are home to a marina that has filled in some areas. Concrete fill, tires, automobiles, boats and other materials are littered throughout the area. Minor Road along Long Island Sound – This road is extremely low and floods by tidal water filling up the tidal marsh located behind Beach Avenue. Once flooded, there are 23 homes that become inaccessible for emergency vehicles. At times the Town is called to evacuate flooded residents. Most of the homes are summer cottages converted to full time occupancy. Coe Avenue, Hemingway Avenue, and Short Beach Road near the Farm River Estuary – This area floods whenever there is a perigee high tide. The intersection is a major point of transit for the Momauguin (beach neighborhoods) and Riverside sections of town. A request to the Connecticut DOT to elevate the intersection has been designed. It should be noted that the three roads are all state roads. Sea Level Rise – The areas of East Haven that are vulnerable to sea level rise are the same as those vulnerable to coastal flood hazards. In general, a quick view of the coastal floodplain maps reveals the areas that are most vulnerable to sea level rise. These include at-grade roads, certain neighborhoods, and larger areas adjacent to marshes. In general, the homes lying at higher elevations along Meadow Street, South End Road, the midsection of Silver Sands Road, and lower Coe Avenue are not at risk to inundation due to sea level rise, but they are at risk to increased frequency of isolation as areas around them are flooded. On the other hand, homes located along Old Town Highway, Morgan Avenue, Minor Road, Beach Avenue, Fairview Road, Brazos Road, Caroline Road, Ellis Road, Cosey Beach Extension, Cosey Beach Avenue, First Avenue, and Jamaica Court may need to address the actual encroachment of sea water under non-storm conditions.


With regard to undeveloped areas, all of the tidal marshes are vulnerable to sea level rise. They will continue to erode as marshes spend more time inundated. The marshes will continue to be "squeezed" where they cannot migrate inland and, even where sufficient land is available for migration, sea level rise could be too fast for migration to occur.

4.5.2 Vulnerability Analysis of Private Properties General areas containing coastal flooding RLPs are depicted on Figure 4-1 and a summary of the approximately 62 RLPs related to coastal flooding are listed in Table 4-1.

TABLE 4-1

Coastal Flooding Repetitive Loss Properties

Type Street Flooding Source Number of Properties

Single Family Home Atwater St Tidal Marshes 1 Single Family Home Beach Ave Long Island Sound 1 Single Family Home Brazos Rd Long Island Sound 1 Single Family Home Cosey Beach Ave Long Island Sound 40 Multi-Family Home Cosey Beach Ave Long Island Sound 1 Multi-Family Home Catherine St Long Island Sound 1 Single Family Home Catherine St Long Island Sound 2 Single Family Home Caroline Rd Long Island Sound 1 Single Family Home Jamaica Ct Long Island Sound 2 Single Family Home Morgan Ave Long Island Sound 3 Single Family Home Palmetto Trail Long Island Sound 2 Single Family Home Tyler Street Ext Tidal Marsh 1 Single Family Home 1st Ave Long Island Sound 1 Single Family Home Ellis Rd Long Island Sound 1 Single Family Home 2nd Ave Long Island Sound 1 Commercial Silver Sands Long Island Sound 3

The software platform ArcGIS was utilized to determine the number of properties located within the various floodplains within the town. There are approximately 172 structures within the delineated velocity zone along the coast. The Town recognizes that many private properties may suffer coastal flood damage that is not reported because the structures are not insured under the NFIP. These residents and business owners are likely repairing structures on their own. Coastal flood mitigation as recommended in this HMP will likely help many of these property owners. Several critical facilities lie within hurricane surge zones, however there are no critical facilities located in the coastal SFHA or 500-year floodplain.


4.5.3 HAZUS-MH Vulnerability Analysis

HAZUS-MH was utilized to determine the potential impacts of a 100-year coastal flood. A basic analysis utilizing the FEMA default values for each census tract was performed to generate potential damages to East Haven from a 100-year coastal flood event. Hydrology and hydraulics for the coastal areas in East Haven were generated utilizing coastal flooding elevation information in the 2010 New Haven County FIS and the 10-food Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data prepared by the University of Connecticut’s Center for Land Use Education and Research (CLEAR). A summary reports for the 100-year coastal flood event is included in Appendix H. The following paragraphs discuss the results of the HAZUS-MH analysis. The HAZUS-MH simulation estimates that during a 100-year coastal flood event, 568 residential buildings will be at least moderately damaged in the Town from coastal flooding. A total of 44 of these buildings will be substantially damaged and uninhabitable. Table 4-2 presents the expected damages based on building type.

TABLE 4-2 HAZUS-MH Flood Scenario – Building Stock Damages

Occupancy 1-10% Damaged

11-20% Damaged

21-30% Damaged

31-40% Damaged

41-50% Damaged

Substantially Damaged

Residential 0 58 232 78 156 44 Commercial 0 1 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 59 232 78 156 44

HAZUS-MH utilizes a subset of critical facilities known as "essential facilities" that are important following natural hazard events. These include fire stations, hospitals, police stations, and schools. The software noted that under the 100-year coastal flood event one school would suffer at least moderate damage and a corresponding loss of use. The HAZUS-MH simulation estimated that a total of 35,960 tons of debris would be generated by coastal flood damage for the 100-year flood scenario. It is estimated that 1,438 truckloads (at approximately 25 tons per truck) will be required to remove the debris. The breakdown of debris is as follows:

Finishes (drywall, insulation, etc.) comprise 45% of this total (16,182 tons); Structural material (wood, brick, etc.) comprise 32% of the total (11,507 tons); and Foundation material (concrete slab, concrete block, rebar, etc.) comprise the

remaining 23% of the total (8,271 tons).


HAZUS-MH calculated the potential sheltering requirement for the 100-year flood event. The model estimates that 1,129 households will be displaced due to flooding. Displacement includes households evacuated from within or very near to the inundated areas. Of these households, a total of 3,018 people will seek temporary shelter in public shelters. The predicted sheltering requirements for coastal flood damage are relatively large and existing shelter capacity is not adequate for accommodating the predicted number of displaced households. HAZUS-MH also calculated the predicted economic losses due to the 100-year flood event. Economic losses are categorized between building-related losses and business interruption losses. Building-related losses (damages to building, content, and inventory) are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building and its contents. Business interruption losses are those associated with the inability to operate a business because of the damage sustained during the flood and include lost income, relocation expenses, lost rental income, lost wages, and temporary living expenses for displaced people.

A total of $144.96 million of building-related losses is expected. Residential losses total $82.25 million, commercial losses total $44.30 million, industrial losses total $15.50 million, and other (municipal) losses total $2.92 million.

A total of $0.59 million of business interruption losses is expected. Commercial

sector losses are $0.43 million, residential sector losses are $0.12 million, with municipal losses the remainder.

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

4.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives

Coastal Flooding Many potential mitigation strategies for coastal flooding are essentially the same as those for inland flooding and are not restated in this section under the headings for prevention, property protection, structural projects, emergency services, public education, and natural resource protection. Potential strategies that are more applicable to coastal flooding than inland flooding are presented below. V-Zone Standards and Freeboard Standards – In recognition of increased flood losses in coastal environments, often due to increased development, the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) has adopted a No Adverse Impact (NAI) floodplain management philosophy. These policies focus on individual- or community-level responsibility and mitigation of flood risk. NAI should be viewed as a set of principles to follow when designing or evaluating development activities. Implementation of NAI


principles can be accomplished through planning initiatives, regulatory programs, individual- or community-based projects, and public education and outreach. The NFIP and the accompanying locally adopted floodplain management ordinances set forth specific design requirements aimed at minimizing damage to buildings in mapped V zones caused by waves and storm-induced erosion. These requirements state that new, substantially damaged, or substantially improved structures that are built in V zones must, among other requirements, be elevated on piers, piles, or other open foundation type, with the lowest horizontal structural component elevated to or above the flood elevation. The area below the flood elevation is to be kept free of obstructions, used only for building access, parking, or storage. The intent of this requirement is to allow floodwaters and damaging waves to pass beneath a building without transferring any additional loads onto its foundational components. One of the best mitigation options available, as identified by the ASFPM NAI principles, is to exceed the minimum NFIP requirements by constructing (or retrofitting) buildings located in sections of coastal A-zones to meet V-zone standards. Exceeding minimum regulatory requirements may increase costs for initial construction and maintenance, but these costs could more than be offset by long-term benefits. Application of freeboard standards to coastal flood zone elevations is typically viewed as more effective than applying freeboard standards to inland flood zones. Freeboard standards require structures to be elevated higher than the level that FEMA requires. When used alone, freeboard standards provide additional certainty that flood levels will not damage a structure. When use in combination with V-zone standards, freeboard standards can provide an additional level of flood damage prevention. Evacuation Procedures and/or Improvement of Satellite Shelters – Viable evacuation routes can increase a community's disaster resistance. The East Haven evacuation route map was discussed in Section 2.11. The primary routes to the shelters are concentrated in coastal flood and storm surge zones, and portions of these roads may be impassable during a coastal hazard event such as a hurricane or nor'easter. The concept of an evacuation route being vulnerable to flooding is contradictory to the objectives of hazard mitigation (reducing property damage and the loss of life). Therefore, coastal residents must evacuate as soon as possible after receiving a warning, or risk evacuation during a storm. In addition, the Town may consider improving satellite shelters in areas that are subject to isolation, such as the Momauguin area which is served by the fire station on George Street as a secondary shelter. These shelters could then accommodate more people when evacuation to other Town shelters (such as the high school) is impossible due to flooding of the evacuation routes.


Sea Level Rise, Shoreline Change, and Erosion Land use planning in coastal areas must take into account the phenomenon of sea level rise. Three fundamental long-term responses to sea level rise are typically reported in the literature. These are retreat, accommodation, and protection. These three responses are applicable to erosion and shoreline change as well. Retreat – Retreat refers to the eventual abandonment of the coastal zone, allowing nature to take its course. This allows for existing coastal ecosystems to shift landward. Retreat may be motivated by excessive economic or environmental impacts of hard or soft measures of protection. Retreat may be implemented through anticipatory land use planning, regulation, and building codes or could be motivated through economic incentives. As a general rule, retreat is feasible in some parts of East Haven but is not feasible in the most densely developed areas. Accommodation – Accommodation allows for the continued use of land at risk but does not prevent the land from flooding. Measures associated with accommodation may take the form of elevating buildings on piles and establishing other means of flood hazard mitigation. Accommodation may evolve without any governmental action but could be assisted by strengthening flood preparation and flood insurance programs. Protective measures are implemented by authorities currently responsible for water resource and coastal protection. Policies should be developed with the ultimate goal to protect coastal property values, or they will be at risk of not being accepted by the community. Because erosion rates are relatively low where structures are already present, accommodation is feasible in East Haven. As such, it has been used in a number of cases such as the elevated homes along Cosey Beach Avenue. Protection – Protection is the construction of structures meant to protect land from inundation and flooding. These may be hard structures such as dikes and sea walls or soft solutions including beach nourishment. Of the hard structures, three main structures are utilized to hold back the sea. These are seawalls, bulkheads, and revetments. Seawalls are designed to withstand the full force of waves and are used if significant wave impact at the project site is expected to be greater than three feet. Bulkheads are designed to retain fill and generally are not exposed to severe wave action. Revetments are designed to protect shorelines against erosion by currents and light wave action. As a general proposition, holding back the sea with structures results in large-scale elimination of wetlands, beaches, mud flats, and other coastal habitat. As shoreline erosion advances toward the structure, if sediment is not replaced at an adequate rate, the coastal fringe will eventually disappear under the water surface. This is why beaches in front of bulkheads and seawalls tend to disappear over time. Beach Nourishment and Marsh Stabilization – New hard structures are generally discouraged in Connecticut under the current regulatory climate although maintenance of


existing hard structures is important. However, as noted previously, a structural solution may be permitted when it is demonstrated that it would protect a water-dependent use, infrastructural facilities, or an inhabited structure; there is a clear demonstration of the need for protection; and the use of the proposed structure is unavoidable because it is demonstrated that there is no feasible less environmentally damaging nonstructural alternative. Therefore, beach nourishment is the primary means of protection available to East Haven. Beach nourishment is the process of replacing sand on and along eroded beaches. Sand may be obtained from offshore areas or from onshore sources. Because beach nourishment does not stop erosion and shoreline change, it must be repeated as necessary to slow the progress of erosion and shoreline change. In many parts of the United States where hard solutions are not feasible or prudent, beach nourishment is the only means available for slowing the retreat of the shoreline. A close relative of beach nourishment is the reuse of dredged sediment to protect the marsh fronts. It is believed that beach nourishment and similar projects will increase as retreat, accommodation, and hard solutions become more difficult, costly, or unlawful to use. Elevation of Roads and Land – Elevation of land and infrastructure is another form of protection from sea level rise. Elevation has the important advantage that many types of drainage systems will continue to work properly as the same or greater head gradient will exist between the drainage system and sea level. Elevation of road surfaces can be achieved in connection with repaving or re-grading of roads. In some communities, continued elevation of roads parallel to water bodies can create a diking effect, protecting areas landward of the road. In these cases, care must be taken that road elevation does not cause excessive runoff and flooding problems in other areas that become diked by the elevated roadways. The Town of East Haven has been actively elevating roads as discussed in Section 4.4, and it is anticipated that this type of mitigation will continue. Existing Policies – Section F of the East Haven POCD addresses the Special Study Area – Shoreline Area goals for the preservation of sensitive environmental areas near the shoreline. Within this section, potential elements of mitigation are listed. These include:

Tidal wetland areas located between Atwater Street and Mansfield Grove Road should be preserved in their natural state.

The undeveloped wetland areas and adjacent uplands along the Farm River and East Haven should be preserved as an open space corridor.

Most of the environmentally significant tidal wetland areas should remain undeveloped. There should be adequate mitigation where development occurs in already disturbed areas.

Additional residential development along Cosey Beach Avenue in the vicinity of Caroline Creek should be discouraged.


The environmentally significant tidal wetland areas should remain undisturbed to the greatest extent feasible. There should be adequate mitigation where development occurs in already disturbed areas.

The tidal wetlands north of Cosey Beach Avenue should remain in their natural state. Undeveloped property north of Old Town Highway should be developed consistent

with R-3 standards, with the units clustered in an open space development as appropriate to protect sensitive environmental resources.


The proposed mitigation strategies for addressing coastal flooding, sea level rise, and shoreline change mitigation are listed below. Recommendations from Section 3.7 that are also applicable to coastal flooding are not repeated here. Property Protection

Apply freeboard standards of one foot when requiring structure elevations for

renovations and new construction in coastal A zones and V zones.

Structural Projects

Investigate funding sources and feasibility of improvements to the Coe Avenue, Hemingway Road, and Short Beach Road intersection to mitigate frequent and repeated flooding problems. Improvements could include elevation of roads and replacement of storm drainage systems. Work with CT DOT to facilitate these actions, as State roads are involved.

Investigate funding sources and feasibility of elevating portions of Town-owned

roads with an emphasis on those needed for inland evacuation, including Old Town Highway, Minor Road, Fairview Road, Brazos Road, and Silver Sands Road at Fairview Road.

Upgrade stormwater collection and discharge systems in downtown and coastal East Haven to keep up with rising sea level.

Emergency Services

Implement a roadway-specific warning system to alert motorists to the dangers

present at the Coe Avenue, Hemingway Road, and Short Beach Road intersection during times of flooding. Warning may take the form of dedicated signage or traffic control lights.

Erosion Control

Conduct beach nourishment along Cosey Beach as needed to keep up with erosion.


Maintain existing hard structures in good condition.

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


5.0 HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS 5.1 Setting

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


Hurricanes are a class of tropical cyclones that are defined by the National Weather Service as warm-core, nonfrontal, low pressure, large scale systems that develop over tropical or subtropical water and have definite organized circulations. Tropical cyclones are categorized based on the speed of the sustained (one-minute average) surface wind near the center of the storm. These categories are Tropical Depression (winds less than 39 mph), Tropical Storm (winds 39-74 mph, inclusive), and Hurricanes (winds at least 74 mph). The geographic areas affected by tropical cyclones are called tropical cyclone basins. The Atlantic tropical cyclone basin is one of six in the world and includes much of the North Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico. The official Atlantic hurricane season begins on June 1 and extends through November 30 of each year although occasionally hurricanes occur outside this period. Inland Impacts Inland Connecticut is vulnerable to hurricanes despite moderate hurricane occurrences when compared with other areas within the Atlantic Tropical Cyclone basin. Since hurricanes tend to weaken within 12 hours of landfall, far inland areas are relatively less susceptible to hurricane wind damages than coastal areas in Connecticut. However, the heaviest rainfall often occurs inland. A recent example is Hurricane Irene, which made landfall as a tropical storm. Irene caused extensive precipitation within inland Connecticut.


East Haven is an elongated community that reaches nearly eight miles inland from the shoreline. As such, it includes areas typical of both coastal and inland areas. However, all areas within East Haven are near enough to the coast to experience strong winds. Inland areas in East Haven are vulnerable to riverine flooding during a hurricane and are as vulnerable as coastal areas to hurricane wind damage. Of particular concern are the blockage of roads and the damage to the electrical power supply from falling trees and tree limbs. Many of the inland roads are narrow and bordered by private forest land, which is not cleared back from the right-of-way to prevent serious problems resulting from high winds. Storm Surge Abnormal rise of water generated by a storm over and above the predicated astronomical tides is commonly referred to as storm surge. In short, it is the difference between the observed water level and the normal astronomical tide. Storm surge is not the same as storm tide, which is the water level rise due to the combination of storm surge and the astronomical tide. Extratropical storms such as nor'easters have produced some of the highest storm surges and resultant damages on record. However, hurricanes have the potential to produce much higher storm surges because of the vast amount of energy released by these storm systems over a relatively short duration. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 is one of the nation's most infamous examples of damage and devastation caused by storm surge. Most recently, Tropical Storm Irene struck at high tide during a perigee (full moon) tide resulting in an abnormally high storm surge causing serious coastal damage in Connecticut. The storm surge from Irene destroyed many structures and flooded many coastal roads in East Haven. A number of factors contribute to the generation of storm surge, but the fundamental forcing mechanism is wind and the resultant frictional stress it imposes on the water surface as it forces water to move inland. The magnitude of storm surge within a coastal basin is governed by both the meteorological parameters of the hurricane and the physical characteristics of the basin. The meteorological aspects include the hurricane's size, measured by the radius of maximum winds; the intensity, measured by sea level pressure and maximum surface wind speeds at the storm center; the path, or forward track of the storm; and the storm's forward speed.

The Saffir/Simpson Scale

The "Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale" was used prior to 2009 to categorize hurricanes based upon wind speed, central pressure, and storm surge, relating these components to damage potential. In 2009, the scale was revised and is now called the "Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale." The modified scale is more scientifically defensible and is predicated only on surface wind speeds. Storm surge


is no longer part of the scale. The National Hurricane Center is considering offering specific warnings regarding storm surge based on Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) mapping for areas that could be impacted by a hurricane. The following descriptions are from the 2010 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.

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

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

Category Three Hurricane: Sustained winds 111-130 mph (96-113 kt or 178-

209 km/hr). Dangerous winds will cause extensive damage. Some structural damage to houses and buildings will occur with a minor amount of wall failures. Mobile homes (mainly pre-1994 construction) and poorly constructed signs are destroyed. Many windows in high-rise buildings will be dislodged and become airborne. Persons struck by windborne debris risk injury and possibly death. Many trees will be snapped or uprooted and block numerous roads. Near total power loss is expected with outages that could last from several days to weeks.

Category Four Hurricane: Sustained winds 131-155 mph (114-135 kt or 210-

249 km/hr). Extremely dangerous winds causing devastating damage are expected. Some wall failures with some complete roof structure failures on houses will occur. All signs are blown down. Complete destruction of mobile homes (primarily pre-1994 construction). Extensive damage to doors and windows likely. Numerous windows in high-rise buildings will be dislodged and become airborne. Windborne debris will cause extensive damage and persons struck by the wind-blown debris will be injured or killed. Most trees


will be snapped or uprooted. Fallen trees could cut off residential areas for days to weeks. Electricity will be unavailable for weeks after the hurricane passes.

Category Five Hurricane: Sustained winds greater than 155 mph (135 kt or

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

5.3 Historic Record

Through research efforts by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climate Center in cooperation with the National Hurricane Center, records of tropical cyclone occurrences within the Atlantic Cyclone Basin have been compiled from 1851 to present. These records are compiled in NOAA's Hurricane database (HURDAT), which contains historical data recently reanalyzed to current scientific standards as well as the most current hurricane data. During HURDAT's period of record (1851-2011), two Category Three Hurricanes, 11 Category Two Hurricanes, 10 Category One Hurricanes, and 37 tropical storms have tracked within a 150 nautical mile radius of East Haven. The representative storm strengths were measured as the peak intensities for each individual storm passing within the 150-mile radius. The 23 hurricanes noted above occurred in July through October as noted in Table 5-1.

TABLE 5-1

Tropical Cyclones by Month within 150 Miles of East Haven, 1851-2011

Category July August September October Tropical Storm1 4 11 14 5

One 1 3 4 2 Two 0 4 6 1

Three 0 0 2 0 Total 5 18 26 8

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

A description of the historic record of tropical cyclones near East Haven follows:


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

2. An unnamed hurricane in September 1859 strengthened to a Category One

Hurricane when its center passed southeast of Long Island, New York. 3. An unnamed hurricane in September 1869 was a Category Three Hurricane

when its center made landfall in Rhode Island.

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

5. An unnamed hurricane in October 1878 was a Category One Hurricane when its

center passed over eastern Pennsylvania toward Albany, New York.

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

7. An unnamed hurricane in September 1888 was a Category One Hurricane when

its center made landfall in Nantucket, Massachusetts.

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

9. An unnamed hurricane in October 1894 was a Category One Hurricane when its

center made landfall near Clinton, Connecticut.

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

11. An unnamed hurricane in July 1916 was a Category One Hurricane when its

center passed near Block Island, Rhode Island.

12. An unnamed hurricane in August 1924 was a Category Two Hurricane when its center passed southeast of Nantucket, Massachusetts.

13. An unnamed hurricane in September 1936 was a Category Two Hurricane when

its center passed southeast of Long Island, New York.

14. The most devastating hurricane to strike Connecticut, and believed to be the strongest hurricane to hit New England in recorded history, is believed to have been a Category Three Hurricane at its peak. Dubbed the "Long Island Express of September 21, 1938," this name was derived from the unusually high forward speed of the hurricane (estimated to be 70 mph). As a Category Two Hurricane,


the center of the storm passed over Long Island, made landfall near Milford, Connecticut, and moved quickly northward into northern New England.

The majority of damage was caused from storm surge and wind damage. Surges up to 18 feet were recorded along portions of the Connecticut coast, and 130 mile per hour gusts flattened forests, destroyed nearly 5,000 cottages, farms, and homes, and damaged an estimated 15,000 more throughout New York and southern New England. The storm resulted in catastrophic fires in New London and Mystic, Connecticut. Fourteen to 17 inches of rain were reported in central Connecticut, causing severe flooding. Overall, the storm left an estimated 564 dead, 1,700 injured, and caused physical damages in excess of $38 million (1938 USD).

15. The "Great Atlantic Hurricane" hit the Connecticut coast in September 1944. This storm was a Category Four Hurricane at its peak intensity but was a Category One Hurricane when its center passed over eastern Long Island and made landfall in Connecticut near New London. The storm brought rainfall in excess of six inches to most of the state and rainfall in excess of eight to 10 inches in Fairfield County. Most of the wind damage from this storm occurred in southeastern Connecticut although wind gusts of 109 mph were reported in Hartford, Connecticut. Injuries and storm damage were lower in this hurricane than in 1938 because of increased warning time and the fewer structures located in vulnerable areas due to the lack of rebuilding after the 1938 storm.

16. Hurricane Barbara (naming of hurricanes began in 1950) was a Category One

Hurricane when its center passed southeast of Long Island, New York in August 1953.

17. Hurricane Carol was a Category Two Hurricane when it made landfall in

Connecticut near Clinton in late August 1954. The storm arrived shortly after high tide and produced storm surges of 10 to 15 feet in southeastern Connecticut. Rainfall amounts of six inches were recorded in New London, and wind gusts peaked at over 100 mph. Near the coast, the combination of strong winds and storm surge damaged or destroyed thousands of buildings, and the winds toppled trees that left most of the eastern part of the state without power. Overall damages in the northeast were estimated at one billion dollars (1954 USD), and 48 people died as a direct result of the hurricane. Western Connecticut was largely unaffected by Hurricane Carol due to the compact nature of the storm.

18. A second Category Two Hurricane, Hurricane Edna, passed over southeastern

Massachusetts in September 1954. It was a Category Three Hurricane at peak intensity.

19. As explained in Section 3.3, the year 1955 was a devastating year for flooding in

Connecticut. Connie was a declining tropical storm over the Midwest when its


effects hit Connecticut in August 1955, producing heavy rainfall of four to six inches across the state. The saturated soil conditions exacerbated the flooding caused by Tropical Storm Diane five days later, the wettest tropical cyclone on record for the northeast. The storm produced 14 inches of rain in a 30-hour period, causing destructive flooding conditions along nearly every major river system in the state.

20. Hurricane Donna of 1960 was a Category Four Hurricane when it made landfall

in southwestern Florida and weakened to a Category Two hurricane when it made landfall in September near Old Lyme, Connecticut.

21. Hurricane Esther was a Category Three Hurricane when its center passed south

of Nantucket, Massachusetts in September 1960.

22. Hurricane Belle of August 1976 was a Category One Hurricane as it passed over Long Island but was downgraded to a tropical storm before its center made landfall near Stratford, Connecticut. Belle caused five fatalities and minor shoreline damage.

23. Hurricane Gloria of September 1985 was a Category Three Hurricane when it

made landfall in North Carolina and weakened to a Category Two Hurricane before its center passed over Long Island, New York, making landfall in Connecticut near Bridgeport. The hurricane struck at low tide, resulting in low to moderate storm surges along the coast. The storm produced up to six inches of rain in some areas and heavy winds that damaged structures and uprooted thousands of trees. The volume and spread of debris and loss of power were the major impacts from this storm, with over 500,000 people suffering significant power outages.

24. Hurricane Bob was a Category Two Hurricane when its center made landfall in

Rhode Island in August 1991. The hurricane caused storm surge damage along the Connecticut coast but was more extensively felt in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Heavy winds were felt across eastern Connecticut with gusts up to 100 mph and light to moderate tree damage. The storm was responsible for six deaths in the state. Total damage in southern New England was approximately $680 million (1991 USD).

25. Prior to Hurricane Irene in 2011, the most recent tropical cyclone to seriously

impact Connecticut was Tropical Storm Floyd in 1999. Floyd is the storm of record in the Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan due to heavy rainfall that caused widespread flood damage throughout the state. The winds associated with Tropical Storm Floyd also caused power outages throughout New England and at least one death in Connecticut.


26. Hurricane Earl of early September 2010 was a long-lived, powerful tropical cyclone that became the first major hurricane to threaten New England since Hurricane Bob. Hurricane Earl was a Category One Hurricane when it passed within 90 miles of New England. Prior to this, many forecasts predicted that a New England landfall was possible, and the storm provided an exercise in emergency preparations for the Town and many other Connecticut communities.

Only one year after Hurricane Earl, Hurricane Irene provided another exercise in emergency management for the Town, as well as the entire east coast of the United States. The hurricane peaked as a Category Three storm before it made landfall in North Carolina and tracked northward along the Delmarva Peninsula and New Jersey before the remnants of the eye crossed over New York City on Sunday, August 28, 2011. Anticipating storm surges along the Atlantic coastline, many states and municipalities issued mandatory evacuations on August 26 and 27, 2011. The Town ordered a mandatory evacuation to all residents of Cosey Beach and Morgan Point in anticipation of Hurricane Irene's landfall on Saturday, August 27, 2011. Despite evacuation warnings, many residents remained and required emergency rescue when roadways were cut off with floodwaters, stranded vehicles, and debris. Along Cosey Beach Avenue in East Haven's Momauguin section and in Morgan Point, Irene caused serious structural damage to at least two dozen houses, and swept at least four houses entirely out to sea. Even slightly inland, coastal flooding from Irene impacted East Haven. The primary route to the beach from the center of town, Coe Avenue, was under water for several hours where it meets Hemingway Avenue due to flooding of the Farm River estuary. Two cars, a truck and a van were stuck in the middle of the intersection. The wind and storm surge from Tropical Storm Irene caused extensive damage to many structures and flooded coastal roads. Similar to Hurricane Gloria in 1985, the passing of the eye of the storm to the west of East Haven caused strong southeast winds to occur in the town.

5.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Flooding Existing mitigation measures appropriate for flooding have been discussed in Sections 3.0 and 4.0. These include the ordinances, codes, and regulations that have been enacted to minimize flood damage, as well as the aggressive programs to elevate and remove floodprone homes throughout the town. In addition, various structures exist to protect certain coastal areas, including bulkheads, seawalls, jetties, groins, and riprap.


Wind Wind loading requirements are addressed through the state building code. The 2005 Connecticut State Building Code was amended in 2009 and adopted with an effective date of August 1, 2009. The code specifies the design wind speed for construction in all the Connecticut municipalities, with the addition of split zones for some towns. Effective December 31, 2005, the design wind speed for East Haven is 110 miles per hour. East Haven has adopted the Connecticut Building Code as its building code. Connecticut is located in FEMA Zone II regarding maximum expected wind speed. The maximum expected wind speed for a three-second gust is 160 miles per hour in south-central and southeastern Connecticut. This wind speed could occur as a result of either a hurricane or a tornado. The American Society of Civil Engineers recommends that new buildings be designed to withstand this peak three-second gust. The Town of East Haven has actively supported wind mitigation, especially along the shoreline. The town applied for and received a grant for installment of storm shutters on the town beach house. This project was funded by through the FEMA Project Impact grant program. FEMA’s library of mitigation success stories includes photographs from East Haven. For example, one photograph depicts storm shutters for coastal home windows. Parts of trees (limbs) or entire tall and older trees may fall during heavy wind events, potentially damaging structures, utility lines, and vehicles. East Haven has a full time Tree Warden. Tree trimming on municipally-owned property is conducted on an as-needed basis or following complaints by residents. United Illuminating (UI) has a tree trimming maintenance program in place. Contractors are hired to trim tree limbs and small trees along UI lines in quadrants of town every four to five years. The program circulates to include trimming in one portion of town each year so that the entire town is trimmed every four to five years, on a revolving basis. The UI program is a self-maintenance program that deals only with potential threats to the utility’s lines. It does not address town or private property.

Photograph courtesy of FEMA


All utilities in new subdivisions must be located underground whenever possible in order to mitigate storm-related wind damages. During emergencies, the Town utilizes the East Haven High School as its primary shelter and other facilities as its secondary shelters as described in Section 2.11. Although hurricanes that have impacted East Haven have historically passed in a day's time, additional shelters could be outfitted following a storm on an as-need basis for long-term evacuees. The Town relies on Everbridge, radio, cable television, area newspapers, and the internet to spread information on the location and availability of shelters. It is understood that several of these information sources can be cut off due to power failure, so emergency personnel can also pass this information on manually. Prior to severe storm events, the Town ensures that warning/notification systems and communication equipment are working properly and prepares for the possible evacuation of impacted areas.

5.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment NOAA issues an annual hurricane outlook to provide a general guide to each upcoming hurricane season based on various climatic factors. However, it is impossible to predict exactly when and where a hurricane will occur. NOAA believes that "hurricane landfalls are largely determined by the weather patterns in places the hurricane approaches, which are only predictable within several days of the storm making landfall." NOAA has utilized the National Hurricane Center Risk Analysis Program (HURISK) to determine return periods for various hurricane categories at locations throughout the United States. As noted on the NOAA website, hurricane return periods are the frequency at which a certain intensity or category of hurricane can be expected within 75 nautical miles of a given location. For example, a return period of 20 years for a particular category storm means that on average during the previous 100 years a storm of that category passed within 75 nautical miles of that location five times. Thus, it is expected that similar category storms would pass within that radius an additional five times during the next 100 years. Table 4-2 presents return periods for various category hurricanes to impact Connecticut. The nearest two HURISK analysis points were New York City and Block Island, Rhode Island. For this analysis, these data are assumed to represent western Connecticut and eastern Connecticut, respectively.


TABLE 5-2 Return Period in Years for Hurricanes to Strike Connecticut

Category New York City

(Western Connecticut) Block Island, RI

(Eastern Connecticut) One 17 17 Two 39 39

Three 68 70 Four 150 160 Five 370 430

According to the 2010 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, hurricanes have the greatest destructive potential of all natural disasters in Connecticut due to the potential combination of high winds, storm surge and coastal erosion, heavy rain, and flooding that can accompany the hazard. It is generally believed that New England is long overdue for another major hurricane strike. As shown in Table 5-2, NOAA estimates that the return period for a Category Two or Category Three storm to strike eastern New Haven County to be 39 years and 70 years, respectively. The last major hurricane to impact Connecticut was Hurricane Bob in 1991. Category One storms Earl in 2010 and Irene in 2011 were reminders that hurricanes track close to Connecticut and may make landfall. The 2010 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update also notes that some researchers have suggested that the intensity of tropical cyclones has increased over the last 35 years, with some believing that there is a connection between this increase in intensity and climate change. While most climate simulations agree that greenhouse warming enhances the frequency and intensity of tropical storms, models of the climate system are still limited by resolution and computational ability. However, given the past history of major storms and the possibility of increased frequency and intensity of tropical storms due to climate change, it is prudent to expect that there will be hurricanes impacting Connecticut in the near future that may be of greater frequency and intensity than in the past. In general, as the residents and businesses of the state of Connecticut become more dependent on the internet and mobile communications, the impact of hurricanes on commerce will continue to increase. A major hurricane has the potential of causing complete disruption of power and communications for up to several weeks, rendering electronic devices and those that rely on utility towers and lines inoperative. Tropical Storm Irene caused a week of outages for many towns in Connecticut. Debris such as signs, roofing material, and small items left outside become flying missiles in hurricanes. Extensive damage to trees, towers, aboveground and underground utility lines (from uprooted trees or failed infrastructure), and fallen poles causes considerable disruption for residents. Streets may be flooded or


blocked by fallen branches, poles, or trees, preventing egress. Downed power lines from heavy winds can also start fires during hurricanes with limited rainfall. The Town is highly vulnerable to hurricane damage from wind and flooding and from any tornadoes accompanying the storm. All of the damage to the Town from historical tropical cyclones has been due to the effects of winds and flooding. In addition, similar to other coastal towns in Connecticut, East Haven must deal with the effects of storm surge. Factors that influence vulnerability to tropical cyclones in the Town include building codes currently in place, local zoning and development patterns, and the age and number of structures located in highly vulnerable areas of the community. HAZUS-MH Analysis In order to quantify potential hurricane wind damage, HAZUS-MH simulations were run for probabilistic storms that could theoretically affect the Town. The probabilistic storms estimate the potential maximum damage that would occur (based on year 2006 dollar values using year 2000 census data) based on wind speeds of varying return periods. Note that these simulations calculate damage for wind effects alone and not damages due to flooding or other non-wind effects. Thus, the damage and displacement estimates presented below are likely lower than would occur during a hurricane associated with severe rainfall and storm surge. Results are presented in Appendix H and summarized below. The FEMA default values were used for each census tract in the HAZUS simulations. A summary of the default building counts and values is shown in Table 5-3. Approximately 2.2 billion dollars of building value was estimated to exist in the Town.

TABLE 5-3 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Basic Information

Occupancy Building Count Dollar Exposure (x 1,000) Residential 9,602 $1,726,611 Commercial 504 $319,179

Other 294 $163,797 Total 10,400 $2,209,587

The FEMA Hurricane Model HAZUS-MH Technical Manual outlines various damage thresholds to classify buildings damaged during hurricanes. The five classifications are summarized below:


No Damage or Very Minor Damage: Little or no visible damage from the outside. No broken windows or failed roof deck. Minimal loss of roof cover, with no or very limited water penetration.

Minor Damage: Maximum of one broken window, door, or garage door.

Moderate roof cover loss that can be covered to prevent additional water entering the building. Marks or dents on walls requiring painting or patching for repair.

Moderate Damage: Major roof cover damage, moderate window breakage.

Minor roof sheathing failure. Some resulting damage to interior of building from water.

Severe Damage: Major window damage or roof sheathing loss. Major roof

cover loss. Extensive damage to interior from water. Limited, local joist failures. Failure of one wall.

Destruction: Essentially complete roof failure and/or more than 25% of roof

sheathing. Significant amount of the wall envelope opened through window failure and/or failure of more than one wall. Extensive damage to interior.

Table 5-4 presents the peak wind speeds during each wind event simulated by HAZUS for the Town. The number of expected residential buildings to experience various classifications of damage is presented in Table 5-4, and the total number of buildings expected to experience various classifications of damage is presented in Table 5-5. Minimal damage is expected to buildings for wind speeds less than 65 mph, with overall damages increasing with increasing wind speed.

TABLE 5-4 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Number of Residential Buildings Damaged

Return Period

Peak Wind Gust (mph)

Minor Damage

Moderate Damage

Severe Damage

Total Destruction Total

10-Year 46 0 0 0 0 0 20-Year 62-63 9 0 0 0 9 50-Year 82-83 219 22 0 0 241 100-Year 95-96 988 147 3 2 1,140 200-Year 106-107 2,222 542 36 26 2,826 500-Year 118-120 3,405 1,444 247 177 5,273 1,000-Year 127-129 3,600 2,298 668 506 7,072 Note: Hurricane Carol and Hurricane Donna were similar to the 100-year event, and Hurricane Gloria and the 1938 Hurricane were between the 200-year and the 500-year event.


TABLE 5-5 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Total Number of Buildings Damaged

Return Period

Minor Damage

Moderate Damage

Severe Damage

Total Destruction Total

10-Year 0 0 0 0 0 20-Year 12 0 0 0 12 50-Year 233 23 1 0 257 100-Year 1,048 167 6 2 1,223 200-Year 2,363 596 46 26 3,031 500-Year 3,614 1,601 304 179 5,698 1,000-Year 3,806 2,530 812 510 7,658

The HAZUS simulations consider a subset of critical facilities termed "essential facilities" that are important during emergency situations. Note that the essential facilities in HAZUS-MH may not necessarily be the same today as they were in 2000. Nevertheless, the information is useful from a planning standpoint. As shown in Table 5-6, minimal damage to essential facilities is expected for wind speeds less than 95 mph. Minor damage to the remaining essential facilities is likely to occur for all greater wind events, with more than one day of lost use to each facility for wind speeds greater than 100 mph. The 1,000-year probabilistic event (wind speeds of 127-129 mph) has a greater than 50% potential to cause at least moderate damage to each essential facility.

TABLE 5-6

HAZUS-MH Hurricane Scenarios – Essential Facility Damage

Return Period Fire Station (1) Police Station (1) Schools (12) Hospitals1 (1)

10-Year None or minor damage, no loss of use

None or minor damage, no loss of use











100-Year Minor damage, loss of use > 1 day at each

Minor damage, loss of use > 1 day at each

None or minor damage, loss of use > 1 day at 5 schools


200-Year Minor damage, loss of use > 1 day

Minor damage, loss of use > 1 day



500-Year Minor damage, loss of use > 1 day




1,000-Year Chance of moderate damage >50%, loss of use > 1 day

Chance of moderate damage >50%, loss of use > 1 day

Chance of moderate damage >50% at 3 schools, loss of use > 1 day at each

Chance of moderate damage >50%, loss of use > 1 day, out of service for more than 30 days

1Hospital is assumed to represent an assisted living facility


Table 5-7 presents the estimated tonnage of debris that would be generated by wind damage during each HAZUS hurricane scenario. As shown in Table 5-7, minimal debris is expected for wind speeds less than the 50-year event, and reinforced concrete and steel buildings are expected to generate debris for during events with wind speeds in excess of 120 mph. Much of the debris that is generated is tree related.

TABLE 5-7 HAZUS-MH Hurricane Scenarios – Debris Generation (Tons)

Return Period Brick / Wood Reinforced

Concrete / Steel Tree Debris Total Estimated Truckloads

of Building Debris (~25 Tons per Truck)

10-Year None None None None None 20-Year 18 None 148 166 1 50-Year 819 None 1,946 2,765 33 100-Year 3,140 None 5,615 8,755 124 200-Year 8,299 None 10,757 19,056 332 500-Year 22,416 374 23,520 46,310 910 1,000-Year 45,383 667 33,842 79,892 1,832

Table 5-8 presents the potential sheltering requirements based on the various wind events simulated by HAZUS. The predicted sheltering requirements for wind damage are relatively minimal except for the two largest wind events and can be met through the use of the existing two shelters. However, it is likely that hurricanes will also produce heavy rain, inland flooding, and coastal flooding due to storm surge that will increase the overall sheltering need in the Town.

TABLE 5-8

HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Shelter Requirements

Return Period

Number of Displaced Households

Short-Term Sheltering Need (Number of People)

10-Year None None 20-Year None None 50-Year None None 100-Year 5 2 200-Year 32 6 500-Year 310 70 1,000-Year 1,177 259

Table 5-9 presents the predicted economic losses due to the various simulated wind events. Property damage loss estimates include the subcategories of building, contents, and inventory damages. The direct property damage losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building or its contents.


TABLE 5-9 HAZUS Hurricane Scenarios – Economic Losses (x $1,000)

Return Period

Residential Property Damage

Losses

Total Property Damage Losses

Business Interruption

(Income) Losses 10-Year None None None 20-Year 442 469 7 50-Year 6,513 6,812 420 100-Year 20,050 21,750 1,943 200-Year 55,461 63,265 7,780 500-Year 172,634 205,047 27,938 1,000-Year 371,923 445,858 62,338

Business interruption loss estimates in Table 5-9 include the subcategories of lost income, relocation expenses, and lost wages. The business interruption losses are associated with the inability to operate a business due to the damage sustained during a hurricane and also include temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the storm. Losses are minimal for storms with return periods of less than the 20-year (62-63 mph) but increase rapidly as stronger storms are considered. For example, a 100-year hurricane wind event (equivalent to Hurricane Carol in 1954 or Hurricane Donna in 1960) would cause approximately $24 million in economic losses to the Town. As these damage values are based on 2006 dollars, it is likely that these estimated damages will be higher today due to inflation. In summary, hurricanes are a very real and potentially costly hazard to the Town. Based on the historic record and HAZUS-MH simulations of various wind events, the entire Town is vulnerable to wind damage from hurricanes. These damages can include direct structural damages, interruptions to business and commerce, emotional impacts, and injury and possibly death. Recall from Figures 2-7 through Figure 2-9 that elderly and persons with disabilities reside in the Town. It is possible that several hundred of the population impacted by a widespread high-wind event such as a hurricane could consist of the elderly and numerous people with disabilities. Thus, it is important for the Town to be prepared to assist these special populations during wind events.


Many potential mitigation measures for hurricanes include those appropriate for inland and coastal flooding. These were presented in Sections 3.0 and 4.0. However, hurricane mitigation measures must also address the effects of heavy winds that are inherently caused by hurricanes.


Because damage to trees and resulting power outages and damage to buildings as a result of winds is the most problematic issue facing East Haven during storms with high winds, mitigating damage to utility lines and property and injury or loss of life must be implemented. Mitigation for wind damage is therefore emphasized in the subsections below. In appropriate situations, East Haven should implement specific physical actions to reduce damage to properties associated with wind, in which there is a public interest.

5.6.1 Prevention

Although wind from hurricanes and tropical storms cannot be prevented, a number of methods are available to prevent damage from the storms. To prevent wind damage, the Town should expand the current program of placing utilities underground and look for opportunities to relocate utilities underground. To prevent damage to watercraft and the potential resulting damage to nearby property, the Town should remain well positioned to aid in the removal of watercraft from Long Island Sound prior to hurricanes and tropical storms.

5.6.2 Property Protection

Potential mitigation measures for property protection during hurricanes include designs for hazard-resistant construction and retrofitting techniques. These may take the form of increased wind and flood resistance as well as the use of storm shutters over exposed glass and the inclusion of hurricane straps to hold roofs to buildings and transfer loads to foundations. In addition, living and working areas can be elevated to allow a storm surge to pass safely underneath. As noted in Section 2.11, the ARC has published a guidebook entitled Standards for Hurricane Evacuation Shelter Selection (American Red Cross Publication #4496). The publication provides guidelines for selecting shelters relative to resilience from storm surges, flooding, and hurricane winds. Several FEMA publications provide design criteria for shelters, including Design and Construction Guidance for Community Shelters (FEMA Publication #361). A reference by the International Code Council (ICC) and the National Storm Shelter Association, Standard on the Design and Construction of Storm Shelters (ICC-500), also provides design criteria. In general, recommended design wind speeds range from 160 to 250 miles per hour (mph) in these publications. In contrast, Connecticut's building code for shoreline municipalities requires a resistance to wind speeds up to 110 mph. Thus, a critical facility may be code compliant but unable to withstand the highest hurricane wind speeds, making it an inferior choice as primary shelter if another option can withstand higher wind speeds.


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

"Shutter mitigation" projects protect all windows and doors of a structure with

shutters or other systems that meet debris impact and wind pressure design requirements. All openings of a building are to be protected.

"Load path" projects improve and upgrade the structural system of a building to transfer loads from the roof to the foundation. This retrofit provides positive connection from the roof framing to the walls, better connections within the wall framing, and connections from the wall framing to the foundation system.

"Roof projects" involve retrofitting a building's roof by improving and upgrading the roof deck and roof coverings to secure the building envelope and integrity during a wind event.

"Code plus" projects are those designed to exceed the local building codes and standards to achieve a greater level of protection.

The availability of these potential mitigation projects through FEMA's PDM grant program is of interest to the Town as there may be an opportunity to obtain incremental funding for the East Haven shelters to withstand hurricane force winds. The Building and Engineering Department should make literature available to developers during the permitting process regarding various design standards.

5.6.3 Public Education and Awareness

Education is a critical component in mitigating against wind damage. East Haven should take the lead in providing educational opportunities to the affected community, builders, developers and town officials so that future construction and landscaping associated with construction is designed to minimize wind damage and retrofitting of existing structures and maintenance of property are implemented to the benefit of public safety and property loss reduction. The public should be made aware of evacuation routes and available shelters should a hurricane or summer storm be forecast to impact East Haven. This is especially true for those individuals living within hurricane storm surge evacuation zones. East Haven completed an evacuation sign installation project several years ago to facilitate evacuation. The Town should continue to use various forms of media to notify the public on any and all updates to natural disaster preparedness and damage prevention. Recommendations regarding public education and awareness are common to all hazards in this Plan, and are listed in Section 11.1.


5.6.4 Emergency Services Severe weather warning, response and clean-up are among East Haven’s strongest existing capabilities with regard to wind damage mitigation. The town should implement actions to improve the effectiveness of these functions. In this area, the town has asked the Board of Education to prepare plans for the safety of the children in the event of disasters such as tornadoes. While warning systems may not be defined as pure mitigation, they are an integral part of East Haven’s overall emergency management strategy and therefore, warrant inclusion here A hazard mitigation plan addresses actions that can be taken before a disaster event. In this context, emergency services that would be appropriate mitigation measures for hurricanes include diligent use of forecasting, implementation of Everbridge to provide information on the time of occurrence and magnitude of a storm, and early evacuation of neighborhoods and localities. East Haven used Reverse 911 for over a decade until Everbridge was implemented. Because loss of tree limbs and brush during high wind events is inevitable, the Town must possess methods for cleaning up, tracking, and disposing of such debris. Based on the above guidelines, a number of specific proposals for improved emergency services are recommended to prevent damage from inland and nuisance flooding. These are common to all hazards in this Plan and are listed in Section 11.1.

5.6.5 Structural Projects

Structural mitigation for hurricane storm surges is generally focused on hard or soft shoreline protection such as seawalls. Previous recommendations for coastal flood mitigation provided in Section 4.0 will provide mitigation for coastal flooding caused by hurricanes. However, where seawalls and other structural solutions are permitted, it is important that breaches and damage be repaired promptly to mitigate against damage from future storm events. Structural projects for wind damage mitigation are not possible. Note that structural mitigation methods used for buildings are classified as property protection and were described above.


Recommendations for mitigation of hurricane and tropical storm winds include the following:

During the Natural Hazards Awareness Week, conduct an annual workshop so that local building contractors, residents, business owners, insurance and real


estate agents, and all interested parties can familiarize themselves with wind associated risks, retrofitting techniques, important of evacuation, and the understanding of warning mechanisms used in town.


children about the risks of wind events (and other natural hazards) and how to prepare for them.

The Building Department will make information on wind construction

techniques (such as hurricane straps) available to all building permit applicants, obtain literature on wind resistant construction techniques and incorporate that information into the natural hazards reduction information in the town library. The information will also include information on non-structural mitigation measures. Such literature is available from FEMA and BOCA.

Promote the use of functional shutters for properties located along the coast to

guard against window breakage which can result in structural failure. Investigate funding sources to promote this relatively inexpensive type of retrofitting on a large scale.

Develop working relationships with the East Haven Garden Club. Encourage

organizations to sponsor events to educate the public on wise landscaping techniques, how to locate trees away from utilities and on the types of trees that are most resistant to wind damage.

Continue to apply the landscaping standards of the East Haven Zoning

Regulations during the review of new subdivisions and commercial projects.

Continue to require the burying of utility lines for subdivisions and encourage lines to be buried for other projects where appropriate. When major road projects are designed, special consideration should be given to burying overhead lines.

Identity a location in each of the four quadrants of town for a brush disposal operation for dealing with debris after wind storms. Determine how these trees can be reused within the community to reduce costs of exporting from East Haven (chips, firewood, composting). Develop agreements, if necessary, with land owners and with companies to chop/chip to insure that plans are in place prior to damage (i.e. like snow plow operations).

Request that the Town and the Board of Education conduct engineering surveys for school buildings that are used for shelters and recommend improvements if necessary. Request that the Town, including the Board of Education, if applicable, survey all municipality owned buildings for their ability to withstand wind loading.


Prioritize any wind-related retrofitting, given those buildings to be used as

shelters the highest priority. If analysis reveals that a particular building is better suited as a shelter than one that is currently being used, then consider relocating the shelter to that location.

Encourage commercial building owners or managers of buildings with large

population clusters to not only develop emergency response plans, but also to identify mitigation opportunities for long range planning.

Work through the State to locate NOAA weather radios in commercial buildings

with large population clusters. Educate building managers on the proper use of the radios.

Implement a Marina Management Plan addressing wind damage mitigation.

Share that plan with the other marinas and yacht clubs and encourage them to develop plans on their own.

In addition, many of the recommendations in Sections 4.7 for mitigating coastal flooding are suitable for mitigation of storm surges. Finally, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 11.1.


6.0 SUMMER STORMS AND TORNADOES 6.1 Setting

Like hurricanes and winter storms, summer storms and tornadoes have the potential to affect any area within the Town. Furthermore, because these types of storms and the hazards that result (flash flooding, wind, hail, and lightning) might have limited geographic extent, it is possible for a summer storm to harm one area within the Town without harming another. The entire Town is therefore susceptible to summer storms (including heavy rain, flash flooding, wind, hail, and lightning) and tornadoes. Based on the historic record, it is considered highly likely that a summer storm that includes lightning will occur each year although lightning strikes have a limited effect. Strong winds and hail are considered likely to occur during such storms but also generally have limited effects. A tornado is considered a possible event in New Haven County each year and could cause significant damage to a small area (refer to Tables 1-2 and 1-3).

6.2 Hazard Assessment Heavy wind (including tornadoes and downbursts), lightning, heavy rain, hail, and flash floods are the primary hazards associated with summer storms. Flooding caused by heavy rainfall was covered in Section 3.0 of this plan and will not be discussed here. Tornadoes NOAA defines a tornado as "a violently rotating column of air extending from a thunderstorm to the ground." The two types of tornadoes include those that develop from supercell thunderstorms and those that do not. While the physics of tornado development are fairly well understood, there are many unknowns still being studied regarding the exact conditions in a storm event required to trigger a tornado, the factors affecting the dissipation of a tornado, and the effect of cloud seeding on tornado development. Supercell thunderstorms are long-lived (greater than one hour) and highly organized storms feeding off an updraft that is tilted and rotating. This rotation is referred to as a "mesocyclone" when detected by Doppler radar. The figure below is a diagram of the anatomy of a supercell that has spawned a supercell tornado. Tornadoes that form from a supercell thunderstorm are a very small extension of the larger rotation; they are the most common and the most dangerous type of tornado as most large and violent tornadoes are spawned from supercells.


Figure 6-1: Anatomy of a Tornado. Image from NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory.

Non-supercell tornadoes are defined by NOAA as circulations that form without a rotating updraft. Damage from these types of tornadoes tends to be F2 or less (see Fujita Scale, below). The two types of non-supercell tornadoes are gustnadoes and landspouts:

A gustnado is a whirl of dust or debris at or near the ground with no condensation tunnel that forms along the gust front of a storm.

A landspout is a narrow, ropelike condensation funnel that forms when the thunderstorm cloud is still growing and there is no rotating updraft. Thus, the spinning motion originates near the ground. Waterspouts are similar to landspouts but occur over water.

The Fujita Scale was accepted as the official classification system for tornado damage for many years following its publication in 1971. The Fujita Scale rated the intensity of a tornado by examining the damage caused by the tornado after it has passed over a man-made structure. The scale ranked tornadoes using the now-familiar notation of F0 through F5, increasing with wind speed and intensity. A description of the scale follows in Table 6-1.


TABLE 6-1 Fujita Scale

F-Scale Number Intensity Wind

Speed Type of Damage Done

F0 Gale tornado 40-72 mph

Some damage to chimneys; branches broken off trees; shallow-rooted trees knocked over; damage to sign boards.

F1 Moderate tornado 73-112 mph

Peels surface off roofs; mobile homes pushed off foundations or overturned; moving autos pushed off the roads; attached garages may be destroyed.

F2 Significant tornado 113-157 mph

Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated.

F3 Severe tornado 158-206 mph

Roof and some walls torn off well-constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in forest uprooted.

F4 Devastating tornado 207-260 mph

Well-constructed houses leveled; structures with weak foundations blown off for some distance; cars thrown and large missiles generated.

F5 Incredible tornado 261-318 mph

Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances to disintegrate; automobile-sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel-reinforced concrete structures badly damaged.

According to NOAA, weak tornadoes (F0 and F1) account for approximately 69% of all tornadoes. These tornadoes last an average of five to 10 minutes and account for approximately 3% of tornado-related deaths. Strong tornadoes (F2 and F3) account for approximately 29% of all tornadoes and approximately 27% of all tornado deaths. These storms may last for 20 minutes or more. Violent supercell tornadoes (F4 and above) are extremely destructive but rare and account for only 2% of all tornadoes. These storms sometimes last over an hour and result in approximately 70% of all tornado-related deaths. Unfortunately, violent and long-lasting tornadoes have caused severe destruction to the Midwest and southern United States in spring 2011. The Enhanced Fujita Scale was released by NOAA for implementation on February 1, 2007. According to the NOAA website, the Enhanced Fujita Scale was developed in response to a number of weaknesses to the Fujita Scale that were apparent over the years, including the subjectivity of the original scale based on damage, the use of the worst

Fujita Tornado Scale. Image courtesy of FEMA.


damage to classify the tornado, the fact that structures have different construction depending on location within the United States, and an overestimation of wind speeds for F3 and greater. Similar to the Fujita Scale, the Enhanced F-scale is also a set of wind estimates based on damage. It uses three-second gusts estimated at the point of damage based on a judgment of eight levels of damage to 28 specific indicators. Table 6-2 relates the Fujita and Enhanced Fujita Scales.

TABLE 6-2 Enhanced Fujita Scale

Fujita Scale Derived EF Scale Operational EF Scale

F Number Fastest 1/4-mile (mph)

3-Second Gust (mph) EF Number 3-Second

Gust (mph) EF Number 3-Second Gust (mph)

0 40-72 45-78 0 65-85 0 65-851 73-112 79-117 1 86-109 1 86-1102 113-157 118-161 2 110-137 2 111-1353 158-207 162-209 3 138-167 3 136-1654 208-260 210-261 4 168-199 4 166-2005 261-318 262-317 5 200-234 5 Over 200

Official records of tornado activity date back to 1950. According to NOAA, an average of 1,000 tornadoes is reported each year in the United States. The historic record of tornadoes near East Haven is discussed in Section 6.3. Tornadoes are most likely to occur in Connecticut in June, July, and August of each year.

Lightning Lightning is a discharge of electricity that occurs between the positive and negative charges within the atmosphere or between the atmosphere and the ground. According to NOAA, the creation of lightning during a storm is a complicated process that is not fully understood. In the initial stages of development, air acts as an insulator between the positive and negative charges. However, when the potential between the positive and negative charges becomes too great, a discharge of electricity (lightning) occurs. In-cloud lightning occurs between the positive charges near the top of the cloud and the negative charges near the bottom. Cloud-to-cloud lightning occurs between the positive charges near the top of the cloud and the

Image courtesy of NOAA.


negative charges near the bottom of a second cloud. Cloud-to-ground lightning is the most dangerous. In summertime, most cloud-to-ground lightning occurs between the negative charges near the bottom of the cloud and positive charges on the ground. According to NOAA's National Weather Service, there is an average of 100,000 thunderstorms per year in the United States. An average of 41 people per year died, and an average of 262 people were injured from lightning strikes in the United States from 2000 to 2009. Most lightning deaths and injuries occur outdoors, with 45% of lightning casualties occurring in open fields and ballparks, 23% under trees, and 14% involving water activities. The historic record of lightning strikes both in Connecticut and near East Haven is presented in Section 5.3. Downbursts A downburst is a severe localized wind blasting down from a thunderstorm. They are more common than tornadoes in Connecticut. Depending on the size and location of downburst events, the destruction to property may be significant. Downburst activity is, on occasion, mistaken for tornado activity. Both storms have very damaging winds (downburst wind speeds can exceed 165 miles per hour) and are very loud. These "straight line" winds are distinguishable from tornadic activity by the pattern of destruction and debris such that the best way to determine the damage source is to fly over the area. It is difficult to find statistical data regarding frequency of downburst activity. NOAA reports that there are 10 downburst reports for every tornado report in the United States. This implies that there are approximately 10,000 downbursts reported in the United States each year and further implies that downbursts occur in approximately 10% of all thunderstorms in the United States annually. This value suggests that downbursts are a relatively uncommon yet persistent hazard. A few downbursts have occurred in East Haven as reported in the historic record in Section 6.3. Hail Hailstones are chunks of ice that grow as updrafts in thunderstorms keep them in the atmosphere. Most hailstones are smaller in diameter than a dime, but stones weighing more than 1.5 pounds have been recorded. NOAA has estimates of the velocity of falling hail ranging from nine meters per second (m/s) (20 mph) for a one centimeter (cm)

Downbursts fall into two categories:

Microbursts affect an area less than 2.5 miles in diameter, last five to 15 minutes, and can cause damaging winds up to 168 mph.

Macrobursts affect an area at least 2.5 miles in diameter, last five to 30 minutes, and can cause damaging winds up to 134 mph.


diameter hailstone, to 48 m/s (107 mph) for an eight cm, 0.7 kilogram stone. While crops are the major victims of hail, larger hail is also a hazard to people, vehicles, and property. According to NOAA's National Weather Service, hail caused four deaths and an average of 47 injuries per year in the United States from 2000 to 2009. Hailstorms typically occur in at least one part of Connecticut each year during a severe thunderstorm. Hail storms have occurred in East Haven as reported in the historic record in Section 6.3.

6.3 Historic Record

Since 1960, Connecticut has had 50 confirmed tornado events. The most vulnerable area of the state is Litchfield County based on historical accounts. Seven of the 50 confirmed tornadoes since 1960 were in Fairfield County. Of the eight counties in Connecticut, Fairfield has had the fourth highest number of tornadoes since 1960. Inland areas are generally more vulnerable to tornadoes that coastal areas, since sea breezes can have the effect of defusing tornadoes. An extensively researched list of tornado activity in Connecticut is available on Wikipedia. This list extends back to 1648 although it is noted that the historical data prior to 1950 is incomplete due to lack of official records and gaps in populated areas. Based on available information through July 2010, New Haven County has experienced a total of 21 tornado events with reported damages totaling tens of millions of dollars. Of the 21 total tornado events, the two closest to East Haven were F0 and F1 tornadoes while an F4 tracked through the city of New Haven. Table 6-3 summarizes the tornado events nearest East Haven from 1950 through 2011 based on the Wikipedia list and other sources.

TABLE 6-3 Tornado Events Near East Haven

Date Location Fujita

Tornado Scale Property Damage

Injuries / Deaths

August 29, 1959 Southeastern New Haven County F0 NR NR

July 10, 1989 New Haven County F4 Destroyed approximately 400 structures Injured 40

June 30, 1998 Chatfield State Park - Killingworth F1 Treetops twisted NR

June 30, 1998 Intersection of Day Hill Road and Route 148 - Lyme F1 Trees twisted off a few

feet from the ground NR

July 29, 2009 Shelton to the west and Madison to the east of East Haven EF1 NR NR

June 25, 2010 Bridgeport EF1 $7 million Injured 23 NR = None Reported


Thunderstorms occur on 18 to 35 days each year in Connecticut. Only 17 lightning-related fatalities occurred in Connecticut between 1959 and 2009. Most recently, on June 8, 2008, lightning struck a pavilion at Hammonasset Beach in nearby Madison, Connecticut, injuring five and killing one. Hail is often a part of such thunderstorms as seen in the historic record for East Haven (below). A limited selection of summer storm damage in and around East Haven taken from the NCDC Storm Events database is listed below:

On October 19, 1996 wind damaged many trees throughout East Haven, with clean

up taking approximately two weeks.

June 30, 1998 – Two F1 tornadoes were confirmed by the National Weather Service and touched down in Killingworth and Lyme. Treetops were twisted, trees were twisted off a few feet from the ground, and damage consisted primarily of downed trees and power lines.

June 2, 2000 – Severe thunderstorm lines swept across the southeast Connecticut

region. The thunderstorms produced high winds that downed many trees and power lines, causing one death and one injury throughout the affected areas. A funnel cloud was observed in Old Saybrook.

August 28, 2001 – A cold front moved southeast across southern Connecticut pushing

a line of strong thunderstorms across the region during the late afternoon and early evening hours. Thunderstorms were accompanied by pea- to dime-size hail as well. Strong wind gusts of 60 mph or slightly greater toppled numerous large trees and tree limbs and resulted in many power outages in the area. East Haven saw a wind gust of 53 mph by a storm spotter.

May 31, 2002 – A line of severe thunderstorms moved southeast across the area and

produced high winds that downed trees and power lines in East Haven.

August 17, 2003 – A line of thunderstorms moved east across the region and produced high winds that knocked over a tree, which fell onto a car in the adjacent town of Branford.

July 2, 2004 – A strong cold front moved through the region and was accompanied by

a strong trough of low pressure aloft. Thunderstorms developed in advance of the front. Temperatures aloft were rather cold, prime for the production of large hail by the thunderstorms.

September 17, 2005 – Trees and wires were downed by strong thunderstorms that

developed ahead of an advancing cold front. The thunderstorms caused wind damage, flash flooding, as well as frequent lightening. Connecticut Light & Power reported that approximately 30,000 customers lost power across the state.


August 3, 2006 – A cluster of thunderstorms moved east along southern Connecticut. In doing so, high winds associated with the storms downed trees and power line.

June 16, 2007 – Large tree limbs were downed when severe thunderstorms, producing

damaging winds and large hail, moved across the area.

June 8, 2008 – Numerous severe thunderstorms developed as a weak upper level interacted with a hot and humid air mass in the region. As a result, strong downburst winds developed, and large trees and power lines were brought down in turn.

Tornado strikes in Connecticut occurred on June 26, 2009 and July 31, 2009. Both

tornadoes were rated as EF-1s. The June 26, 2009 tornado affected Wethersfield, and the July 31, 2009 tornado touched down in the town of Madison to the east and Shelton to the west, implying that the cell passed directly over East Haven. Also during the July 31, 2009 storm, widespread damage from straight line winds occurred. Numerous trees were reported down in East Haven, including one that fell on a car.

April 22, 2010 – An approaching cold front sparked scattered thunderstorms across

New Haven County. In the adjacent town of North Branford, quarter-size hail was reported.

June 25, 2010 – An EF-1 tornado struck Bridgeport in southern Fairfield County

causing massive damage throughout parts of the city. The storm caused over seven million dollars in damages to Bridgeport and the surrounding towns, and 23 people were injured.

Data from the NCDC indicates that at Sikorsky Airport in Bridgeport, wind events with speeds in excess of 50 mph have occurred on 23 occasions since 1975. The same data indicates that peak gusts have exceeded 65 mph at the same site on the same occasions. Although the data obtained from the Bridgeport weather station may not mirror exact conditions in East Haven, it is enough to demonstrate an approximate history of storms containing damaging winds.

6.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures After a series of deadly tornadoes struck Litchfield and New Haven counties on July 10, 1989, killing two persons and causing millions of dollars in damage, Connecticut installed a new type of warning system. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Weather Radio Specific Area Message Encoder (WRSAME) system allows forecasters at three National Weather Service (NWS) offices to send watches and warnings to specific areas of Connecticut. East Haven is served by the NWS office in Brookhaven, Long Island, New York. Warnings can be sent within a few minutes of a Doppler radar indication that at a tornado may be trying to form within a severe thunderstorm.


Warning is the most viable and therefore the primary method of existing mitigation for tornadoes and thunderstorm-related hazards in Connecticut. The NOAA National Weather Service issues watches and warnings when severe weather is likely to develop or has developed, respectively. Tables 6-4 and 6-5 list the NOAA Watches and Warnings, respectively, as pertaining to actions to be taken by emergency management personnel in connection with summer storms and tornadoes.

TABLE 6-4 NOAA Weather Watches

Weather Condition Meaning Actions

Severe Thunderstorm Severe thunderstorms are possible in your area.

Notify personnel and watch for severe weather.

Tornado Tornadoes are possible in your area. Notify personnel and be prepared to move quickly if a warning is issued.

Flash Flood It is possible that rains will cause flash flooding in your area.

Notify personnel to watch for street or river flooding.

TABLE 6-5 NOAA Weather Warnings

Weather Condition Meaning Actions

Severe Thunderstorm Severe thunderstorms are occurring or are imminent in your area.

Notify personnel and watch for severe conditions or damage (i.e., downed power lines and trees). Take appropriate actions listed in municipal emergency plans.

Tornado Tornadoes are occurring or are imminent in your area.

Notify personnel, watch for severe weather, and ensure personnel are protected. Take appropriate actions listed in emergency plans.

Flash Flood Flash flooding is occurring or imminent in your area.

Watch local rivers and streams. Be prepared to evacuate low-lying areas. Take appropriate actions listed in emergency plans.

East Haven has two WRSAME radios located in the 911 Center on Main Street and the East Haven High School. These radios are used in conjunction with the apparatus systems in coastal areas to warn residents of coming severe weather and for evacuations when necessary.


Aside from warnings, several other methods of mitigation for wind damage are employed in East Haven as explained in Section 5.4 within the context of hurricanes and tropical storms. In addition, the Connecticut State Building Code includes guidelines for the proper grounding of buildings and electrical boxes. East Haven has a full time Tree Warden and an as-needed program for tree trimming. UI has a tree trimming maintenance program in place. Contractors are hired to trim tree limbs and small trees along UI lines in quadrants of town every four to five years. The program circulates to include trimming in one portion of town each year so that the entire town is trimmed every four to five years, on a revolving basis. All utilities in new subdivisions must be located underground whenever possible in order to mitigate storm-related wind damage. The Public Works department has the necessary equipment to clean up downed tree limbs and brush following major wind events. There is a Garden Club that is involved, to a limited extent, in planting and maintenance of wind-resistant trees.


According to the 2010 Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, Litchfield and Hartford Counties have the highest incidences of tornadoes and therefore may be considered to have a high risk for the occurrence of future tornadoes. The second area of moderate to high risk is in Fairfield and New Haven Counties. By virtue of its location in New Haven County (moderate to high risk), the Town has moderate to high potential to experience tornado damage in the future. In addition, NOAA states that climate change has the potential to increase the frequency and intensity of tornadoes, so it is possible that the pattern of occurrence in Connecticut could change in the future. Although tornadoes pose a threat to all areas of the state, their occurrence is not considered frequent enough to justify the construction of tornado shelters or safe rooms. Instead, the state has provided NOAA weather radios to all public schools as well as to many local governments for use in public buildings. The general public continues to rely on mass media for knowledge of weather warnings. Warning time for tornadoes is very short due to the nature of these types of events, so pre-disaster response time can be limited. However, the NOAA weather radios provide immediate notification of all types of weather warnings in addition to tornadoes, making them very popular with communities.

A severe thunderstorm watch is issued by the National Weather Service when the weather conditions are such that a severe thunderstorm (winds greater than 58 miles per hour, or hail three-fourths of an inch or greater, or can produce a tornado) is likely to develop. A severe thunderstorm warning is issued when a severe thunderstorm has been sighted or indicated by weather radar.


The central and southern portions of the United States are at higher risk for lightning and thunderstorms than is the northeast. However, FEMA reports that more deaths from lightning occur on the East Coast than elsewhere. Lightning-related fatalities have declined in recent years due to increased education and awareness. In general, thunderstorms and hailstorms in Connecticut are more frequent in the western and northern parts of Connecticut and slightly less frequent in the southern and eastern parts. Thunderstorms are expected to impact East Haven at least 20 days each year. The majority of these events do not cause any measurable damage. Although lightning is usually associated with thunderstorms, it can occur on almost any day. The likelihood of lightning strikes in the East Haven area is very high during any given thunderstorm although no particular area of the Town is at higher risk of lightning strikes. The risk of at least one hailstorm occurring in East Haven is considered moderate in any given year. Most thunderstorm damage is caused by straight-line winds exceeding 100 mph. Straight-line winds occur as the first gust of a thunderstorm or from a downburst from a thunderstorm and have no associated rotation. The risk of downbursts occurring during such storms and damaging the Town is believed to be moderate for any given year. All areas of the Town are susceptible to damage from high winds although more building damage is expected in the Town center and the densely populated coastal neighborhoods. Experience in East Haven has shown generally that winds in excess of 50 miles per hour (mph) will cause significant tree damage. The damage to buildings and cable utilities due to downed trees has historically been the biggest problem associated with wind storms. Heavy winds can take down trees near power lines, leading to the start and spread of fires. Most downed power lines in East Haven are detected quickly and any associated fires are quickly extinguished. Such fires can be extremely dangerous during the summer months during dry and drought conditions. In summary, the entire Town is at relatively equal risk for experiencing damage from summer storms and tornadoes. Based on the historic record, only a few summer storms or tornadoes have resulted in costly damages to the Town. Most damages are relatively site specific and occur to private property (and therefore are paid for by private insurance). For municipal property, the Town's budget for tree removal and minor repairs is generally limited to handle routine summer storm damage. However, the recent EF1 tornado that struck Bridgeport has raised awareness regarding the potential catastrophic damage such storms can cause.


Most of the mitigation activities for summer storm and tornado wind damage are similar to those discussed in Section 5.6 and are not reprinted here. Public education is the best way to mitigate damage from hail, lightning, and tornadoes. In addition to other educational documents, the Building Official should make literature available regarding appropriate design standards for grounding of structures.


Both the FEMA and the NOAA websites contain valuable information regarding preparing for and protecting oneself during a tornado as well as information on a number of other natural hazards. Available information from FEMA includes:

Design and construction guidance for creating and identifying community shelters Recommendations to better protect your business, community, and home from

tornado damage, including construction and design guidelines for structures Ways to better protect property from wind damage Ways to protect property from flooding damage Construction of safe rooms within homes

NOAA information includes a discussion of family preparedness procedures and the best physical locations during a storm event. Although tornadoes pose a legitimate threat to public safety, as stated earlier their occurrence is considered too infrequent in Connecticut to justify the construction of tornado shelters. Residents should instead be encouraged to purchase a NOAA weather radio containing an alarm feature.

The Town utilizes the Everbridge emergency notification system to send geographically specific telephone warnings into areas at risk for hazard damage. This is extremely useful for hazard mitigation as a community warning system that relies on radios and television is less effective at warning residents during the night when the majority of the community is asleep. This fact was evidenced by a severe storm that struck Lake County, Florida on February 2, 2007 and the recent storms that struck Alabama in spring 2010. These powerful storms, which included several tornadoes, stuck at night. In the case of the Florida storm, local broadcast stations had difficultly warning residents due to the lack of listeners and viewers, and encouraged those awake to telephone warnings into the affected area.

6.7 Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Recommendations for mitigation of summer storms and associated winds include the following, repeated from Section 5.7:

During the Natural Hazards Awareness Week, conduct an annual workshop so that local building contractors, residents, business owners, insurance and real estate agents, and all interested parties can familiarize themselves with wind associated risks, retrofitting techniques, important of evacuation, and the understanding of warning mechanisms used in town.


children about the risks of wind events (and other natural hazards) and how to prepare for them.

The Building Department will make information on wind construction techniques

available to all building permit applicants, obtain literature on wind resistant


construction techniques and incorporate that information into the natural hazards reduction information in the town library. The information will also include information on non-structural mitigation measures. Such literature is available from FEMA and BOCA.

Promote the use of functional shutters for properties located along the coast to guard

against window breakage which can result in structural failure. Investigate funding sources to promote this relatively inexpensive type of retrofitting on a large scale.

Develop working relationships with the East Haven Garden Club. Encourage

organizations to sponsor events to educate the public on wise landscaping techniques, how to locate trees away from utilities and on the types of trees that are most resistant to wind damage.

Continue to apply the landscaping standards of the East Haven Zoning Regulations

during the review of new subdivisions and commercial projects.




Prioritize any wind-related retrofitting, given those buildings to be used as shelters

the highest priority. If analysis reveals that a particular building is better suited as a shelter than one that is currently being used, then consider relocating the shelter to that location.

Encourage commercial building owners or managers of buildings with large

population clusters to not only develop emergency response plans, but also to identify mitigation opportunities for long range planning.

Work through the State to locate NOAA weather radios in commercial buildings with

large population clusters. Educate building managers on the proper use of the radios.


Implement a Marina Management Plan addressing wind damage mitigation. Share that plan with the other marinas and yacht clubs and encourage them to develop plans on their own.

In addition, many of the recommendations in Sections 3.7 for mitigating inland flooding are suitable for mitigation of flash flooding caused by summer storms. Finally, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 11.1.


According to the National Weather Service, approximately 70% of winter deaths related to snow and ice occur in automobiles, and approximately 25% of deaths occur from people being caught in the cold. In relation to deaths from exposure to cold, 50% are people over 60 years old, 75% are male, and 20% occur in the home.

7.0 WINTER STORMS AND NOR'EASTERS 7.1 Setting

Similar to summer storms and tornadoes, winter storms have the potential to affect any part of East Haven. However, unlike summer storms, winter events and the hazards that result (wind, snow, and ice) have more widespread geographic extent. The entire Town is therefore susceptible to winter storms and due to its location on the shoreline can have more snowfall totals during ocean-effect snowstorms. In general, winter storms are considered highly likely to occur each year (major storms are less frequent), and the hazards that result (nor'easter winds, snow, and blizzard conditions) can potentially have a significant effect over a large area of the Town (refer to Tables 1-2 and 1-3).

7.2 Hazard Assessment This section focuses on those effects commonly associated with winter storms, including those from blizzards, ice storms, heavy snow, freezing rain, and extreme cold. Most deaths from winter storms are indirectly related to the storm, such as from traffic accidents on icy roads and hypothermia from prolonged exposure to cold. Damage to trees and tree limbs and the resultant downing of utility cables are a common effect of these types of events. Secondary effects include loss of power and heat. The classic winter storm in New England is the nor'easter, which is caused by a warm, moist, low-pressure system moving up from the south colliding with a cold, dry high-pressure system moving down from the north. The nor'easter derives its name from the northeast winds typically accompanying such storms, and such storms tend to produce a large amount of precipitation. Severe winter storms can produce an array of hazardous weather conditions, including heavy snow, blizzards, freezing rain and ice pellets, flooding, heavy winds, and extreme cold. The National Weather Service defines a blizzard as having winds over 35 mph with snow with blowing snow that reduces visibility to less than one-quarter mile for at least three hours. Along the coast, wind driven waves can batter the shore, causing flooding and severe beach erosion. Coupled with a high tide, the low pressure of a nor'easter can have an effect similar to a storm surge from a hurricane. Connecticut experiences at least one severe winter storm every five years although a variety of small and medium snow and ice storms occur every winter. The likelihood of a nor'easter occurring in any given winter is therefore considered high, and the likelihood of other winter storms occurring in any given winter is very high.


The Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS) was developed by Paul Kocin and Louis Uccellini (Kocin and Uccellini, 2004) and is used by NOAA to characterize and rank high-impact Northeast snowstorms. These storms have wide areas of snowfall with accumulations of 10 inches and above. NESIS has five categories: Extreme, Crippling, Major, Significant, and Notable. The index differs from other meteorological indices in that it uses population information in addition to meteorological measurements, thus giving an indication of a storm's societal impacts. NESIS values are calculated within a GIS. The aerial distribution of snowfall and population information are combined in an equation that calculates a NESIS score, which varies from around one for smaller storms to over 10 for extreme storms. The raw score is then converted into one of the five NESIS categories. The largest NESIS values result from storms producing heavy snowfall over large areas that include major metropolitan centers. Table 7-1 presents the NESIS categories, their corresponding NESIS values, and a descriptive adjective.

TABLE 7-1

NESIS Categories

Category NESIS Value Description

1 1—2.499 Notable

2 2.5—3.99 Significant

3 4—5.99 Major

4 6—9.99 Crippling

5 10.0+ Extreme

7.3 Historic Record

A total of 15 extreme, crippling, and major winter storms have occurred in Connecticut during the past 30 years. One is listed for each of the years 1983, 1987, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007. More alarmingly, four are listed in the calendar year 2010 and two in 2011. Winter Storm Ginger in 1996 caused up to 27 inches of snow in 24 hours and shut down the state of Connecticut for an entire day. Other storms have been powerful. A 1992 nor'easter, in particular, caused the third-highest tides ever recorded in Long Island Sound and damaged 6,000 coastal homes. Inland areas received up to four feet of snow. “Winter Storm Albert” in October 2011 caused power outages of up to ten days in northern Connecticut, but was less damaging in East Haven. According to the NCDC, there have been 134 snow and ice events in the state of Connecticut between 1993 and April 2010, causing over $18 million in damages.


Notably, heavy snow in December 1996 caused $6 million in property damage. Snow removal and power restoration for a winter storm event spanning March 31 and April 1, 1997 cost $1 million. On March 5, 2001, heavy snow caused $5 million in damages, followed by another heavy snow event four days later that caused an additional $2 million in damages. Catastrophic ice storms are less frequent in Connecticut than the rest of New England due to the close proximity of the warmer waters of the Atlantic Ocean and Long Island Sound. The most severe ice storm in Connecticut on record was Ice Storm Felix on December 18, 1973. This storm resulted in two deaths and widespread power outages throughout the state. An ice storm in November 2002 that hit Litchfield and western Hartford Counties resulted in $2.5 million in public sector damages. Examples of recent winter storms to affect New Haven County and nearby Middlesex County selected from the NCDC database include:

East Coast Winter Storm, March 13-14, 1993 – A powerful storm carrying with it record low barometric pressure readings hit the state with blizzard conditions. Gale force winds accompanied by snow drifts several feet deep closed businesses, hindered travel, and forced residents to lose power. Federal aid was given to the state for snow removal.

Heavy Snowstorm, January 6-7, 1994 – An extended period of snowfall led to a change to sleet and freezing rain along the coastline, which hindered travel, closed schools, led to a loss of power for many residents in southeastern Connecticut, and resulted in downed tree limbs and power lines.

Major Nor'easter, February 11, 1994 – The large-scale nor'easter dumped a total of eight to 13 inches of snow across the state, which closed schools and businesses and limited travel.

Ocean-Effect Heavy Snow Storm, April 10, 1996 – Heavy, wet snow fell across most of Southeastern Connecticut where numerous trees and power lines fell.

Heavy Snow Storm, February 5, 2001 – Wet snow resulted in large-scale power outages because of downed power lines from fallen tree limbs and caused travel in southern Connecticut to become treacherous as numerous traffic accidents occurred.

Winter Storm, March 4-7, 2001 – A slow-moving, large-scale winter storm subjected southern Connecticut to heavy wet snow and numerous power outages as snowfall totals were around 14 inches in Old Saybrook.

February Heavy Snowstorm, February 16-17, 2003 – Heavy snow became widespread and was blown by northeast winds 20 to 30 mph causing near blizzard conditions. Travel almost ceased entirely, and widespread minor tidal flooding occurred along the Connecticut shoreline as Old Saybrook saw a total of almost 16 inches of total snowfall.

Heavy Snow, January 22-23, 2005 – An intense low produced near blizzard conditions, strong and gusty winds, and blowing and drifting snow and caused minor to moderate local tidal flooding along the shoreline.


Winter Storm, February 14, 2007 – A mix of heavy snow, sleet, freezing rain, strong gusty winds, and minor tidal flooding occurred along the coast of the state throughout the day.

The winter storms of January and February 2011 are listed as the 18th and 19th storms in the NESIS ranking. These storms produced snow, sleet, freezing rain, strong gusty winds, severely low temperatures, and coastal flooding. Snowfall totals for winter 2010-2011 in Connecticut averaged around 70 inches. The snowfall, sleet, freezing rain, and rain that fell on Connecticut during the 2010-2011 winter season proved to be catastrophic for a number of buildings. With severely low temperatures coupled with the absence of the removal of snow and ice buildup from roofs of buildings in Connecticut, numerous roofs collapsed during the winter season. Using media reports, a list of roof/building collapses and damage due to buildup of frozen precipitation was compiled. The list (Table 7-2) includes 76 locations that span over a month of time from January 12, 2011 to February 17, 2011.

TABLE 7-2 Reported Roof Collapse Damage, 2011

Address Municipality Date Description

205 Wakelee Avenue Ansonia 2/2/2011 Catholic Charities

Route 44 Barkhamsted 2/4/2011 Barkhamsted Highway Department Salt Shed

8 Railroad Avenue Beacon Falls 2/2/2011 Manufacturing Corporation 20 Sargent Drive Bethany 2/2/2011 Fairfield County Millworks 50 Hunters Trail Bethany 2/2/2011 Sun Gold Stables 74 Griffin Road South Bloomfield 2/14/2011 Home Depot Distribution Center 25 Blue Hill Road Bozrah 1/27/2011 Kofkoff Egg Farm 135 Albany Turnpike Canton 2/3/2011 Ethan Allen Design Center

520 South Main Street Cheshire 1/12/2011 Cheshire Community Pool (Prior to recent ice storm)

1701 Highland Avenue Cheshire 1/23/2011 Cox Communications 174 East Johnson Avenue Cheshire 2/2/2011 First Calvary Life Family Worship Center

166 South Main Street Cheshire 2/3/2011 George Keeler Stove Shop (Historic Building)

1755 Highland Avenue Cheshire 2/7/2011 Nutmeg Utility Products 45 Shunpike Road (Route 372) Cromwell 2/2/2011 K Mart (cracks inside and outside - no

official collapse) Cromwell Hills Drive Cromwell 2/4/2011 Cromwell Gardens 98 West Street Danbury 1/28/2011 Garage 142 N. Road (Route 140) East Windsor 2/3/2011 Dawn Marie's Restaurant - Bassdale Plaza

Shopping Center 3 Craftsman Road East Windsor 2/4/2011 Info Shred 140 Mountain Road Ellington 1/27/2011 Garage Collapse 100 Phoenix Avenue Enfield 2/1/2011 Brooks Brothers South Road Enfield 2/2/2011 Bosco's Auto Garage 175 Warde Terrace Fairfield 2/3/2011 Parish Court Senior Housing (Ceiling


damage - 10 apartments) 19 Elm Tree Road Glastonbury 2/6/2011 Residence

Unknown Hampton 1/28/2011 Wood Hill Farm barn collapse - animals died

Gillette Street Hartford 1/19/2011 Garage West Street Hebron 2/2/2011 Residential

Connecticut Route 101 Killingly 2/8/2011 Historic church converted to an office building

759 Boston Post Road Madison 2/3/2011 Silver Moon, The Brandon Gallery, Madison Coffee Shop and Madison Cinemas (awning began to collapse)

478 Center Street Manchester 1/28/2011 Lou's Auto Sales and Upholstery 1388 East Main Street Meriden 1/28/2011 Jacoby's 260 Sherman Avenue Meriden 2/6/2011 Engine 4 Fire Station 275 Research Parkway Meriden 2/17/2011 Four Points by Sheraton Carport 1310 South Main Street Middletown 1/30/2011 Passport Inn Building & Suites

505 Main Street Middletown 2/2/2011 Accounting firm, converted, mixed use (3 story)

70 Robin Court Middletown 2/3/2011 Madison at Northwoods Apartment 80 North Main Street Middletown 2/7/2011 Abandoned warehouse Pepe's Farm Road Milford 1/30/2011 Vacant manufacturing building 282 Woodmont Road Milford 2/2/2011 Kip's Tractor Barn

150 Main St # 1 Monroe 2/2/2011 Monroe Paint & Hardware (Slumping roof, weld broke loose from structural beam)

Route 63 Naugatuck 1/21/2011 Former Plumbing Supply House 410 Rubber Avenue Naugatuck 2/2/2011 Thurston Oil Company

1210 New Haven Road Naugatuck 2/4/2011 Rainbowland Nursery School (structural damage)

1100 New Haven Road Naugatuck 2/17/2011 Walmart (structural damage) 290 Goffe Street New Haven 2/7/2011 New Haven Armory 201 South Main Street Newtown 2/9/2011 Bluelinx Corp. 80 Comstock Hill Avenue Norwalk 1/27/2011 Silvermine Stable

5 Town Line Road Plainville 1/27/2011 Classic Auto Body 130 West Main Street Plainville 2/2/2011 Congregational Church of Plainville

Terryville Section Plymouth 1/12/2011 Public Works Garage (Terryville section) - taking plow trucks out

286 Airline Avenue Portland 1/27/2011 Midstate Recovery Systems, LLC (waste transfer station)

680 Portland-Cobalt Road (Route 66) Portland 1/27/2011

Vacant commercial property (next to Prehistoric Mini Golf - former True Value Hardware building)

Tryon Street Portland 1/27/2011 Residential home (sunroof) Main Street Portland 1/28/2011 Middlesex Marina 93 Elm Street Rocky Hill 2/6/2011 Residential garage 99 Bridgeport Avenue Shelton 2/3/2011 Shell Gas Station 100 Maple Street Somers 1/27/2011 Lindy Farms (barn) 68 Green Tree Lane Somers 2/2/2011 Residential 95 John Fitch Boulevard South Windsor 2/3/2011 South Windsor 10 Pin Bowling Alley 595 Nutmeg Road North South Windsor 2/8/2011 Waldo Brothers Company 45 Newell Street Southington 2/2/2011 Yarde Metals Furnace Avenue Stafford Springs 2/2/2011 Abandoned mill building


370 South Main Street Terryville 2/8/2011 Former American Modular 46 Hartford Turnpike Tolland 2/3/2011 Colonial Gardens 364 High Street Tolland 2/9/2011 Horse barn 61 Monroe Turnpike Trumbull 2/1/2011 Trumbull Tennis Center 5065 Main St # L1207 Trumbull Unknown Taco Bell Route 83 Vernon 1/31/2011 Former Clyde Chevrolet 136 Dudley Avenue Wallingford 1/27/2011 Tri State Tires 1074 South Colony Road Wallingford 1/29/2011 Zandri's Stillwood Inn

121 N. Main Street Waterbury 2/2/2011 Former bowling alley (Sena's Lanes) 456 New Park Avenue West Hartford 2/8/2011 Shell gas station Island Lane West Haven 1/27/2011 Commercial building

Unknown Wethersfield 2/2/2011 Automotive center roof collapse; 10 cars damaged

50 Sage Park Road Windsor 2/2/2011 Windsor High School (auditorium roof collapse)

1001 Day Hill Road Windsor 2/7/2011 Mototown USA 27 Lawnacre Road Windsor Locks 2/7/2011 Long View RV As a result of the roof and building collapses, injury to humans, animals, and property took place. The overall storm impacts and damages resulted in Presidential Disaster Declaration #1958 for Connecticut.

7.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Existing programs applicable to winter storm winds are the same as those discussed in Sections 5.0 and 6.0. Programs that are specific to winter storms are generally those related to preparing plows and sand and salt trucks; tree trimming and maintenance to protect power lines, roads, and structures; and other associated snow removal and response preparations. The Connecticut Building Code specifies that a weight of 30 pounds per square foot be used as the base “ground snow load” for computing snow loading for different types of roofs. As a result of the winter of 2010-2011, it is anticipated that many communities will develop and utilize programs for roof snow removal. As it is almost guaranteed that winter storms will occur annually in Connecticut, it is important for municipalities to budget fiscal resources toward snow management. The Town ensures that all warning/notification and communications systems are ready before a storm and ensures that appropriate equipment and supplies, especially snow removal equipment, are in place and in good working order. Collectively, the Connecticut DOT and the East Haven Public Works Department conduct the majority of plowing in the Town. The Connecticut DOT plows Routes 80, 100, and 142 as well as Interstate 95. Although private communities are responsible for plowing their own roads, some private roads are plowed by the Town while some are not. The Public Works Department has 11 plows/sanders.


The Fire Department has its own plow truck that it uses when responding to emergencies during snowstorms. The Fire Department's truck provides the Town with the ability to dispatch a plow truck ahead of an emergency vehicle during emergencies.

7.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment As mentioned in Sections 5.0 and 6.0, many roadways in East Haven are heavily treed. Many tree limbs on East Haven roadways are not suited to withstand high wind and snow or ice loads. Although snowdrifts do occur in East Haven, they are not a substantial issue. Even without drifts, winter storms present some potentially unique transportation vulnerabilities. There is a high propensity for traffic accidents during heavy snow and even light icing events. Roads may become impassable, inhibiting the ability of emergency equipment to reach trouble spots as well as the accessibility to medical and shelter facilities. Stranded motorists, especially senior and/or handicapped citizens, are at a particularly high risk during a blizzard. Recall from Figures 2-7 through Figure 2-9 that elderly and persons with disabilities reside in the Town. It is possible that several hundred of the population impacted by a winter storm could consist of the elderly and numerous people with disabilities. Thus, it is important for the Town to be prepared to assist these special populations during winter storms. With regard to coastal flooding, the same vulnerable populations discussed in Section 4.5 are vulnerable to flooding caused by nor'easters. Further "flood" damage could be caused by flooding from frozen water pipes.


Potential mitigation measures for storm surges and flooding caused by nor'easters include those appropriate for flooding. These were presented in Section 4.6 and are not repeated here. Likewise, wind-related mitigation was covered in Sections 5.6 and 6.6. However, winter storm mitigation measures must also address blizzards, snow, and ice hazards. These are emphasized in the following subsections. Note that natural resource protection and structural projects are generally not applicable categories of mitigation.

7.6.1 Prevention

Cold air, snow, and ice cannot be prevented from impacting any particular area. Thus, mitigation should be focused on property protection, infrastructure protection, emergency services (discussed below), and prevention of damage to structures and utilities as caused by breakage of tree limbs. Previous recommendations for tree limb inspections and


maintenance in Section 5.6 are thus applicable to winter storm hazards as well. If utilities are underground, then heavy snow, ice, and winter winds cannot damage or destroy them.

7.6.2 Property Protection

Property can be protected during winter storms through the use of shutters, storm doors, storm windows, weather stripping, and other means of keeping cold air outdoors and heat indoors. Where flat roofs are used on structures, snow removal is important as the heavy load from collecting snow may exceed the bearing capacity of the structure. During the winter of 2010-2011, even sloping roofs had trouble with snow loads. Heating coils may be used to melt snow from flat roofs, and rakes can be used to physically remove snow. Pipes should be adequately insulated to protect against freezing and bursting. All of these recommendations apply to new construction although they may also be applied to existing buildings during renovations.

7.6.3 Public Education and Awareness Given the normal cycle of seasons as experienced in New England, including occasional severe winters, people are generally more prepared for the variety of winter storm hazards than they are with regard to other hazards discussed in this HMP. Nevertheless, people are still stranded in automobiles, get caught outside their homes in adverse weather conditions, and suffer heart failure while shoveling during each winter in Connecticut. Public education should therefore focus on safety tips and reminders to individuals about how to prepare for cold weather.

7.6.4 Emergency Services

Plowing the access to and from critical facilities should be prioritized such as health and medical facilities and the shelters that were listed in Table 2-1. It is recognized that this may not be a priority to all residents as people typically expect their own roads to be cleared as soon as possible.

7.7 Recommended Actions Most of the recommendations in Sections 4.7, 5.7, and 6.7 for mitigating coastal flooding and high winds are suitable for mitigation of coastal flooding and winds caused by winter storms and nor'easters. These are not repeated in this subsection. The following recommendations are applicable to other aspects of winter storms such as winds, snow, and ice:

Conduct a study to identify municipal buildings, critical facilities, and commercial/industrial buildings that are vulnerable to roof damage or collapse due to heavy snow loads.


Develop a plan to prioritize snow removal from the roof of municipal buildings

(especially critical facilities) and make funding available for clearing.

Consider posting the snow plowing routes in municipal buildings and the town website so residents and business owners may better understand their risk during winter travel.

Identify areas that are difficult to access during winter storm events and develop

contingency plans

Provide information for mitigating icing, insulating pipes, and retrofits for flat-roofed buildings.

In addition, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 11.1.


8.0 EARTHQUAKES 8.1 Setting

The entire Town is susceptible to earthquake damage. However, even though earthquake damage has the potential to occur anywhere both in the Town and in the northeastern United States, the effects may be felt differently in some areas based on the type of geology. In general, earthquakes are considered a hazard that may occur and would likely cause effects to a large area of the Town (refer to Tables 1-2 and 1-3) if one occurred. Furthermore, the Virginia earthquake of August 2011 reminded the nation that earthquake effects are transmitted great distances on the east coast.

8.2 Hazard Assessment An earthquake is a sudden rapid shaking of the earth caused by the breaking and shifting of rock beneath the earth's surface. Earthquakes can cause buildings and bridges to collapse; disrupt gas, electric, and telephone lines; and often cause landslides, flash floods, fires, avalanches, and tsunamis. Earthquakes can occur at any time without warning. The underground point of origin of an earthquake is called its focus; the point on the surface directly above the focus is the epicenter. The magnitude and intensity of an earthquake is determined by the use of the Richter scale and the Mercalli scale, respectively. The Richter scale defines the magnitude of an earthquake. Magnitude is related to the amount of seismic energy released at the hypocenter of the earthquake. It is based on the amplitude of earthquake waves recorded on instruments that have a common calibration. The magnitude of an earthquake is thus represented by a single, instrumentally determined value recorded by a seismograph, which records the varying amplitude of ground oscillations. The magnitude of an earthquake is determined from the logarithm of the amplitude of recorded waves. Being logarithmic, each whole number increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in measured strength. Earthquakes with a magnitude of about 2.0 or less are usually called microearthquakes and are generally only recorded locally. Earthquakes with magnitudes of 4.5 or greater are strong enough to be recorded by seismographs all over the world.


TABLE 8-1 Comparison of Earthquake

Magnitude and Intensity

Richter 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 and above VIII - XII

The effect of an earthquake on the Earth's surface is called the intensity. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale consists of a series of key responses such as people awakening, movement of furniture, damage to chimneys, and total destruction. This scale, composed of 12 increasing levels of intensity that range from imperceptible shaking to catastrophic destruction, is designated by Roman numerals. It is an arbitrary ranking based on observed effects. A comparison of Richter magnitude to typical Modified Mercalli intensity is presented in Table 8-1. Unlike seismic activity in California, earthquakes in Connecticut are not associated with specific known active faults. Instead, earthquakes with epicenters in Connecticut are referred to as intraplate activity. Bedrock in Connecticut and New England in general is highly capable of transmitting seismic energy; thus, the area impacted by an earthquake in Connecticut can be four to 40 times greater than that of California. In addition, population density is up to 3.5 times greater in Connecticut than in California as a whole, potentially putting a greater number of people at risk.

The following is a description of the 12 levels of Modified Mercalli intensity from the USGS:

I. Not felt except by a very few under especially

favorable conditions. II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on

upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing.

III. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.

IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.

V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes and windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.

VI. Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.

VII. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken.

VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned.

IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.

X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent.

XI. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly.

XII. Damage total. Lines of sight and level are destroyed. Objects thrown in the air.


The built environment in Connecticut includes old, nonreinforced masonry that is not seismically designed. Those who live or work in nonreinforced masonry buildings, especially those built on filled land or unstable soils, are at the highest risk for injury due to the occurrence of an earthquake.

8.3 Historic Record According to the Northeast States Emergency Consortium and the Weston Observatory at Boston College, there were 139 recorded earthquakes in Connecticut between 1668 and 2011. The vast majority of these earthquakes had a magnitude of less than 3.0. The most severe earthquake in Connecticut's history occurred at East Haddam on May 16, 1791. Stone walls and chimneys were toppled during this quake. Additional instances of seismic activity occurring in and around Connecticut are provided below based on information provided in USGS documents, the Weston Observatory, the 2010 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, other municipal hazard mitigation plans, and newspaper articles.

A devastating earthquake near Three Rivers, Quebec on February 5, 1663 caused

moderate damage in parts of Connecticut. Strong earthquakes in Massachusetts in November 1727 and November 1755 were

felt strongly in Connecticut. In April 1837, a moderate tremor occurred at Hartford, causing alarm but little

damage. In August 1840, another moderate tremor with its epicenter 10 to 20 miles north of

New Haven shook Hartford buildings but caused little damage. In October 1845, an Intensity V earthquake occurred in Bridgeport. An Intensity V

earthquake would be approximately 4.3 on the Richter scale. On June 30, 1858, New Haven and Derby were shaken by a moderate tremor. On July 28, 1875, an early morning tremor caused Intensity V damage throughout

Connecticut and Massachusetts. The second strongest earthquake to impact Connecticut occurred near Hebron on

November 14, 1925. No significant damage was reported. The Timiskarning, Ontario earthquake of November 1935 caused minor damage as

far south as Cornwall, Connecticut. This earthquake affected one million square miles of Canada and the United States.

An earthquake near Massena, New York in September 1944 produced mild effects in Hartford, Marion, New Haven, and Meriden, Connecticut.

An Intensity V earthquake was reported in Stamford in March 1953, causing shaking but no damage.

On November 3, 1968, another Intensity V earthquake in southern Connecticut caused minor damage in Madison and Chester.

Recent earthquake activity has been recorded near New Haven in 1988, 1989, and 1990 (2.0, 2.8, and 2.8 in magnitude, respectively), in Greenwich in 1991 (3.0 magnitude), and on Long Island in East Hampton, New York in 1992.


Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil are reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. It occurs in soils at or near saturation and especially in finer textured soils.

The most recent noticeable earthquake to occur in Connecticut happened on March 11, 2008. It was a 2.0 magnitude with its epicenter three miles northwest of the center of Chester.

A magnitude 5.0 earthquake struck at the Ontario-Quebec border region of Canada on June 23, 2010. This earthquake did not cause damage in Connecticut but was felt by residents in Hartford and New Haven Counties.

A magnitude 3.9 earthquake occurred 117 miles southeast of Bridgeport, Connecticut on the morning of November 30, 2010. The quake did not cause damage in Connecticut but was felt by residents along Long Island Sound.

Most recently, a magnitude 5.8 earthquake occurred 38 miles from Richmond, Virginia on August 23, 2011. The quake was felt from Georgia to Maine and reportedly as far west as Chicago. Many residents of Connecticut experienced the swaying and shaking of buildings and furniture during the earthquake although widespread damage was constrained to an area from central Virginia to southern Maryland. According to Cornell University, the August 23 quake was the largest event to occur in the east central United States since instrumental recordings have been available to seismologists.

8.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures The Connecticut Building Codes include design criteria for buildings specific to each municipality as adopted by BOCA. These include the seismic coefficients for building design in the Town. The Town has adopted these codes for new construction, and they are enforced by the Town Building Official. Due to the infrequent nature of damaging earthquakes, land use policies in East Haven do not directly address earthquake hazards.

8.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment According to Cornell University, the earth’s crust is far more efficient at propagating seismic waves in the eastern United States than in the west, so even a moderate earthquake can be felt at great distances and over a larger region. The cause of intraplate earthquakes remains a fundamental mystery and this, coupled with the large areas affected, causes the August 2011 earthquake in Virginia to be of particular interest to seismologists. Surficial earth materials behave differently in response to seismic activity. Unconsolidated materials such as sand and artificial fill can amplify the shaking associated with an earthquake. In addition, artificial fill material has the potential for liquefaction. When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases, and the ability


The AEL is the expected losses due to earthquakes each year. Note that this number represents a long-term average; thus, actual earthquake losses may be much greater or nonexistent for a particular year.

of soil to support building foundations and bridges is reduced. Increased shaking and liquefaction can cause greater damage to buildings and structures and a greater loss of life. As explained in Section 2.3, approximately 1,588 acres out of approximately 8,047 total acres or just over 19% of the Town is underlain by sand and gravel (including fines, sand over fines, and sand/gravel over fines), including the commercial Town center. Figure 2-4 depicts surficial materials in the Town. Structures in these areas are at increased risk from earthquakes due to amplification of seismic energy and/or collapse. The best mitigation for future development in areas of sandy material is the application of the most stringent building codes such as those in the Connecticut Building Codes or, wherever the Town deems necessary, the possible prohibition of new construction. However, many of these areas occur in floodplains associated with the Farm River, Tuttle Brook and Morris Creek, so they are already regulated. The areas that are not at increased risk during an earthquake due to unstable soils are the areas in Figure 2-4 underlain by glacial till. Areas of steep slopes can collapse during an earthquake, creating landslides. Seismic activity can also break utility lines, such as water mains and electric and telephone lines, and stormwater management systems. Damage to utility lines can lead to fires, especially in electric and gas mains. Dam failure can also pose a significant threat to developed areas during an earthquake. For this HMP, dam failure has been addressed separately in Section 10.0. According to the FEMA HAZUS-HM Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States (2008) document, FEMA used probabilistic curves developed by the USGS for the National Earthquakes Hazards Reduction Program to calculate Annualized Earthquake Losses (AEL) for the United States. Based on the results of this study, FEMA calculated the AEL for Connecticut to be $11,622,000. This value placed Connecticut 30th out of the 50 states in terms of AEL. The magnitude of this value stems from the fact that Connecticut has a large building inventory that would be damaged in a severe earthquake and takes into account the lack of damaging earthquakes in the historical record. According to the 2010 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, Connecticut is at a low to moderate risk for experiencing an earthquake of a magnitude greater than 3.5 and at a moderate risk of experiencing an earthquake of a magnitude less than 3.0 in the future. No earthquake with a magnitude greater than 3.5 has occurred in Connecticut within the last 30 years, and the USGS currently ranks Connecticut 43rd out of the 50 states for overall earthquake activity.


A series of earthquake probability maps was generated using the 2009 interactive web-based mapping tools hosted by the USGS. These maps were used to determine the probability of an earthquake of greater than magnitude 5.0 or greater than magnitude 6.0 damaging the Town. Results are presented in Table 8-2 below.

TABLE 8-2 Probability of a Damaging Earthquake in the Vicinity of East Haven

Time Frame (Years)

Probability of the Occurrence of an Earthquake Event >

Magnitude 5.0

Probability of the Occurrence of an Earthquake Event >

Magnitude 6.0 50 1% to 2% < 1%

100 2% to 3% < 1% 250 6% to 8% 1% to 2% 350 8% to 10% 2% to 3%

Based on the historic record and the probability maps generated from the USGS database, the state of Connecticut has areas of seismic activity. It is likely that Connecticut will continue to experience minor earthquakes (magnitude less than 3.0) in the future. While the risk of an earthquake affecting East Haven is relatively low over the short term, long-term probabilities suggest that a damaging earthquake (magnitude greater than 5.0) could occur within the vicinity of East Haven. The 2010 Connecticut Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update created four "maximum plausible" earthquake scenarios (three historical, one potential) within HAZUS-MH to generate potential earthquake risk to the state of Connecticut. The same four scenarios were simulated within HAZUS-MH to generate potential damages in the Town from those events using the default year 2000 building inventories and census data. The four events are as follows:

Magnitude 5.7, epicenter in Portland, Connecticut, based on historic event Magnitude 5.7, epicenter in Haddam, Connecticut, based on historic event Magnitude 6.4, epicenter in East Haddam, Connecticut, based on historic event Magnitude 5.7, epicenter in Stamford, Connecticut, magnitude based on USGS

probability mapping

The results for each HAZUS-MH earthquake simulation are presented in Appendix H. These results are conservatively high and considered appropriate for planning purposes for the Town. The range of potential impacts from any earthquake scenario is very large, ranging from minor impacts to the maximum possible impacts generated by HAZUS-MH. Note that potentially greater impacts could also occur. Table 8-3 presents the number of residential buildings (homes) damaged by the various earthquake scenarios while Table 8-4 presents the total number of buildings damaged by each earthquake scenario. A significant percentage of building damage is to single-family residential buildings while other building types include agriculture, commercial,


education, government, industrial, other residential, and religious buildings. The exact definition of each damage state varies based on building construction. See Chapter 5 of the HAZUS-MH Earthquake Model Technical Manual, available on the FEMA website, for the definitions of each building damage state based on building construction.

TABLE 8-3 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Number of Residential Buildings Damaged

Epicenter Location

and Magnitude Slight

Damage Moderate Damage

Extensive Damage

Complete Damage Total

Haddam – 5.7 959 231 31 4 1,225 Portland – 5.7 628 135 16 2 781 Stamford – 5.7 229 44 5 0 278 East Haddam – 6.4 1,548 461 70 9 2,088

TABLE 8-4 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Total Number of Buildings Damaged

Epicenter Location

and Magnitude Slight

Damage Moderate Damage

Extensive Damage

Complete Damage Total

Haddam – 5.7 1,055 281 40 5 1,381 Portland – 5.7 699 167 23 2 891 Stamford – 5.7 264 56 7 1 328 East Haddam – 6.4 1,710 589 104 13 2,416

The HAZUS simulations consider a subset of critical facilities termed "essential facilities," which are important during emergency situations. As shown in Table 8-5, minimal damage to essential facilities (except for the assisted living facility) is expected for each earthquake scenario.


TABLE 8-5 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Essential Facility Damage

Epicenter Location

and Magnitude Fire Stations (1) Police Stations (1) Schools (12) Hospitals (1)1

Haddam – 5.7 None or Minor None or Minor None or Minor

Minor damage, 36% of beds out of service initially, 18% out of service after one week, 5% out of service for more than 30 days

Portland – 5.7 None or Minor None or Minor None or Minor


Stamford – 5.7 None or Minor None or Minor None or Minor


East Haddam – 6.4 None or Minor None or Minor

Minor damage, two schools with less than 50% functionality


1 "Hospital" assumed to represent 36-bed assisted living facility. Table 8-6 presents potential damage to utilities and infrastructure based on the various earthquake scenarios. The municipal transportation network and utility network was assumed by HAZUS-MH to include the following items:

Highway: 17 major roadway bridges and 9 important highway segments Railway: Two important railway segments Light Rail: One important light rail segment One airport facility and one runway A potable water system consisting of 185 total kilometers of pipelines and one

treatment facility A sanitary sewer system consisting of 111 total kilometers of pipelines A total of 74 kilometers of natural gas lines


TABLE 8-6 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Utility, Infrastructure, and Fire Damage

Epicenter Location

and Magnitude

Transportation Network Utilities Fire Damage

Haddam – 5.7

Minor damage (no loss of service): • Bridges: $0.20 million • Airport facilities: $1.26 million • No damage to railways

Minor damage: • Potable water system: 1 leak;

$2.43 million in facility damage • Waste water system: 1 leak • Natural gas system: 1 leak • No loss of water, or electric

service

No ignitions or fire damage

Portland – 5.7


Minor damage: • Potable water system: 1 leak;

$1.34 million in facility damage • No loss of water or electric

service


Stamford – 5.7


Minor damage: • Potable water system: $0.33

million in facility damage • No loss of water or electric

service


East Haddam –

6.4


Minor damage: • Potable water system: 5 leaks,

one break ($0.02 million); $3.03 million in facility damage

• Waste water system: 2 leaks, one break ($0.01 million)

• Natural gas system: 1 leak • No loss of water or electric

service


As shown in Table 8-6, highway bridges and the airport are predicted to experience minor damage under each earthquake scenario. These are considered critical facilities in East Haven. The potable water system, wastewater system, and natural gas network will experience minor damage and leaks that will be able to be isolated with minimal service loss. No fires or fire damage are expected under any of the simulations although earthquake-related fires could realistically occur. Table 8-7 presents the estimated tonnage of debris that would be generated by earthquake damage during each HAZUS-MH scenario. As shown in Table 8-6, minor debris is expected for each of the four earthquake scenarios.


TABLE 8-7 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Debris Generation (Tons)

Epicenter

Location and Magnitude

Brick / Wood Reinforced Concrete / Steel Total

Estimated Cleanup Truckloads

(25 Tons / Truck) Haddam – 5.7 5,850 3,150 9,000 360 Portland – 5.7 3,400 1,600 5,000 200 Stamford – 5.7 1,460 540 2,000 80 East Haddam – 6.4 10,600 9,400 20,000 800

Table 8-8 presents the potential sheltering requirements based on the various earthquake events simulated by HAZUS-MH.

TABLE 8-8 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Shelter Requirements

Epicenter Location

and Magnitude Number of Displaced

Households Short-Term Sheltering

Need (Number of People) Haddam – 5.7 34 19 Portland – 5.7 19 11 Stamford – 5.7 6 3 East Haddam – 6.4 82 48

The predicted sheltering requirements for earthquake damage (not including fire damage in Table 8-6) are relatively minimal for most scenarios. However, it is possible that an earthquake could also produce a dam failure (flooding) that could increase the overall sheltering need in the Town. As noted in Section 2.11, estimated capacity of the existing sheltering facilities was 2,600 as of 1994. Displacement due to earthquake damage alone could most likely be handled by the existing shelters. Table 8-9 presents the casualty estimates generated by HAZUS-MH for the various earthquake scenarios. Casualties are broken down into four severity levels that describe the extent of injuries. The levels are as follows:

Severity Level 1: Injuries will require medical attention but hospitalization is not needed.

Severity Level 2: Injuries will require hospitalization but are not considered life threatening.

Severity Level 3: Injuries will require hospitalization and can become life threatening if not promptly treated.

Severity Level 4: Victims are killed by the earthquake.


TABLE 8-9 HAZUS-MH Earthquake Scenarios – Casualty Estimates

Epicenter Location -

Magnitude 2 AM Earthquake 2 PM Earthquake 5 PM Earthquake

Haddam – 5.7 7 (Level 1); 1 (Level 2);

0 (Level 3-4)

6 (Level 1); 1 (Level 2);

0 (Level 3-4)

6 (Level 1); 1 (Level 2);

0 (Level 3-4)

Portland – 5.7 4 (Level 1); 1 (Level 2);

0 (Level 3-4)

3 (Level 1); 0 (Level 2-4)

3 (Level 1); 0 (Level 2-4)

Stamford – 5.7 1 (Level 1); 0 (Level 2-4)

1 (Level 1); 0 (Level 2-4)

1 (Level 1); 0 (Level 2-4)

East Haddam – 6.4 14 (Level 1); 2 (Level 2);

0 (Level 3-4)

15 (Level 1); 3 (Level 2); 0 (Level 3); 1 (Level 4)

14 (Level 1); 2 (Level 2); 0 (Level 3); 1 (Level 4)

Some casualties would be expected from earthquake damage in the Town for the four earthquake scenarios. The casualty categories include commuters, educational, hotels, industrial, other-residential, and single-family residential and are accounted for during the night, in the early afternoon, and during afternoon rush hour. Table 8-10 presents the total estimated losses and direct economic impact that may result from the four earthquake scenarios created for the Town as estimated by the HAZUS-MH software. Capital damage loss estimates include the subcategories of building, contents, and inventory damages. The direct property damage losses are the estimated costs to repair or replace the damage caused to the building or its contents. Business interruption loss estimates include the subcategories of lost income, relocation expenses, and lost wages. The business interruption losses are associated with the inability to operate a business due to the damage sustained during a hurricane and also include temporary living expenses for those people displaced from their homes because of the storm. Note that these damages do not include transportation, utility, or fire damage in Table 8-6.

TABLE 8-10 HAZUS-MH Estimated Direct Losses from Earthquake Scenarios (x $1,000)

Epicenter Location

and Magnitude Estimated Total Capital Losses

Estimated Total Income Losses

Estimated Total Losses

Haddam – 5.7 35,060 5,770 40,830 Portland – 5.7 19,810 3,490 23,300 Stamford – 5.7 5,070 1,270 6,340 East Haddam – 6.4 64,000 15,040 79,040

Note that the losses are presented in 2006 dollars, which implies that they will be greater in the future due to inflation. It is also understood that the next HMP update will be able


to utilize 2010 census data in the HAZUS-MH simulations, providing a more recent dataset for analysis. Despite the low probability of occurrence, earthquake damage presents a potentially significant hazard to the Town. However, it is very unlikely that the Town would be at the epicenter of such a damaging earthquake. Recall from Figures 2-7 through Figure 2-9 that elderly and persons with disabilities reside in the Town. It is possible that several hundred of the population impacted by an earthquake could consist of the elderly and numerous people with disabilities. Thus, it is important for the Town to be prepared to assist these special populations during emergencies, including wildfires.


As earthquakes are relatively infrequent, difficult to predict, and can affect the entire Town, potential mitigation can only include adherence to building codes, education of residents, and adequate planning. Other long-term goals include surveying all facilities with generators to ensure fuel supplies will be sufficient to withstand an earthquake. Emphasis will be placed on critical infrastructure, shelters and then other sites. The following potential mitigation measures have been identified:

Ensure that municipal departments have adequate backup facilities for continued functionality in case earthquake damage occurs to these buildings where these critical facilities are housed.

Ensure that municipal departments and critical facilities have adequate backup power

supply generation capabilities.

Consider preventing residential development in areas prone to collapse such as below steep slopes or in areas prone to liquefaction.

Continue to require adherence to the state building codes.

In addition, important recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 11.1.


9.0 WILDFIRES

9.1 Setting

The ensuing discussion about wildfires is focused on the undeveloped wooded, marsh, and shrub/grassland areas of East Haven, along with the wildland interface, which is low-density suburban-type development found at the margins of these wooded areas. Structural fires in higher density areas of the Town are not directly addressed.

9.2 Hazard Assessment Wildfires are considered to be highly destructive, uncontrollable fires. Although the term brings to mind images of tall trees engulfed in flames, wildfires can occur as brush and shrub fires, especially under dry conditions. Wildfires are also known as "wildland fires." Nationwide, humans have caused approximately 90% of all wildfires in the last decade. Accidental and negligent acts include unattended campfires, sparks, burning debris, and irresponsibly discarded cigarettes. The remaining 10% of fires are caused primarily by lightning. Nevertheless, wildfires are also a natural process in many ecosystems, and their suppression is now recognized to have created a larger fire hazard as live and dead vegetation accumulates in areas where fire has been prevented. In addition, the absence of fire has altered or disrupted the cycle of natural plant succession and wildlife habitat in many areas. Consequently, federal, state, and local agencies are committed to finding ways, such as prescribed burning to reintroduce fire into natural ecosystems while recognizing that fire fighting and suppression are still important. Connecticut has a particular vulnerability to fire hazards where urban development and wildland areas are in close proximity. The "wildland/urban interface" is where many such fires are fought. Wildland areas are subject to fires because of weather conditions and fuel supply. An isolated wildland fire may not be a threat, but the combined effect of having residences, businesses, and lifelines near a wildland area causes increased risk to life and property. Thus, a fire that might have been allowed to burn itself out with a minimum of fire fighting or containment in the past is now fought to prevent fire damage to surrounding homes and commercial areas as well as smoke threats to health and safety of humans and wildlife in these areas.

9.3 Historic Record According to the Connecticut Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, Connecticut enacted its first statewide forest fire control system in 1905, when the state was largely rural with very little secondary growth forest. By 1927, the state had most of the statutory foundations for today's forest fire control programs and policies in place, such as the


State Forest Fire Warden system, a network of fire lookout towers and patrols, and regulations regarding open burning. The severe fire weather in the 1940s prompted the state legislature to join the Northeastern Interstate Forest Fire Protection Compact with its neighbors in 1949. Today, most of Connecticut's forested areas are secondary growth forests. According to the Connecticut DEEP, forest has reclaimed over 500,000 acres of land that was used for agriculture as of 1914. However, that new forest has been fragmented in the past few decades by residential development. The urban/wildland interface is increasing each year where sprawl extends further out from Connecticut's cities. The technology used to combat wildfires has significantly improved since the early 20th century. An improved transportation network, coupled with advances in firefighting equipment, communication technology, and training, has improved the ability of firefighters to minimize damage due to wildfires in the state. For example, radio and mobile technologies have greatly improved fire fighting command capabilities. According to the USDA Forest Service Annual Wildfire Summary Report for 1994 through 2003, an average of 600 acres per year in Connecticut was burned by wildfires. The National Interagency Fire Center reports that a total of 2,778 acres of land burned in Connecticut due to 1,940 nonprescribed wildfires, an average of 1.4 acres per fire (Table 9-1). In general, the fires are small and detected quickly, with most of the largest wildfires being contained to less than 10 acres in size. The number one cause of wildfires is arson, with about half of all wildfires being intentionally set.

TABLE 9-1 Wildland Fire Statistics for Connecticut

Year Number of Wildland Fires

Acres Burned

Number of Prescribed

Burns

Acres Burned

Total Acres Burned

2010* 76 253 6 53 306 2009 264 246 6 76 322 2008 330 893 6 68 961 2007 361 288 7 60 348 2006 322 419 6 56 475 2005 316 263 10 130 393 2004 74 94 12 185 279 2003 97 138 8 96 234 2002 101 184 13 106 290 Total 1,940 2,778 74 830 3,608

*As of September 19, 2010 Source: National Interagency Fire Center

Traditionally, the highest forest fire danger in Connecticut occurs in the spring from mid March to mid May. The worst wildfire year for Connecticut in the past decade occurred during the extremely hot and dry summer of 1999. Over 1,733 acres of Connecticut


burned in 345 separate wildfires, an average of about five acres per fire. Only one wildfire occurred between 1994 and 2003 that burned over 300 acres, and a wildfire in 1986 in the Mattatuck State Forest in the town of Watertown, Connecticut burned 300 acres. A recent string of fires at vacant properties which occurred in the summer of 2011 in the Foxon section of Town, near Peters Rock Park, was attributed to arson. Fortunately, this area has easy access to the public water supply system.

9.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures Monitoring of potential fire conditions is an important part of mitigation. The DEEP Forestry Division uses the rainfall data recorded by the Automated Flood Warning system to compile forest fire probability forecasts. This allows the DEEP and East Haven to monitor the drier areas of the state to be prepared for forest fire conditions. Existing mitigation for wildland fire control is typically focused on Fire Department training and maintaining an adequate supply of equipment. To increase its mobile water supply, the Fire Department has increased tank size from 500 to 750 gallons on two engines. In addition, the Fire Department has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the neighboring municipality of North Branford for truck response. East Haven has drilled with North Branford, and the North Branford forces are on automatic response for fighting fires in areas without public water supply in East haven. In exchange, East Haven offers instant response career-staffed apparatus and two paramedic career units available to augment North Branford’s forces. Unlike wildfires on the west coast of the United States where the fires are allowed to burn toward development and then stopped, the East Haven Fire Department goes to the fires whenever possible. This proactive approach is believed to be effective for controlling wildfires. The Fire Department has some water storage capability but primarily relies on the use of the fire ponds, dry hydrants, water tanks, and the Town's public water system (owned by The Regional Water Authority) to fight fires located along major roads throughout Town.


The most common causes of wildfires are arson, lightning strikes, and fires started from downed trees hitting electrical lines. Thus, wildfires have the potential to occur anywhere and at any time in both undeveloped and lightly developed areas. The extensive forests and fields covering the state are prime locations for a wildfire. In many areas, structures and subdivisions are built abutting forest borders, creating areas of particular vulnerability. Wildfires are more common in rural areas than in developed areas as most fires in populated areas are quickly noticed and contained.


However, the likelihood of a severe and expansive wildfire developing in Connecticut is lessened by the vast network of water features in the state, which creates natural breaks likely to stop the spread of a fire. It is noted that during long periods of drought, these natural features may dry up, increasing the vulnerability of the state to wildfires. According to the Connecticut DEEP, the actual forest fire risk in Connecticut is low due to several factors. First, the overall incidence of forest fires is limited (233 fires occurred in Connecticut per year from 2002 to 2009, which is a rate slightly higher than one per municipality per year). Secondly, as the wildfire/forest fire prone areas become fragmented due to development, the local fire departments have increased access to those neighborhoods for firefighting equipment. Third, the problematic interface areas are site specific, such as driveways too narrow to permit emergency vehicles. Finally, trained fire fighters at the local and state level are readily available to fight fires in the state, and intermunicipal cooperation on such instances is common. Based on the historic record presented in Section 9.3, most wildfires in Connecticut are relatively small. In the drought year of 1999, the average wildfire burned five acres in comparison to the two most extreme wildfires recorded since 1986 that burned 300 acres each.

Hemlocks throughout East Haven provide good sources of fuel for wildfires. In general, these contribute to the fire risk in the more wooded sections of the Town. Indeed, wildfires are of particular concern in the wooded areas and other areas with poor access for fire-fighting equipment to the north of I-95 in East Haven. However, the preparedness and responsiveness of the East Haven Fire Department is very strong. As a result, the overall vulnerability of East Haven to wildfire hazards is believed to be relatively low despite the risks for occurrence. In other words, small wildfires are considered a likely event each year but, when one occurs, it is generally contained to a small range with limited damage to nonforested areas. Community water service is extensive in the more-developed areas south of I-95. Risk of wildfire increases where significant areas of forested or brushland do not have immediate access to public water supply for fire-fighting. These areas are more predominant in the region to the north of the interstate, specifically along Saltonstall Ridge, residential developments on the west side of North High Street, and in the open space areas located in the far northeastern region of the town. Residents abutting these risk areas are the most vulnerable to fire, heat, and smoke effects of wildfires. Finally, wildfires in tidal marshes have become problematic in East Haven where invasive reeds (phragmites) have taken hold. Often the fires start along the railroad tracks resulting from sparks or discarded cigarettes. While these fires have not been known to cause risk to nearby structures, the migration of phragmites causes the potential to increase.


Should a wildfire occur, it is reasonable to estimate that the average area to burn would be five acres during a drought period and one to two acres during wetter periods, consistent with the state averages. In the case of an extreme wildfire occurring during a drought on forested lands, it is estimated that up to 300 acres could burn before containment due to the limited access of those lands. This is also consistent with actual data in Connecticut. Residential areas bordering such lands would thus be vulnerable to wildfires.

Recall from Figures 2-7 through Figure 2-9 that elderly and persons with disabilities reside in the Town. In comparing these figures with the wildfire risk areas described above, it is possible that several hundred of the population impacted by a wildfire could consist of the elderly and numerous people with disabilities could reside near wildfire impact areas. Thus, it is important for the East Haven Fire Department to be prepared to assist these special populations during emergencies, including wildfires.

9.6 Potential Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Alternatives Potential mitigation measures for wildfires include a combination of prevention, education, and emergency planning. Educational materials should be made available at all applicable municipal offices. Education of homeowners on methods of protecting their homes is far more effective than trying to steer growth away from potential wildfire areas, especially given that the available land that is environmentally appropriate for development may be forested. Water system improvement is another important class of potential mitigation for wildfires. The Bradley Street area is one such area of focus. The street runs along a large undeveloped and forested area that abuts the Amtrak lines. The Emergency Management Director has reached an agreement with a developer to connect the northern and southern parts of the water main on Bradley Street and improve connectivity with the main on Laurel Street, which will bring fire suppression capabilities to Bradley Street and improve available fire flows in the entire area. The following recommendations could be implemented to mitigate fire risk:

Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of forest fire danger, equipment usage, and protecting homes from wildfires.

Ensure that provisions of the Subdivision Regulations regarding fire protection facilities are being enforced.

Extend public water supply and fire protection to areas of Bradley Street that are not

served by the public water supply.

Pursue additional sources of fire-fighting water where adequate supplies do not exist.


Continue to require than utilities be installed underground

In addition, specific recommendations that apply to all hazards are listed in Section 11.1.


10.0 DAM FAILURE 10.1 Setting

Dam failures can be triggered suddenly with little or no warning and often in connection with natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes. Dam failures often occur during flooding when the dam breaks under the additional force of floodwaters. In addition, a dam failure can cause a chain reaction where the sudden release of floodwaters causes the next dam downstream to fail. With five registered dams and potentially several other minor dams scattered throughout the Town, dam failure has the potential to occur throughout East Haven. While flooding from a dam failure generally has a limited geographic extent, the effects are potentially catastrophic depending on the downstream population. Fortunately, a major dam failure is not considered a likely hazard event in any given year (Table 1-2).


The Connecticut DEEP administers the Dam Safety Section and designates a classification to each state-registered dam based on its potential hazard.

Class AA dams are negligible hazard potential dams that upon failure would result in no measurable damage to roadways and structures and negligible economic loss.

Class A dams are low hazard potential dams that upon failure would result in damage

to agricultural land and unimproved roadways, with minimal economic loss.

Class BB dams are moderate hazard potential dams that upon failure would result in damage to normally unoccupied storage structures, damage to low volume roadways, and moderate economic loss.

Class B dams are significant hazard potential dams that upon failure would result in

any of the following: possible loss of life; minor damage to habitable structures, residences, hospitals, convalescent homes, and schools; damage or interruption of the use of service of utilities; damage to primary roadways and railroads; and a significant economic loss.

Class C dams are high potential hazard dams that upon failure would result in loss of

life and major damage to habitable structures, residences, hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, and main highways, with great economic loss.

According to the "Connecticut Dams" data file that was published in 1996, there were five DEEP-registered dams within East Haven, of which three were Class A, one was Class BB, and one was Class C. Dams in East Haven are listed in Table 10-1, and dam locations are illustrated in Figure 10-1.

Base Map:ESRI ArcGIS Plug-in viaservices.arcgisonline.comFEMA Flood Zones:FEMA (12/17/2010)DEP Dams, Roads, Town Boundary:CT DEEP


East Haven, CTFigure 10-1: CTDEEP Registered and Other Notable Dams Location:

Û

Û

Û

Û

Û

Û

Flow Control Dam to Lake Saltonstall

GOLF POND DAM

GRANNIS POND DAM

THOMPSON POND DAM

LOWER GOLF POND DAM

LAKE SALTONSTALL DAM

SOURCE(S):



2731-02

Jan. 2012

Scale:

Map By:MMI#:MXD:Date:

1 in = 3,000 ft

BAM

H:\2731-02\GIS\Maps\DEPDams.mxd

LegendÛ CT DEEP Dams

Town Boundary

FEMA Flood ZonesSpecial Hazard Areas

X (Unshaded)500 Year Flood Zone/0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood HazardAAEVE


TABLE 10-1 Dams Registered With the DEEP in the Town of East Haven

Number Name Owner Class

4401 Grannis Pond Dam American Heart Association BB 4402 Lake Saltonstall Dam Regional Water Authority C 4403 Lower Golf Pond Dam Alling Memorial Golf Course A 4404 Golf Pond Dam Alling Memorial Golf Course A 4406 Thompson Pond Dam A

This HMP section primarily discusses the possible effects of failure of both high potential hazard (Class C) dams and significant hazard (Class B) dams. A dam failure analysis (DFA) is not believed to have been performed for the Grannis Pond Dam (No. 4401). In contrast, a DFA was performed on the Lake Saltonstall Dam (No. 4402) in 2009. This dam is owned by the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority.

10.3 Historic Record

According to the CT DEEP website, approximately 200 notable dam and reservoir failures occurred worldwide in the twentieth century while in excess of 8,000 people died in these disasters. The following is a listing of some of the more catastrophic dam failures in Connecticut's recent history:

1938 and 1955: Exact numbers of dam failures caused by these floods are unavailable, but the Connecticut DEEP believes that more dams were damaged in these events than in the 1982 or 2005 flooding events described below.

1961: Crystal Lake dam in Middletown failed, injuring three and severely damaging 11 homes.

1963: Failure of the Spaulding Pond Dam in Norwich caused six deaths and six million dollars in damage.

June 5-6, 1982: Connecticut experienced a severe flood that caused 17 dams to fail and seriously damaged 31 others. Failure of the Bushy Hill Pond Dam in Deep River caused $50 million in damages, and the remaining dam failures caused nearly $20 million in damages.

More recently, the NCDC reports that flash flooding on April 16, 1996 caused three small dams in Middletown and one in Wallingford to breach. The Connecticut DEEP reported that the sustained heavy rainfall from October 7 to 15, 2005 caused 14 complete or partial dam failures and damage to 30 other dams throughout the state. The October 2005 flooding subsequently resulted in a federal disaster declaration. A summary of damaged dams is summarized in Table 10-2.


Dams regulated by the DEEP must be designed to pass the 100-year rainfall event with one foot of freeboard, a factor of safety against overtopping. Significant and high hazard dams are required to meet a design standard greater than the 100-year rainfall event.

TABLE 10-2 Dams Damaged Due to Flooding From October 2005 Storms

Number Name Location Class Damage Type Ownership

----- Somerville Pond Dam Somers -- Partial Breach DEEP 4701 Windsorville Dam East Windsor BB Minor Damage Private

10503 Mile Creek Dam Old Lyme B Full Breach Private ----- Staffordville Reservoir #3 Union -- Partial Breach CT Water Co. 8003 Hanover Pond Dam Meriden C Partial Breach City of Meriden ----- ABB Pond Dam Bloomfield -- Minor Damage Private 4905 Springborn Dam Enfield BB Minor Damage DEEP

13904 Cains Pond Dam Suffield A Full Breach Private 13906 Schwartz Pond Dam Suffield BB Partial Breach Private 14519 Sessions Meadow Dam Union BB Minor Damage DEEP

Dam failures in Connecticut were of primary concern to the well-being of many communities in 2010 according to an American Rivers blog posted on March 31, 2010. As an example, overtopping of the Sylvias Pond Dam in Stonington, Connecticut caused an evacuation of homes downstream in 2009. Additionally, the mayor of the town of Montville evacuated a section of town once it become possible that the Rand-Whitney Dam in town could breach. With many dams nearing the end of their lives, a significant number of dams in Connecticut, New England, and across the United States are likely to grow as potential threats to life and property. Indeed, the Association of State Dam Safety Officials has indicated that dam failures have been documented in every state. From January 1, 2005 through January 1, 2009, state dam safety programs reported 132 dam failures and 434 incidents requiring intervention to prevent failure.

10.4 Existing Programs, Policies, and Mitigation Measures The dam safety statutes are codified in Section 22a-401 through 22a-411 inclusive of the Connecticut General Statutes. Sections 22a-409-1 and 22a-409-2 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies have been enacted, which govern the registration, classification, and inspection of dams. Dams must be registered by the owner with the DEEP according to Connecticut Public Act 83-38. Dam Inspection Regulations require that nearly 700 dams in Connecticut be inspected annually. The DEEP currently prioritizes inspections of those dams that pose the greatest potential threat to downstream persons and properties. Dams found to be unsafe under the inspection program must be repaired by the owner. Depending


on the severity of the identified deficiency, an owner is allowed reasonable time to make the required repairs or remove the dam. If a dam owner fails to make necessary repairs to the subject structure, the DEEP may issue an administrative order requiring the owner to restore the structure to a safe condition and may refer noncompliance with such an order to the Attorney General's Office for enforcement. As a means of last resort, the DEEP Commissioner is empowered by statute to remove or correct, at the expense of the owner, any unsafe structures that present a clear and present danger to public safety. In Connecticut, the owners of Class C dams are required to maintain EOPs. According to Connecticut DEEP Dam Safety files, a DFA was performed in 2009 on the Lake Saltonstall Dam and Regional Water Authority maintains an EOP.

10.5 Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment As previously discussed, failure of a Class C dam would result in any of the following: loss of life; major damage to habitable structures, residences, hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, and main highways; and a significant economic loss. The Class BB dam represents a moderate hazard potential. The impacts related to the Class and BB dams in Town are described below. The descriptions below are based on information available at the Connecticut DEEP Dam Safety Section. It is noted that the failure of any of the other dams in Town could also have impacts on human life and property within East Haven although these are not discussed because the highest hazard dams are emphasized.

Lake Saltonstall Dam (No. 4401) is located at the southern end of Lake Saltonstall. U.S. Route 1, a four lane highway, runs along the top of the dam. The impoundment creates a water supply source for the Regional Water Authority and the dam is also owned by the Regional Water Authority. According to the 2008 USACE Inspection Report, the dam is an earth fill structure with an upstream masonry and concrete retaining wall constructed in 1882. The top of the dam is approximately 80 feet in width at the spillway and 20 feet above the streambed of the Farm River. The top of the dam is approximately 100 feet long along the upstream edge of the crest and approximately 200 feet long along the downstream edge of the crest. The spillway consists of a 10-foot-wide by 4.2-foot-high opening in the upstream masonry wall for the enclosed concrete ogee weir which feeds a 36 inch by 58 inch corrugated metal arch culvert through the embankment. The arch culvert connects to a junction box, as does the 24-inch low level outlet pipe, which runs from a concrete intake chamber ten feet upstream of the upstream face of the dam. A 48 inch reinforced concrete pipe discharges from the junction box to the downstream streambed at the toe of the dam. The 1979 visual inspection indicated that the dam was in fair condition. No evidence of structural instability was observed, however surface sloughing and erosion of the downstream embankment slope was noted.


FEMA and the Association of Dam Safety Officials have a variety of resources available for dam owners. More information can be found at http://www.fema.gov and http://www.damsafety.org/resources/downloads/

A DFA and an EOP were developed in 2009. The DFA states that failure of the dam would release up to 6,600 cfs into the Farm River tributary downstream of the dam. The dam failure would have an impact from Route 1 to the Trolley Museum located on River Street. Beyond that point, flood waters enter the large East Haven Marsh Wildlife Area; any low lying structures located along the perimeter of this marsh would be subject to flooding, where flooding is already a concern for property owners. The flood waters would continue downstream crossing under Short Beach Road (Route 142) and discharging to Long Island Sound. The DFA notes that the flood waters are not expected to overtop Short Beach Road at the bridge, but would overtop Short Beach Road and Hemingway Avenue near the intersection of the two roads. The EOP provides a table of street addresses that would be affected by a dam failure, including 44 streets with multiple properties.

Grannis Pond Dam (No. 4402) is located at the southeast corner of Grannis Pond,

near the intersection of Grannis Street and North High Street (Route 100) in north-central East Haven north of Interstate 95. The dam is currently owned by the American Heart Association. It is a recreational dam built in 1900 on an unnamed tributary to the Farm River. According to the 2008 USACE inspection report, it is an earthen dam having a height of ten feet, a surface area of 20 square feet. Failure of the Grannis Pond Dam would likely cause major damage to the few residence along Grannis Street and developed properties on North High Street, where flooding from the Farm River is already a concern for some property owners.


The Dam Safety Section of the DEEP Inland Water Resources Division is charged with the responsibility for administration and enforcement of Connecticut's dam safety laws. The existing statutes require that permits be obtained to construct, repair, or alter dams and that existing dams be registered and periodically inspected to assure that their continued operation does not constitute a hazard to life, health, or property. The Connecticut DEEP also administers the Flood and Erosion Control Board program, which can provide noncompetitive state funding for repair of municipality-owned dams. Funding is limited by the State Bond Commission. State statute Section 25-84 allows municipalities to form Flood and Erosion Control Boards, but municipalities must take action to create the board within the context of the local government, such as by revising the municipal charter. The Town of East Haven has a Flood and Erosion Control Board per its Town Code.


The Town should work with private property owners, the Regional Water Authority, and the Connecticut DEEP to stay up to date on the evolution of any EOPs and DFAs for the Class BB and C dams in East Haven, should any be produced. The Town's Building and Engineering Department should have copies of all existing EOPs and DFAs for dams in East Haven in its possession. Whenever possible, copies of these documents (or portions of them that do not provide specific dam vulnerabilities) should be made available at the Town Hall for reference and public viewing. The Town should maximize its emergency preparedness for a potential dam failure. The Town should also consider coordinating occasional inspections of lower-hazard and unranked dams with the assistance of private property owners and inform dam owners of resources available to them through various governmental agencies. East Haven should consider including future dam failure areas into the Everbridge emergency notification system. This technology should be used to warn residents downstream of a dam of an impending dam failure and facilitate evacuation. In the absence of DFA mapping, the 500-year floodplains could be used to delineate potential dam failure areas. The following specific recommendations are offered for dam failure mitigation:

Include dam failure areas in the Everbridge emergency contact database.

Develop a specific EOP for the Grannis Pond Dam.

Develop a specific EOP for the two Alling Memorial Golf Course dams.

Develop a specific EOP for the Thompson Pond Dam.

Provide technical assistance and outreach to owners of unregistered dams regarding inspections and maintenance.

Finally, there are several suggested potential mitigation strategies that are applicable to all hazards in this Plan. These are outlined in Section 11.1.


11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 11.1 Additional Recommendations

Recommendations that are applicable to critical facilities were presented in Section 2.11. Recommendations for mitigating specific hazards were discussed in the applicable subsections of Sections 3.0 through 10.0. A remaining class of recommendations is applicable to all hazards because it includes recommendations for improving public safety and planning for emergency response. Instead of repeating these recommendations in section after section of this Plan, these are listed below.

Disseminate informational pamphlets regarding natural hazards to public locations such as the Senior Center, Town Hall, library, and the like

Add pages to Town website dedicated to citizen education and preparation for natural hazard events

Develop a checklist for land development applicants that cross references the specific regulations and codes related to disaster resilience

Continue reviewing subdivision applications to ensure proper access for emergency vehicles

Require that utilities be placed underground in new developments Pursue funding to place utilities underground in existing developments Utilize the state's AlertNow service to its fullest capabilities Encourage residents to purchase and use NOAA weather radio with an alarm feature Continue to review and update the EOP at least once annually Obtain copies of the disaster planning guides and manuals from the "Are You

Ready?" series (http://www.ready.gov/america/publications/index.html) and make them available at the Town Hall and Senior Center

11.2 Summary of Specific Recommendations

As noted above, recommendations that are applicable to critical facilities were presented in Section 2.11 whereas recommendations for mitigating specific hazards were discussed in the applicable subsections of Sections 3.0 through 10.0. For completeness, all of these recommendations are provided below. Because many of the recommendations were carried forward from the previous edition of this plan while some were not, it is important to understand the reasoning behind these selections. Part 1 of the table in Appendix A provides a line-by-line evaluation of all previous recommendations with commentary regarding why they were carried forward or not carried forward. Commentary is also provided for new recommendations. This analysis was conducted by the local planning team listed on page 1-13, lead by Fire Chief Douglas Jackson. Note that some of the new recommendations are actually modifications of prior recommendations, with the goals of focusing flood mitigation on repetitive loss


properties and ensuring that all types of structural flood mitigation are considered (elevations, acquisitions, and floodproofing), depending on the type of structure. The Town has been successful with acquisitions/demolitions and home elevations in recent years, and plans to continue these efforts. In the summary list below, the recommendations that emphasize any “sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk” have been italicized. While these are preferred, the Town intends to continue including recommendations in the HMP that are geared toward enhancing preparedness. Specific Recommendations for Critical Facilities


Pursue floodprooding for the Public Works Facility. Pursue floodprooding for Police Department Headquarters. Consider floodproofing measures for Laurel Woods Convalescent Home at 451 North

High Street and/or elevate the structure. Develop a site-specific evacuation plan for Laurel Woods. Work with residents to develop a satellite shelter for residents that may become

isolated during coastal flooding. Develop an emergency evacuation plan for Morris Cove residents. Work with residents and the City of New Haven to develop an evacuation protocol

for East Haven residents near Townsend Avenue. Improve lighting in shelters by wiring battery conditioners to generator circuits.

Inland Flooding Prevention

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

Consider requiring new buildings in floodprone areas to be protected to the highest recorded flood level regardless of SFHA status.

Provide FEMA with any data obtained from other sources that would demonstrate the need to revise the DFIRM, then petition FEMA to review and revise the Town’s DFIRM.

Require developers to demonstrate whether detention or retention of stormwater is the best option for reducing peak flows downstream.

Review Subdivision Regulations and evaluate the possibility of incorporating changes to place further limitations on areas of impermeable surfaces in new subdivision developments in flood prone areas. If warranted, make the necessary changes to the Subdivision Regulations.

Explore the possibility of adopting a series of ordinances that would place the responsibility for stream maintenance on a property owner and would give East


Haven enforcement power. Such ordinances would address stream dumping, channel maintenance, and land clearing disturbances.

Conduct annual inspection of flood prone areas that are accessible to town officials. Determine if potential flood damage could be stormwater facility related. For instance, check to see if catch basins and culverts are clogged and if tide gates are functioning properly.

Develop a maintenance road long the Farm River to facilitate environmentally appropriate channel maintenance and clearing when necessary.

Develop an application of an ISTEA Grant for roadway Stormwater Pollution Mitigation. This includes the identification and ultimately retrofitting and annual cleaning of catch basins to improve water quality and allow for more efficient processing of floodwaters. This activity would supplement the town’s ongoing annual effort of cleaning catch basins.

Property Protection

Re-apply and join the CRS program at Class 8 or better. Incorporate information on the availability of flood insurance into all hazard-related

public education workshops. Make available FEMA provided flood insurance brochures at public accessible places

such as the Town Clerk’s office and the Planning and Zoning Department offices. Make necessary changes to the Floodplain Zoning Regulations so that all insured

residents can be eligible for additional mitigation coverage (coverage for increased cost of compliance with flood regulations).

Provide technical assistance to owners of non-residential structures that suffer flood damage regarding floodproofing measures such as wet and dry floodproofing.

Pursue elevation of residential properties that suffer flood damage. Properties may be classified as repetitive loss or not classified as repetitive loss, but RLPs should be prioritized as the Town has done in the past.

Pursue acquisition/demolition of floodprone residential properties for open space as noted below under “Natural Resource Protection.” Properties may be classified as repetitive loss or not classified as repetitive loss, but RLPs should be prioritized as the Town has done in the past.

Public Education

Continue the Natural Hazards Awareness Week. This week was an expansion of the

activity proposed in the CRS plan which called for creating a Flood Awareness Week. The theme was expanded upon recognizing the need for public education related to other hazards as well.

During the Natural Hazards Awareness Week, conduct an annual “Flood Fair” so that residents, business owners, insurance and real estate agents, and all interested parties can familiarize themselves with functions of a floodplain, the laws governing development in a floodplain and the hazards associated, mitigation alternatives, and precautions necessary for living in flood prone areas.


Continue to visit schools (as is currently done under fire prevention) and educate children about the risks of floods (and other natural hazards) and how to prepare for them.

Expand the annual public outreach projects, which cover the repetitive loss properties, to all properties in the entire community. This includes updating of the brochure which will outline the risks of flood prone areas and mitigation and preparedness strategies and contracts. The brochure would be handed out annually.

Re-establish a relationship with the Farm River Homeowners Association. If there is enough interest, develop a workshop to educate interested residents in flood proofing techniques and strategies for flood prone residential properties in the district. Training would include audits of individual homes and recommendations for flood proofing measures.

Develop a Newcomer’s Club so that new residents may receive flood preparedness information.

Organize a meeting with East Haven insurance agents and the NFIP representatives from FEMA’s insurance contractors to educate the agents on the program.

Encourage builders, developers, and architects to become familiar with the NFIP land use and building standards by attending annual workshops.

Staff from appropriate town offices will attend the DEEP and other training workshops annually. Also, staff will rotate annually to attend FEMA sponsored training seminars at the Emergency Management Institute (EMI) in Emmitsburg, Maryland. All of these workshops are free of charge. Tuition, travel and lodging are provided by FEMA for the EMI training. Annual training sessions include emergency management, environmental reviews, the FEMA grant programs, the NFIP and CRS and others related to the other hazards.

The East Shore Health District, in cooperation with the American Red Cross, the East Haven Housing Authority, the Department of Human Services and the Office of Emergency Management will continue to develop a neighborhood buddy system for neighbors to assist neighbors needing additional services and support during emergencies.

Creation of flood related information on the fire department’s web page would allow people to access the information and download it at their convenience.

Natural Resource Protection

Pursue the acquisition of additional municipal open space in SFHAs. Selectively pursue conservation recommendations listed in the Plan of Conservation

and Development. Identify new funding sources for open space acquisition. Continue to regulate development in protected and sensitive areas, including steep

slopes, wetlands, and floodplains Continue to aggressively pursue wetlands protection through existing wetlands

regulations. Incorporate performance standards into subdivision reviews to include additional protective measures such as conservation easement areas around wetlands and watercourses.


Pursue acquisition/demolition of floodprone residential properties for open space. Properties may be classified as repetitive loss or not classified as repetitive loss, but RLPs should be prioritized as the Town has done in the past.

Structural Projects

Continue to maintain a dialog with regulatory agencies, FEMA, and other entities regarding the possibilities for flood control structures such as a dam in North Branford.

Continue to use modeling techniques to evaluate different flood mitigation options along the Farm River including floodplain storage, channel clearing, diversions, berms, dikes, bridge replacement, and culvert replacement as well as home elevations and acquisitions.

Emergency Services

Identify funding sources and install staff gauges in smaller streams such as Tuttle Brook.

Revise and update the East Haven Flood Response Plan. This would complement the EOP already adopted by East Haven, but it is specific to handling flood conditions and incorporates mitigation items outlined in this plan.

Investigate locations and necessary labor involvement for the pre-event stockpiling of sand bags for use in the flood prone downtown areas.

Pursue mutual aid agreements with such organizations as the American Red Cross and the Boy Scouts of America to provide volunteer labor during flooding to fill sand bags and assist with other response activities.

Investigate and pursue the purchase of an automated sand bagger by the town. Additional Flood Mitigation Recommendations for Coastal Issues Property Protection

Apply freeboard standards of one foot when requiring structure elevations for

renovations and new construction in coastal A zones and V zones.

Structural Projects


Investigate funding sources and feasibility of elevating portions of Town-owned roads with an emphasis on those needed for inland evacuation, including Old Town


Highway, Minor Road, Fairview Road, Brazos Road, and Silver Sands Road at Fairview Road.

Upgrade stormwater collection and discharge systems in downtown and coastal East Haven to keep up with rising sea level.

Emergency Services

Implement a roadway-specific warning system to alert motorists to the dangers

present at the Coe Avenue, Hemingway Road, and Short Beach Road intersection during times of flooding. Warning may take the form of dedicated signage or traffic control lights.

Erosion Control

Conduct beach nourishment along Cosey Beach as needed to keep up with erosion. Maintain existing hard structures in good condition.

Wind Damage Related to Hurricanes, Summer Storms, Tornadoes, Winter Storms

During the Natural Hazards Awareness Week, conduct an annual workshop so that local building contractors, residents, business owners, insurance and real estate agents, and all interested parties can familiarize themselves with wind associated risks, retrofitting techniques, important of evacuation, and the understanding of warning mechanisms used in town.

Continue to visit schools (as is currently done under fire prevention) and educate children about the risks of wind events (and other natural hazards) and how to prepare for them.

The Building Department will make information on wind construction techniques (such as hurricane straps) available to all building permit applicants, obtain literature on wind resistant construction techniques and incorporate that information into the natural hazards reduction information in the town library. The information will also include information on non-structural mitigation measures. Such literature is available from FEMA and BOCA.

Promote the use of functional shutters for properties located along the coast to guard against window breakage which can result in structural failure. Investigate funding sources to promote this relatively inexpensive type of retrofitting on a large scale.

Develop working relationships with the East Haven Garden Club. Encourage organizations to sponsor events to educate the public on wise landscaping techniques, how to locate trees away from utilities and on the types of trees that are most resistant to wind damage.

Continue to apply the landscaping standards of the East Haven Zoning Regulations during the review of new subdivisions and commercial projects.





Prioritize any wind-related retrofitting, given those buildings to be used as shelters the highest priority. If analysis reveals that a particular building is better suited as a shelter than one that is currently being used, then consider relocating the shelter to that location.

Encourage commercial building owners or managers of buildings with large population clusters to not only develop emergency response plans, but also to identify mitigation opportunities for long range planning.

Work through the State to locate NOAA weather radios in commercial buildings with large population clusters. Educate building managers on the proper use of the radios.

Implement a Marina Management Plan addressing wind damage mitigation. Share that plan with the other marinas and yacht clubs and encourage them to develop plans on their own.

Winter Storms


Develop a plan to prioritize snow removal from the roof of municipal buildings (especially critical facilities) and make funding available for clearing.

Provide information for mitigating icing, insulating pipes, and retrofits for flat-roofed buildings.

Consider posting the snow plowing routes in municipal buildings and the town website so residents and business owners may better understand their risk during winter travel.

Identify areas that are difficult to access during winter storm events and develop contingency plans

Earthquakes


Ensure that municipal departments and critical facilities have adequate backup power supply generation capabilities.


Consider preventing residential development in areas prone to collapse such as below steep slopes or in areas prone to liquefaction.

Continue to require adherence to the state building codes. Dam Failure

Include dam failure areas in the Everbridge emergency contact database. Develop a specific EOP for the Grannis Pond Dam. Develop a specific EOP for the two Alling Memorial Golf Course dams. Develop a specific EOP for the Thompson Pond Dam. Provide technical assistance and outreach to owners of unregistered dams regarding

inspections and maintenance. Wildfires

Continue to support public outreach programs to increase awareness of forest fire danger, equipment usage, and protecting homes from wildfires.

Ensure that provisions of the Subdivision Regulations regarding fire protection facilities are being enforced.

Extend public water supply and fire protection to areas of Bradley Street that are not served by the public water supply.

Pursue additional sources of fire-fighting water where adequate supplies do not exist. Continue to require than utilities be installed underground

11.3 Prioritization of Specific Recommendations

To prioritize recommended mitigation measures, it is necessary to determine how effective each measure will be in reducing or preventing damage. A set of criteria commonly used by public administration officials and planners was applied to each proposed strategy. The method, called STAPLEE, stands for the "Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic and Environmental" criteria for making planning decisions. The following questions were asked about the proposed mitigation strategies:

Social: Is the proposed strategy socially acceptable to the community? Are there equity issues involved that would mean that one segment of the community is treated unfairly?

Technical: Will the proposed strategy work? Will it create more problems than it will solve?

Administrative: Can the community implement the strategy? Is there someone to coordinate and lead the effort?

Political: Is the strategy politically acceptable? Is there public support both to implement and maintain the project?

Legal: Is the community authorized to implement the proposed strategy? Is there a clear legal basis or precedent for this activity?


Economic: What are the costs and benefits of this strategy? Does the cost seem reasonable for the size of the problem and the likely benefits?

Environmental: How will the strategy impact the environment? Will the strategy need environmental regulatory approvals?

Each proposed mitigation strategy was evaluated and assigned a score based on the above criteria as described in Section 1.4. An evaluation matrix with the total scores from each strategy can be found in Appendix A. After each strategy was evaluated using the STAPLEE method, it was then possible to prioritize the strategies according to the final scores. Theoretically, the highest scores would be determined to be of more importance economically, socially, environmentally, and politically and, hence, these recommendations would be prioritized over those with lower scores. However, the scoring system inherently favors recommendations that have no incremental costs, such as continuing to enforce a regulation (which is accomplished by existing municipal personnel and commissions). In consideration of the STAPLEE ranking results and the risks and vulnerabilities described in this Plan, the following recommendations from each category were identified by the Town as the highest priority projects and/or policies: General Recommendations/Specific Recommendations for Critical Facilities

Develop a checklist for land development applicants that cross references the specific regulations and codes related to disaster resilience

Obtain copies of the disaster planning guides and manuals from the "Are You Ready?" series (http://www.ready.gov/america/publications/index.html) and make them available at the Town Hall and Senior Center


Flooding

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

Pursue elevation of residential properties that suffer flood damage. Properties may be classified as repetitive loss or not classified as repetitive loss, but RLPs should be prioritized as the Town has done in the past.

Pursue acquisition/demolition of floodprone residential properties for open space. Properties may be classified as repetitive loss or not classified as repetitive loss, but RLPs should be prioritized as the Town has done in the past.

Continue to use modeling techniques to evaluate different flood mitigation options along the Farm River including floodplain storage, diversions, berms, dikes, bridge replacement, and culvert replacement as well as home elevations and acquisitions.



Wind Damage Related to Hurricanes, Summer Storms, Tornadoes, Winter Storms

Promote the use of functional shutters for properties located along the coast to guard against window breakage which can result in structural failure. Investigate funding sources to promote this relatively inexpensive type of retrofitting on a large scale.

Continue to require the burying of utility lines for subdivisions and encourage lines to be buried for other projects where appropriate.

Identity a location in each of the four quadrants of town for a brush disposal operation for dealing with debris after wind storms. Develop agreements with land owners and with companies to chop/chip to insure that plans are in place prior to damage.

Winter Storms


Earthquakes


Dam Failure

Develop a specific EOP for the Grannis Pond Dam. Develop a specific EOP for the Thompson Pond Dam.

Wildfires

Extend public water supply and fire protection to areas of Bradley Street that are not

served by the public water supply.

11.4 Sources of Funding

The following sources of funding and technical assistance may be available for the priority projects listed above. Funding requirements and contact information are provided in Section 12.0.


Beach Replenishment and Erosion Control

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers – funding for beach nourishment. U.S. Department of Agriculture – technical assistance for erosion control. U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program -

matching funds at the state level for projects that conserve, restore, and protect coastal wetlands. Nationally competitive.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Program – funding for projects that support long-term wetlands acquisition, restoration, and/or enhancement. Requires a 1-to-1 funds match.

Flood Mitigation

FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program – grants for pre-disaster flood hazard mitigation planning and projects such as property acquisition, relocation of residents, and flood retrofitting.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – 50/50 match funding for floodproofing and flood preparedness projects.

U.S. Department of Agriculture – financial assistance to reduce flood damage in small watersheds and to improve water quality.

Hurricane Mitigation

FEMA State Hurricane Program - financial and technical assistance to local governments to support mitigation of hurricanes and coastal storms.

FEMA Hurricane Program Property Protection – grants to hurricane prone states to implement hurricane mitigation projects.

Wildfire Mitigation

Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program – pre-disaster grants to organizations such as fire departments that are recognized for expertise in fire prevention and safety programs.

General Hazard Mitigation

FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) – funding for hazard mitigation projects following a presidentially declared disaster.

FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) – funding for hazard mitigation projects on a nationally competitive basis.

Massachusetts Land Acquisition & Conservation Program – funding for open space acquisition.

AmeriCorps – teams may be available to assist with landscaping projects such as surveying, tree planting, restoration, construction, and environmental education.


12.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 12.1 Implementation Strategy and Schedule

The East Haven Town Council is authorized to update this HMP as needed working with the Fire Chief as the Emergency Management Director. The Emergency Management Director will coordinate its adoption and guide it through the FEMA approval process. As individual recommendations of the HMP are implemented, they must be implemented by the municipal commissions and departments that oversee these activities. The Town Council, Emergency Management Agency, Public Works Department, Building and Engineering Department, Planning and Zoning Commission, and Fire Department will primarily be responsible for implementing selected projects and studies. Appendix A incorporates an implementation strategy and schedule, detailing the responsible department and anticipated time frame for the specific recommendations listed throughout this document. Upon adoption, this HMP will be made available to applicable Town departments and commissions as a planning tool to be used in conjunction with existing documents and regulations. It is expected that revisions to other Town plans and regulations such as the POCD, department annual budgets, and Zoning and Subdivision Regulations may reference this plan and its updates. The Emergency Management Director and the Office of the Mayor will be responsible for ensuring that the actions identified in this HMP are incorporated into ongoing Town planning activities. The Office of the Mayor will be responsible for assigning appropriate Town officials to update the POCD, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, and EOP to include the provisions from this HMP if it is determined that such updates are appropriate. However, should a general revision be too cumbersome or cost prohibitive, simple addendums to these documents will be added that include the provisions of this HMP. The POCD is the single document that is most likely to benefit from the inclusion of the HMP in the Town's library of planning documents. The Town of East Haven will update its POCD in approximately 2016-2017, as the State of Connecticut requires such plans to be updated every ten years. When the POCD is updated, elements of this HMP will be incorporated. The Emergency Management Director and the Office of the Mayor will be responsible for the transfer of mitigation-related goals and recommendations to the next edition of the POCD. Finally, information and projects in this HMP will be included in the annual budget and capital improvement plans as part of implementing the projects recommended herein. This will primarily include the annual budget and capital improvement projects lists maintained and updated by the Town Engineer, Public Works Department, and the Office of Emergency Management.


12.2 Progress Monitoring and Public Participation

The Fire Chief (as the Emergency Management Director) and the Office of the Mayor will be responsible for monitoring the successful implementation of the HMP. Participants in this review may include representatives of the departments listed above. Site Reconnaissance for Specific Recommendations – The Fire Chief and the Town Engineer will annually perform reconnaissance-level inspections of sites that are subject to specific recommendations. This will ensure that these recommendations remain viable and appropriate. Examples include home acquisitions or elevations, structural projects such as culvert replacements, roadway elevations in coastal areas, and water main extensions for increased fire suppression capabilities. The worksheet in Appendix J will be filled out for specific project-related recommendations. This worksheet is taken from the FEMA 386 series. The repetitive loss properties shall be subject to a windshield survey at least once every two years to ensure that the list (available from the State) is reasonably accurate relative to addresses and other basic information. The Town recognizes that some of the reconnaissance-level inspections will occur incidentally during events such as flooding when response is underway. Annual Reporting and Meeting – Matters to be reviewed on an annual basis will include the goals and objectives of the HMP, hazards or disasters that occurred during the preceding year (for example, the recent devastation from Tropical Storm Irene), mitigation activities that have been accomplished to date, a discussion of reasons that implementation may be behind schedule, and recommendations for new projects and revised activities. A meeting should be conducted in July or August each year, at least two months before the annual application cycle for pre-disaster grants under the HMA programs1. This will enable a list of possible projects to be circulated for Town departments to review, with sufficient time for developing applications. The Fire Chief and the Town Engineer shall jointly prepare a report based on the review of recent events and ongoing or recent mitigation activities for review at this annual meeting. Results of the site reconnaissance efforts will be reviewed as well. Post-Disaster Reporting and Meeting – Subsequent to federally declared disasters in the State of Connecticut, a meeting shall be conducted to develop a list of possible projects for developing an HMGP application. The Fire Chief and the Town Engineer shall jointly prepare a report based on the review of recent events and ongoing or recent mitigation activities for review at the HMGP meeting. Public outreach shall be solicited for HMGP applications at a separate meeting. This was accomplished most recently during the two meetings held for shoreline residents in December 2011.

1 PDM, FMA, and RFC applications are typically due to the DEEP in October of any given year.


Continued Public Involvement – Continued public involvement will be sought regarding the monitoring, evaluating, and updating of the HMP. Public input will be solicited through community meetings, presentations on local cable access channels, and input to web-based information gathering tools. Public comment on changes to the HMP may be sought through posting of public notices and notifications posted on the Town and Fire Department websites. Direct input from the homeowners in the Cosey Beach area is anticipated to continue each year, as was already the practice prior to Tropical Storm Irene, with increased activity after Tropical Storm Irene. The Fire Chief and the Office of the Mayor will continue to provide the linkage to other municipal departments throughout the plan monitoring and evaluations each year relative to communication and participation. As a relatively small town with many personnel appointed by the Mayor (including the Town Engineer), close coordination is expected to continue without significant barriers.

12.3 Updating the Plan The Town will update this Plan at least once every five years or sooner if a consensus to do so is reached by the Emergency Management Director and the Town Council. To update the Plan, the Fire Chief and the Office of the Mayor will coordinate the appropriate group of municipal officials consisting of representatives of many of the same departments solicited for input to this Plan. In addition, local business leaders, community and neighborhood group leaders, relevant private and nonprofit interest groups, and the neighboring municipalities will be solicited for representation, including representatives from the Public Works and Planning Departments in the municipalities of Branford, North Branford, North Haven, and New Haven.2 To update the plan, the project recommendation worksheets (Appendix J) and annual reports described above will be reviewed. In addition, the following questions will be discussed and answered by the member of the local planning team:

Do the mitigation goals and objectives still reflect the concerns of East Haven residents, business owners, and officials?

Have conditions in East Haven changed so that findings of the risk and vulnerability assessments should be updated?

Are new sources of information available that will improve the risk assessment? For example, revised coastal DFIRMs will be released and adopted during the time between this plan update and the next plan update.

If risks and vulnerabilities have changed, do the mitigation goals and objectives still reflect the risk assessment?

2 The City of New Haven developed FEMA-approved and locally adopted hazard mitigation plans in 2005 and 2010 and is considered current relative to hazard mitigation planning. The Towns of North Haven, Branford, and North Branford will commence the planning process in 2012 as part of a multi-jurisdictional plan.


What hazards have caused damage in the Town since the last edition of the plan was developed? Were these anticipated and evaluated in the plan or should these hazards be added to the plan? For example, T.S. Irene occurred just prior to this update, and the effects were important considerations.

Are current personnel and financial resources of the Town sufficient for implementing mitigation actions?

For each mitigation action that has not been completed, what are the obstacles to implementation? What are potential solutions for overcoming these obstacles?

For each mitigation action that has been completed, was the action effective in reducing risk? For example, this plan update states that several acquisitions and demolitions of residential structures occurred since the prior plan.

What mitigation recommendations should be added to the plan and proposed for implementation?

If any proposed mitigation actions should be deleted from the plan, what is the rationale?

Updates may include deleting recommendations as projects are completed, adding recommendations as new hazard effects arise, or modifying hazard vulnerabilities as land use changes. For instance, with reference to Part 1 of Appendix A, several recommendations were removed from the plan while preparing this update because they were successfully completed. In addition, the list of shelters and critical facilities should be updated as necessary or at least every five years, just as they were updated for the subject plan.

12.4 Technical and Financial Resources

This section is comprised of a list of resources to be considered for technical assistance and potential financial assistance for completion of the actions outlined in this Plan. This list is not all inclusive and is intended to be updated as necessary.

Federal Resources Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I 99 High Street, 6th floor Boston, MA 02110 (617) 956-7506 http://www.fema.gov/ Mitigation Division

The Mitigation Division is comprised of three branches that administer all of FEMA's hazard mitigation programs. The Risk Analysis Branch applies planning and engineering principles to identify hazards, assess vulnerabilities, and develop strategies to manage the risks associated with natural hazards. The Risk Reduction Branch promotes the use of land use controls and building practices to manage and assess risk in both the existing built developments and future


development areas in both predisaster and postdisaster environments. The Risk Insurance Branch mitigates flood losses by providing affordable flood insurance for property owners and by encouraging communities to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations. FEMA programs administered by the Risk Analysis Branch include:

Flood Hazard Mapping Program, which maintains and updates National Flood Insurance

Program maps National Dam Safety Program, which provides state assistance funds, research, and

training in dam safety procedures National Hurricane Program, which conducts and supports projects and activities that

help protect communities from hurricane hazards Mitigation Planning, a process for states and communities to identify policies, activities,

and tools that can reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from a hazard event

FEMA programs administered by the Risk Reduction Branch include:

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which provides grants to states and local

governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration

Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA), which provides funds to assist states and communities to implement measures that reduce or eliminate long-term risk of flood damage to structures insurable under the National Flood Insurance Program

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM), which provides program funds for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event

Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL), which provides funding to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to "severe repetitive loss" structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program

Community Rating System (CRS), a voluntary incentive program under the National Flood Insurance Program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), which in conjunction with state and regional organizations supports state and local programs designed to protect citizens from earthquake hazard

The Risk Insurance Branch oversees the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which enables property owners in participating communities to purchase flood insurance. The NFIP assists communities in complying with the requirements of the program and publishes flood hazard maps and flood insurance studies to determine areas of risk. FEMA also can provide information on past and current acquisition, relocation, and retrofitting programs, and has expertise in many natural and technological hazards. FEMA also provides funding for training state and local officials at the Emergency Management Institute in Emmitsburg, Maryland. The Mitigation Directorate also has in place several Technical Assistance Contracts (TAC) that support FEMA, states, territories, and local governments with activities to enhance the


effectiveness of natural hazard reduction program efforts. The TACs support FEMA's responsibilities and legislative authorities for implementing the earthquake, hurricane, dam safety, and floodplain management programs. The range of technical assistance services provided through the TACs varies based on the needs of the eligible contract users and the natural hazard programs. Contracts and services include:

The Hazard Mitigation Technical Assistance Program (HMTAP) Contract- supporting

postdisaster program needs in cases of large, unusual, or complex projects; situations where resources are not available; or where outside technical assistance is determined to be needed. Services include environmental and biological assessments, benefit/cost analyses, historic preservation assessments, hazard identification, community planning, training, and more.

The Wind and Water Technical Assistance Contract (WAWTAC) - supporting wind and

flood hazards reduction program needs. Projects include recommending mitigation measures to reduce potential losses to post-FIRM structures, providing mitigation policy and practices expertise to states, incorporating mitigation into local hurricane program outreach materials, developing a Hurricane Mitigation and Recovery exercise, and assessing the hazard vulnerability of a hospital.

The National Earthquake Technical Assistance Contract (NETAC) – supporting

earthquake program needs. Projects include economic impact analyses of various earthquakes, vulnerability analyses of hospitals and schools, identification of and training on nonstructural mitigation measures, and evaluating the performance of seismically rehabilitated structures, postearthquake.

Response & Recovery Division

As part of the National Response Plan, this division provides information on dollar amounts of past disaster assistance including Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, and Temporary Housing, as well as information on retrofitting and acquisition/relocation initiatives. The Response & Recovery Division also provides mobile emergency response support to disaster areas, supports the National Disaster Medical System, and provides urban search and rescue teams for disaster victims in confined spaces. The division also coordinates federal disaster assistance programs. This includes the Public Assistance Grant Program (PA), which provides 75% grants for mitigation projects to protect eligible damaged public and private nonprofit facilities from future damage. "Minimization" grants at 100% are available through the Individuals and Family Grant Program. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Fire Management Assistance Grant Program are also administered by this division.


Computer Sciences Corporation New England Regional Insurance Manager Bureau and Statistical Office (781) 848-1908 Corporate Headquarters 3170 Fairview Park Drive Falls Church, VA 22042 (703) 876-1000 http://www.csc.com/

A private company contracted by the Federal Insurance Administration as the National Flood Insurance Program Bureau and Statistical Agent, CSC provides information and assistance on flood insurance, including handling policy and claims questions and providing workshops to leaders, insurance agents, and communities.

Small Business Administration Region I 10 Causeway Street, Suite 812 Boston, MA 02222-1093 (617) 565-8416 http://www.sba.gov/

SBA has the authority to "declare" disaster areas following disasters that affect a significant number of homes and businesses but that would not need additional assistance through FEMA. (SBA is triggered by a FEMA declaration, however.) SBA can provide additional low-interest funds (up to 20% above what an eligible applicant would "normally" qualify for) to install mitigation measures. They can also loan the cost of bringing a damaged property up to state or local code requirements. These loans can be used in combination with the new "mitigation insurance" under the NFIP or in lieu of that coverage.

Environmental Protection Agency Region I 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2023 (888) 372-7341

Provides grants for restoration and repair and educational activities, including:

Capitalization Grants for State Revolving Funds: Low interest loans to governments to repair, replace, or relocate wastewater treatment plants damaged in floods. Does not apply to drinking water or other utilities.

Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants: Cost-share grants to state agencies that can be used

for funding watershed resource restoration activities, including wetlands and other aquatic habitat (riparian zones). Only those activities that control non-point pollution are


eligible. Grants are administered through the CT DEEP, Bureau of Water Management, Planning and Standards Division.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 20 Church Street, 19th Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3220 (860) 240-4800 http://www.hud.gov/

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development offers Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) to communities with populations greater than 50,000, who may contact HUD directly regarding CDBG. One program objective is to improve housing conditions for low and moderate income families. Projects can include acquiring floodprone homes or protecting them from flood damage. Funding is a 100% grant and can be used as a source of local matching funds for other funding programs such as FEMA's "404" Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Funds can also be applied toward "blighted" conditions, which is often the postflood condition. A separate set of funds exists for conditions that create an "imminent threat." The funds have been used in the past to replace (and redesign) bridges where flood damage eliminates police and fire access to the other side of the waterway. Funds are also available for smaller municipalities through the state-administered CDBG program participated in by the State of Connecticut.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources 7701 Telegraph Road Alexandria, VA 22315 (703) 428-8015 http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/

The Corps provides 100% funding for floodplain management planning and technical assistance to states and local governments under the Floodplain Management Services Program (FPMS). Various flood protection measures such as beach renourishment, stream clearance and snagging projects, floodproofing, and flood preparedness are funded on a 50/50 matching basis by Section 22 planning Assistance to States program. They are authorized to relocate homes out of the floodplain if it proves to be more cost effective than a structural flood control measure.

U.S. Department of Commerce National Weather Service Northeast River Forecast Center 445 Myles Standish Blvd. Taunton, MA 02780 (508) 824-5116 http://www.nws.noaa.gov/


The National Weather Service prepares and issues flood, severe weather, and coastal storm warnings. Staff hydrologists can work with communities on flood warning issues and can give technical assistance in preparing flood warning plans.

U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Steve Golden, Program Leader Rivers, Trails, & Conservation Assistance 15 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) 223-5123 http://www.nps.gov/rtca/

The National Park Service provides technical assistance to community groups and local, state, and federal government agencies to conserve rivers, preserve open space, and develop trails and greenways as well as identify nonstructural options for floodplain development.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New England Field Office 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300 Concord, NH 03301-5087 (603) 223-2541 http://www.fws.gov/

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides technical and financial assistance to restore wetlands and riparian habitats through the North American Wetland Conservation Fund and Partners for Wildlife programs. It also administers the North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Program, which provides matching grants to organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Funds are available for projects focusing on protecting, restoring, and/or enhancing critical habitat.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly SCS) Connecticut Office 344 Merrow Road, Suite A Tolland, CT 06084-3917 (860) 871-4011

The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides technical assistance to individual landowners, groups of landowners, communities, and soil and water conservation districts on land use and conservation planning, resource development, stormwater management, flood prevention, erosion control and sediment reduction, detailed soil surveys, watershed/river basin planning and recreation, and fish and wildlife management. Financial assistance is available to reduce flood damage in small watersheds and to improve water quality. Financial assistance is


available under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, the Cooperative River Basin Program, and the Small Watershed Protection Program.

Regional Resources

Northeast States Emergency Consortium 1 West Water Street, Suite 205 Wakefield, MA 01880 (781) 224-9876 http://www.serve.com/NESEC/

The Northeast States Emergency Consortium (NESEC) develops, promotes, and coordinates "all-hazards" emergency management activities throughout the northeast. NESEC works in partnership with public and private organizations to reduce losses of life and property. They provide support in areas including interstate coordination and public awareness and education, along with reinforcing interactions between all levels of government, academia, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector.

State Resources Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development 505 Hudson Street Hartford, CT 06106-7106 (860) 270-8000 http://www.ct.gov/ecd/

The Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development administers HUD's State CDBG Program, awarding smaller communities and rural areas grants for use in revitalizing neighborhoods, expanding affordable housing and economic opportunities, and improving community facilities and services.

Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 (860) 424-3000 http://www.dep.state.ct.us/

The Connecticut DEEP provides technical assistance to subapplicants for planning efforts and HMA projects. The department includes several divisions with various functions related to hazard mitigation: Bureau of Water Management, Inland Water Resources Division - This division is generally responsible for flood hazard mitigation in Connecticut, including administration of the National Flood Insurance Program. Other programs within the division include:


National Flood Insurance Program State Coordinator: Provides flood insurance and floodplain management technical assistance, floodplain management ordinance review, substantial damage/improvement requirements, community assistance visits, and other general flood hazard mitigation planning including the delineation of floodways.

State Hazard Mitigation Officer (shared role with the Department of Emergency

Management and Homeland Security): Hazard mitigation planning and policy; oversight of administration of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. Has the responsibility of making certain that the State Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is updated every three years.

Flood Warning and Forecasting Service: Prepares and issues flood, severe weather, and

coastal storm warnings. Staff engineers and forecaster can work with communities on flood warning issues and can give technical assistance in preparing flood warning plans. This service has helped the public respond much faster in flooding condition.

Flood & Erosion Control Board Program: Provides assistance to municipalities to solve

flooding, beach erosion, and dam repair problems. Has the power to construct and repair flood and erosion management systems. Certain nonstructural measures that mitigate flood damages are also eligible. Funding is provided to communities that apply for assistance through a Flood & Erosion Control Board on a noncompetitive basis.

Stream Channel Encroachment Line Program: Similar to the NFIP, this state regulatory

program places restrictions on the development of floodplains along certain major rivers. This program draws in environmental concerns in addition to public safety issues when permitting projects.

Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Management Program: Provides training, technical,

and planning assistance to local Inland Wetlands Commissions; reviews and approves municipal regulations for localities. Also controls flood management and natural disaster mitigations.

Dam Safety Program: Charged with the responsibility for administration and

enforcement of Connecticut's dam safety laws. Regulates the operation and maintenance of dams in the state. Permits the construction, repair, or alteration of dams, dikes, or similar structures and maintains a registration database of all known dams statewide. This program also operates a statewide inspection program.

Rivers Restoration Grant Program: Administers funding and grants under the Clean

Water Act involving river restoration and reviews and provides assistance with such projects.

Bureau of Water Management - Planning and Standards Division - Administers the Clean Water Fund and many other programs directly and indirectly related to hazard mitigation including the Section 319 nonpoint source pollution reduction grants and municipal facilities program, which deals with mitigating pollution from wastewater treatment plants. Office of Long Island Sound Programs (OLISP) - Administers the Coastal Area Management (CAM) Act program and Long Island Sound License Plate Program.


Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security 25 Sigourney Street, 6th Floor Hartford, CT 06106-5042 (860) 256-0800 http://www.ct.gov/demhs/

DEMHS is the lead agency responsible for emergency management. Specifically, responsibilities include emergency preparedness, response and recovery, mitigation, and an extensive training program. DEMHS is the state point of contact for most FEMA grant and assistance programs. DEMHS administers the Earthquake and Hurricane programs described above under the FEMA resource section. Additionally, DEMHS operates a mitigation program to coordinate mitigation throughout the state with other government agencies. Additionally, the agency is available to provide technical assistance to subapplicants during the planning process.

Connecticut Department of Public Safety 1111 Country Club Road Middletown, CT 06457 (860) 685-8190 http://www.ct.gov/dps/

Office of the State Building Inspector - The Office of the State Building Inspector is responsible for administering and enforcing the Connecticut State Building Code and is also responsible for the municipal Building Inspector Training Program.

Connecticut Department of Transportation 2800 Berlin Turnpike Newington, CT 06131-7546 (860) 594-2000 http://www.ct.gov/dot/

The Department of Transportation administers the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) that includes grants for projects that promote alternative or improved methods of transportation. Funding through grants can often be used for projects with mitigation benefits such as preservation of open space in the form of bicycling and walking trails. CT DOT is also involved in traffic improvements and bridge repairs that could be mitigation related.

Private and Other Resources Association of State Dam Safety Officials 450 Old Vine Street Lexington, KY 40507 (859) 257-5140 http://www.damsafety.org


ASDSO is a nonprofit organization of state and federal dam safety regulators, dam owners/operators, dam designers, manufacturers/suppliers, academia, contractors and others interested in dam safety. Their mission is to advance and improve the safety of dams by supporting the dam safety community and state dam safety programs, raising awareness, facilitating cooperation, providing a forum for the exchange of information, representing dam safety interests before governments, providing outreach programs, and creating a unified community of dam safety advocates.

The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) 2809 Fish Hatchery Road, Suite 204 Madison, WI 53713 (608) 274-0123 http://www.floods.org/

ASFPM is a professional association of state employees with a membership of over 1,000 that assists communities with the NFIP. ASFMP has developed a series of technical and topical research papers and a series of Proceedings from their annual conferences. Many "mitigation success stories" have been documented through these resources and provide a good starting point for planning.

Institute for Business & Home Safety 4775 East Fowler Avenue Tampa, FL 33617 (813) 286-3400 http://www.ibhs.org/

A nonprofit organization put together by the insurance industry to research ways of reducing the social and economic impacts of natural hazards. The institute advocates the development and implementation of building codes and standards nationwide and may be a good source of model code language.

Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering and Research (MCEER) University at Buffalo State University of New York Red Jacket Quadrangle Buffalo, NY 14261 (716) 645-3391 http://mceer.buffalo.edu/

A source for earthquake statistics, research, and for engineering and planning advice. The National Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA) 1301 K Street, NW, Suite 800 East Washington, DC 20005


(202) 218-4122 http://www.nafsma.org

NAFSMA is an organization of public agencies that strive to protect lives, property, and economic activity from the adverse impacts of stormwater by advocating public policy, encouraging technology, and conducting educational programs. NAFSMA is a voice in national politics on water resources management issues concerning stormwater management, disaster assistance, flood insurance, and federal flood management policy.

National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) P.O. Box 11910 Lexington, KY 40578 (859)-244-8000 http://www.nemaweb.org/

A national association of state emergency management directors and other emergency management officials, the NEMA Mitigation Committee is a strong voice to FEMA in shaping all-hazard mitigation policy in the nation. NEMA is also an excellent source of technical assistance.

Natural Hazards Center University of Colorado at Boulder 482 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0482 (303) 492-6818 http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/

The Natural Hazards Center includes the Floodplain Management Resource Center, a free library and referral service of the ASFPM for floodplain management publications. The Natural Hazards Center is located at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Staff can use key words to identify useful publications from the more than 900 documents in the library.

New England Flood and Stormwater Managers Association, Inc. (NEFSMA) c/o MA DEM 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202

NEFSMA is a nonprofit organization made up of state agency staff, local officials, private consultants, and citizens from across New England. NEFSMA sponsors seminars and workshops and publishes the NEFSMA News three times per year to bring the latest flood and stormwater management information from around the region to its members.

Volunteer Organizations - Volunteer organizations including the American Red Cross, the

Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, and the Mennonite Disaster Service are often available to help after disasters. Service organizations such as the Lions Club, Elks Club, and the


Veterans of Foreign Wars are also available. Habitat for Humanity and the Mennonite Disaster Service provide skilled labor to help rebuild damaged buildings while incorporating mitigation or floodproofing concepts. The office of individual organizations can be contacted directly or the FEMA Regional Office may be able to assist.

Flood Relief Funds - After a disaster, local businesses, residents, and out-of-town groups often

donate money to local relief funds. They may be managed by the local government, one or more local churches, or an ad hoc committee. No government disaster declaration is needed. Local officials should recommend that the funds be held until an applicant exhausts all sources of public disaster assistance, allowing the funds to be used for mitigation and other projects that cannot be funded elsewhere.

AmeriCorps - AmeriCorps is the National Community Service Organization. It is a network of

local, state, and national service programs that connects volunteers with nonprofits, public agencies, and faith-based and community organizations to help meet our country's critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the environment. Through their service and the volunteers they mobilize, AmeriCorps members address critical needs in communities throughout America, including helping communities respond to disasters. Some states have trained AmeriCorps members to help during flood-fight situations such as by filling and placing sandbags.


13.0 REFERENCES

Adamson, Julia, 2011, "Disastrous Dam Failure in Connecticut Eleven People Killed", http://www.suite101.com/content/disastrous-dam-failure-in-connecticut-eleven-people-killed-a336178, Suite 101.com Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 2010, "Dam Failures, Dam Incidents (Near Failures)," http://www.damsafety.org/media/Documents/PRESS/US_FailuresIncidents.pdf ___, 2010, Connecticut Dam Safety Program, http://www.damsafety.org/map/state.aspx?s=7 Blake, E. S., Jarrell, J. D., Rappaport, E. N., Landsea, C. W., 2006, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical Cyclones from 1851 to 2005 (and Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts), Miami, FL: NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TPC-4, http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/Deadliest_Costliest.shtml Brumbach, Joseph J., 1965, The Climate of Connecticut, State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Bulletin No. 99. Buck, Rinker, 2010, "Earthquake Reported off Long Island Sound", Hartford Courant, http://articles.courant.com/2010-11-30/news/hc-earthquake-1201-20101130_1_small-quake-minor-earthquake-minor-temblor Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, 2010, Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. ___, 2007, Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan For 2007-2010. ___, 2007, High Hazard & Significant Hazard Dams in Connecticut, rev. 9/11/07. http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/water_inland/dams/high_significant_hazard_dams.pdf ___, 1999, Tropical Storm Floyd Heavy Rains and Flooding, September 15-16, 1999, Review Draft, Inland Water Resources Division ___. GIS Data for Connecticut - DEP Bulletin Number 40, rev. 2010. Connecticut Flood Recovery Committee, 1955, Report of the Connecticut Flood Recovery Committee, November 3, 1955, Connecticut State Library, http://www.cslib.org/floodrecov.pdf Connecticut Geological & Natural History Survey, 1990, Generalized Bedrock Geologic Map of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, http://www.wesleyan.edu/ctgeology/images/CtGeoMap_big.jpg, Assessed 12/30/2010. Connecticut State Data Center, 2011, Connecticut Census Data, http://ctsdc.uconn.edu/connecticut_census_data.html Cornell University, 2011, Information regarding the magnitude 5.8 earthquake that occurred 38 miles from Richmond, Virginia on August 23, 2011.


Earthquake Information Bulletin, 1973, Volume 5, Number 5, September-October 1973, by Carl Von Hake, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/massachusetts/history.php Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2010, Flood Insurance Study, New Haven County, Connecticut (All Jurisdictions) effective June 18, 2010. ___, 2010, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance. http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4225 ___, 2010, "Connecticut Disaster History", http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters_state.fema?id=9 ___, 2010, "Wind Zones in the United States", http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/saferoom/tsfs02_wind_zones.shtm ___, 2009, "FEMA BCA Toolkit v.4.5.5.0." ___, April 2008, HAZUS®-MH Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States. FEMA document 366. ___, 2007, Mitigation Best Practices Portfolio, The Town of East Haven Has Lifted Itself Above the Grade. ___, 2007, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. March 2004, Revised November 2006 and June 2007. ___, 2007, Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guide Number Five, FEMA document 386-5. ___, 2005, Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding: A Guide for Communities, FEMA document 511.

___, 2003, Developing the Mitigation Plan – Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementation Strategies, State and Local Mitigation Planning How-To Guide Number Three, FEMA document 386-3.

___, 1999, "In the Aftermath of Floyd, FEMA Offers Suggestions to Reduce Damages from the Next Flood," FEMA Release 1302-15, http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=8655 ___, 1987, Reducing Losses in High Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local Officials, The Association of State Floodplain Managers. ___, Hazards, Tornadoes, http://www.fema.gov/hazard/tornado/index.shtm ___, Library. Federally Declared Disasters by Calendar Year. http://www.fema.gov/library/drcys.shtm ___, Library. Preparation and Prevention. http://www.fema.gov/library/prepandprev.shtm ___, Mitigation Division, http://www.fema.gov/fima/


___, Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology – Earthquake Model: Hazus-MH MR5 Technical Manual. ___, Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology – Flood Model: Hazus-MH MR5 Technical Manual. ___, Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology – Hurricane Model: Hazus-MH MR5 Technical Manual. ___, National Hurricane Program, http://www.fema.gov/hazards/hurricanes/nhp.shtm ___, 1987, Reducing Losses in High Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local Officials, The Association of State Floodplain Managers. Flounders, Helene T., 2004, Connecticut Statewide Forest Resource Plan, 2004 – 2013, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Fox News.com. 2008. Rare Earthquake Strikes Connecticut. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336973,00.html. Accessed 8/11/2010. Godschalk, D.R., T. Beatley, P. Berke, D.J. Brower, and E.J. Kaiser, 1999, Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning, Island Press: Washington, D.C. Hershfield, David M., 1961, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, Technical Paper No. 40, U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau. Institute for Business and Home Safety, undated, "Is Your Home Protected From Wildfire Disaster? – A Homeowner's Guide to Wildfire Retrofit." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001, Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. Kafka, Alan L., 2004, Why Does the Earth Quake in New England? The Science of Unexpected Earthquakes, Boston College, Weston Observatory, Department of Geology and Geophysics, http://www2.bc.edu/~kafka/Why_Quakes/why_quakes.html

Kennard, D., 2008, "Fuel Categories", Forest Encyclopedia Network, http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p4/p140/p353/p506 Map and Geographic Information Center, 2010, "Connecticut GIS Data", University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, http://magic.lib.uconn.edu/connecticut_data.html

Milone & MacBroom, Inc., 2011, City of Danbury Hazard Mitigation Plan, City of Danbury, Connecticut.

____, 2011, Town of Sherman Hazard Mitigation Plan, Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials, Brookfield, Connecticut.


____, 2010, Town of New Fairfield Hazard Mitigation Plan. ____, 2009, Borough of Naugatuck Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ____, 2009, Town of Southbury Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ____, 2009, Town of Middlebury Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ____, 2009, Town of Beacon Falls Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ____, 2009, Town of Thomaston Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ____, 2009, Town of Bethlehem Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___, 2008, Town of Cheshire Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___, 2008, Town of Prospect Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___, 2008, Town of Wolcott Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___, 2007, City of Waterbury Hazard Mitigation Plan, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, Waterbury, CT. ___, 2007, Town of Nantucket Hazard Mitigation Plan. ___, 2006, Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency Hazard Mitigation Plan, Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency, Bridgeport, CT. ___, 2005, City of New Haven Hazard Mitigation Plan. Miller, D.R., G.S. Warner, F.L. Ogden, A.T. DeGaetano, 1997, Precipitation in Connecticut. University of Connecticut College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Connecticut Institute of Water Resources, Storrs, CT. Muckel, G.B. (editor). 2004. Understanding Soil Risks and Hazards: Using Soil Survey to Identify Areas with Risks and Hazards to Human Life and Property. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. National Interagency Fire Center, 2011, Fire Information – Wildland Fire Statistics, http://www.nifc.gov/fire_info/fire_stats.htm


National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Hurricane Research Division, Hurricane Histograms. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/counties/CT.html ___, Coastal Services Center, 2011, "Hurricane Historical Tracks", http://csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/ ___, National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), Extreme Weather and Climate Events. http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms ____, National Hurricane Center, 2011, "Return Periods", http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/basics/return.shtml ___, National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center Tropical Prediction Center. NHC/TPC Archive of Past Hurricane Seasons. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml

___, Severe Weather, http://www.noaawatch.gov/themes/severe.php

___, National Severe Storms Laboratory, 2009, "Tornado Basics", http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/tornado/tor_basics.html

___, 2008, "Lightning Basics", http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/lightning/ltg_basics.html

___, 2006, "Damaging Winds Basics", http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/wind/wind_basics.html

___, 2006, "Hail Basics", http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/hail/hail_basics.html

___. 2001, Winter Storms: The Deceptive Killers – A Preparedness Guide. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/winter/resources/winterstorm.pdf

___, 1995, A Preparedness Guide.

___. Weekend Snowstorm in Northeast Corridor Classified as a Category 3 "Major" Storm. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2580.htm

___, National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), 2011, Extreme Weather and Climate Events, http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms

___, 2011, The Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS), http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/nesis.php ___, National Weather Service, Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services, 2010, NEW Weather Fatality, Injury, and Damage Statistics, http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml ___, National Weather Service Columbia, SC Forecast Office, 2010, Downbursts…, http://www.erh.noaa.gov/cae/svrwx/downburst.htm


___, 2010, Hail…, http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/cae/svrwx/hail.htm Neumann, J.E., G. Yohe, R. Nicholls, M. Manion, 2000, Sea-level Rise and Global Climate Change, A Review of Impacts to the U.S. Coasts, Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. New England Seismic Network, 2011, "NESN Recent Earthquakes", Weston Observatory – Boston College, http://aki.bc.edu/cgi-bin/NESN/recent_events.pl

Robinson, G. R. Jr., Kapo, K. E. 2003. Generalized Lithology and Lithogeochemical Character of Near-Surface Bedrock in the New England Region. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-225, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-225/

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Series Classification Database [Online WWW]. Available URL: http://soils.usda.gov/soils/technical/classification/scfile/index.html [Accessed 10 February 2004]. USDA-NRCS, Lincoln, NE.

Tornado Project Online, http://www.tornadoproject.com/ Town of East Haven, 2001, Hazard Mitigation Plan ___, 2005, Hazard Mitigation Plan Update ___, Inland Wetlands Regulations ___, Municipal Code ___, 2007, Plan of Conservation and Development ___, Subdivision Regulations ___, Zoning Regulations United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1994, Connecticut Hurricane Evacuation Study and Technical Data Report. ___, 1994, Flood Warning Assessment for the Farm River, East Haven and North Branford, Connecticut. United States Census Bureau, 2011, 2010 Census Data, http://www.census.gov/ United States Department of Transportation, 2002, The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation, The DOT Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting. Workshop, October 1-2, 2002, Summary and Discussion Papers. United States Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, Earthquake Information for Connecticut, http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/states/connecticut/connecticut_history.html


___, 1999, National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Atlantic Coast, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-593. ___, The Severity of an Earthquake. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq4/severitygip.html ___, 2010, "2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping", https://geohazards.usgs.gov/eqprob/2009/index.php ___, 2010, "Magnitude / Intensity Comparison", http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mag_vs_int.php ___. 2009. Seismic Hazard Map of Connecticut. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/connecticut/hazards.php. Assessed 8/11/2010.

___. 2009. The Severity of an Earthquake. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq4/severitygip.html Assessed 8/11/2010. ___, 2009, "Top Earthquake States", http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/top_states.php ___, 2006, Wildfire Hazards – A National Threat, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3015/2006-3015.pdf WFSB, 2010, "Residents Report Feeling Canadian Earthquake," http://www.wfsb.com/news/24007970/detail.html Wikipedia, 2011, "1993 Storm of the Century", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Storm_of_the_Century ___, 2011, "Great Blizzard of 1888", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Blizzard_of_1888 ___, 2011, "Northeastern United States Blizzard of 1978", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeastern_United_States_blizzard_of_1978 ___, 2010, "Fire Triangle", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_triangle ___, 2011, List of Connecticut Tornadoes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Connecticut_tornadoes