'If'Jl?l?l' -, A TDA HOLEGROUP Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan The Town of Stonington would like to acknowledge the following contributors and advisors for the Coastal Resilience Plan. PROJECT FUNDING This plan was funded through a Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) allocation awarded to the State of Connecticut Department of Housing in the wake of Superstorm Sandy. STONINGTON RESIDENTS A special thank you to all of the residents of Stonington who attended the public input meetings and provided valuable comments and feedback that helped shape this plan. BOARD OF SELECTMEN Rob Simmons, First Selectmen Michael Spellman Kate Rotella CLIMATE CHANGE TASK FORCE Rick Newton MaryEllen Mateleska Jeffrey Callahan Dennis Unites Susan Hibbard Lyndsey Pyrke-Fairchild TOWN OF STONINGTON Jason Vincent, Director of Planning Doug Nettleton, Water Pollution Control Authority Director Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission PROJECT TEAM Town of Stonington Keith Brynes, Town Planner Scot Deledda, Town Engineer Borough of Stonington Jeffrey Callahan, Warden Arup Brian Swett, Project Director Lisa Dickson, Project Manager Katie Wholey Angela Wilson George Beane Vincent Riscica Woods Hole Group Kirk Bosma Joseph Famely CivicMoxie Susan Silberberg TDA, Inc. Madeline Fraser-Cook Image Sources Front Cover: Author: Doug Kerr, Flickr Creative Commons. https://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/albums/72157622504769855 Executive Summary: Author: Pi.1415926535, Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sailboat_approaching_Stonington,_CT.JPG Section 1: Author: Parker Higgins, Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CNPBHwithsign.JPG Section 2: Author Pi.1415926535, Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stonington_Junction,_Stonington,_CT.JPG Section 4: Author: Jay McAnally, Flickr Creative Commons. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jaymac3/albums/72157629043176463 Section 5: Author: Juliancolton, Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dodson_Boatyard,_Stonington,_CT.JPG Appendices: Author: Jay McAnally, Flickr Creative Commons. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jaymac3/8024494577/in/album-72157629043176463/ Contents Executive Summary i Project Overview 1 Coastal Risk Assessment 5 Resilience Solutions 35 Financial Considerations 71 Next Steps 77 Appendices 85 -4 I-. .a ?wk. Project Overview The Town of Stonington is largely characterized by its relationship with the sea. As a coastal community, much of Stonington’s unique character, history, and economy are defined by its location along the waterfront. However, such a coastal location comes with both benefits and risks: the coastal resources that can drive the economy and provide a high quality of life for the Town’s residents can also present unique threats. Many of Stonington’s community resources, assets, and residential properties are at significant risk from coastal flooding. The Town, and much of the Northeastern United States, became acutely aware of this flood risk when Superstorm Sandy made landfall in New York on October 29, 2012. While Stonington was not in the direct path of Superstorm Sandy, the Town still experienced significant flooding and storm damage as a result of the storm, including damage to the Town Dock and Masons Island Causeway. With four historic coastal villages and over 1,400 properties located in the present-day 100-year Figure 1: 2050 Flood Probability in Stonington Executive Summary i Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan floodplain, Stonington faces increasing risk to its residents, infrastructure and critical assets. Moreover, Stonington’s economy relies heavily on tourism generated by the Town’s waterfront; this tourism economy could be significantly impacted by future coastal flooding events. While providing economic benefits from coastal tourism, Stonington’s location presents significant risk to its built infrastructure and environmental, economic, and social systems. As a result, the Town of Stonington received Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding to complete this Coastal Resilience Plan. The Plan is intended to develop a comprehensive understanding of Stonington’s coastal flood risk by assessing the vulnerability of key critical assets and infrastructure and developing potential resilience solutions for the Town’s most at-risk resources. This coastal resilience plan is the first step towards creating a safer and more secure future for the Town of Stonington and its residents. Risk Assessment Coastal risk is the potential for an asset or system to be impacted by a future coastal flooding event. Coastal flood risk was evaluated based on three main factors: hazard, exposure and vulnerability. These factors were used to calculate a risk score for each community asset, using the following formula: Risk = Hazard x Exposure x Vulnerability Hazard is a measure of the likelihood of a future storm event impacting the asset. Coastal modeling scenarios were developed to assess future flood scenarios for the Town of Stonington. These scenarios assessed the probability of a coastal flood event (and the associated extents of that flooding) in the years 2030 and 2050. Probability, in this case, is defined as the percent annual chance of flooding. Figure 1 shows the potential future flood ii Executive Summary scenarios for the Town of Stonington in the year 2050 and Figure 2 details the risk assessment scoring methodology for the various hazard types: Figure 2: Hazard Scores for Risk Assessment Hazard Type Hazard Score Present-day 1% storm or FEMA AE/VE Zone 3 2030 1% or 0.1% Storm 2 2050 1% or 0.1% storm 1 Exposure refers to the depth of flooding that may be experienced by the asset during a given storm event. Because flood depths vary depending on the intensity of the storm event, the exposure scores were standardized across all assets by using the depth of flooding at each asset during the 2050 0.1% storm event (or the 1000-year storm). The 2050 1000-year storm event was chosen for the exposure analysis because it is the most intense storm analyzed as part of this assessment. Figure 3 shows the exposure scores associated with each category of flood depths: Figure 3: Exposure Scores for Risk Assessment Depth of Flooding Exposure Score > 10 4 5.01-10 ft 3 2.01-5 ft 2 0-2 ft 1 Vulnerability is a measure of the impact to the community if the asset is damaged in a flood event. Vulnerability was assessed according to four factors: criticality of the facility; community impact; economic impact based on replacement cost; and, impact to the tourism economy/historic resources. The vulnerability score is an average of these four factors for each asset. Figure 4 details the critical facility scores: Figure 4: Critical Facility Scores Critical Facility Critical Facility Score Critical Facility by FEMA's definition 3 Other essential assets 2 Non-critical and non-essential assets 1 Economic impact is a function of the value of the asset. Facilities with important and valuable infrastructure and equipment are considered high economic value and would have a high replacement cost if damaged during a storm event. Figure 6 displays the economic impact scores: Figure 6: Economic Impact Scores FEMA Critical Facilities: • Structures or facilities that produce, use or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water-reactive materials. • Hospitals, nursing homes and housing likely to have occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile to avoid injury or death during a flood. • Police stations, fire stations, vehicle and equipment storage facilities, and emergency operations centers that are needed for flood response activities before, during and after a flood. • Public and private utility facilities that are vital to maintaining or restoring normal services to flooded areas before, during and after a flood Impact by % Economic Impact Score High = important infrastructure equipment 3 Medium = other buildings 2 Low = open space and recreation 1 areas Based on this calculation of risk and local knowledge of the importance of various community facilities, we identified the top 5 and top 25 most at-risk assets in the community. These assets were carried into the next phase of the assessment: developing potential resilience solutions. For each of the top 5 assets, we developed potential resilience solutions. Those solutions include building-scale solutions, such as elevation of the building and/or mechanical and electrical systems, implementation of green infrastructure, and installation of temporary flood barriers, among others. Proposed resilience solutions were developed for: • Apple Rehab Mystic Community impact is a function of the redundancy of the asset and the percentage of Stonington residents affected by failure of or damage to the asset. Figure 5 details the community impact score: • Masons Island Causeway Figure 5: Community Impact Scores • Models for a typical single-family home and a typical mixed-use building Impact by % Community Impact Score 67-100% 3 34-66% 2 0-33% 1 • Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility • Village of Mystic A higher-level analysis was completed to identify potential resilience solutions for the top 25 assets, as identified in Figure 7. Executive Summary iii Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Figure 7: 25 Most At-Risk Assets in Stonington Top 25 Assets Masons Island Causeway Mystic Bridge Historic District State Highway 1 Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility Rossie Velvet Mill Historic District Cutler St. Electrical Substation Boulder Avenue Pump Station Stonington Borough Historic District Mystic Train Station & Rail Line River Road/Mary Hall Road Pump Station Apple Rehab Mystic Barn Island Management Area Stonington Wastewater Treatment Facility Mystic Seaport Mystic Fire Department Greenmanville Avenue Electrical Substation Town Dock Mystic River Park, Cottrell Street Stonington Community Center (COMO) State Highway 27 Lords Point neighborhood Quiambaug Fire Department Donahue Park Murphy’s Point neighborhood Mechanic Street Historic District Community Vulnerability While this study was largely focused on assessing the vulnerability and risk of key community facilities and assets, it is important to understand Stonington’s vulnerability on a larger-scale. On a community-wide scale, 27% of the total land area is anticipated to be impacted by the 1000year coastal flood event in 2050; this accounts for approximately 5,800 acres of land. The parcels in the impact area account for 53% of Stonington’s total tax base, which represents approximately $2 billion worth of property value. Therefore, a flood event of that scale would have a significant impact on the Town’s residents, and its economy. In addition to the built environment and physical infrastructure vulnerabilities identified during the risk assessment, Stonington’s transportation network, natural resources, and historic resources may all experience impacts as a result of climate change. Transportation The Town has already experienced significant flood impacts to Mason’s Island Causeway during Superstorm Sandy and other past flood events. Additional impacts from coastal flooding may affect Route 27, as it extends down through Stonington Borough, and Route 1, which runs in close iv Executive Summary proximity to the coast of Stonington between Mystic and Pawcatuck. In addition to roadways, the Northeast Corridor railway is highly vulnerable to flood impacts in Stonington. The rail line runs along the coast throughout Stonington and is expected to experience significant flood impacts. With over 260 million annual passenger trips along the Northeast Corridor, and 25,704 annual trips through Mystic amounting to $1,292,097 in annual station revenue, flooding and damage along this railway would have significant impacts to Stonington and cascading impacts throughout the region. Natural Resources Sea level rise and storm surge can negatively impact natural resources by damaging or killing trees, plants and grass as a result of salt water inundation and causing flood damage to recreational facilities. The most vulnerable open space in Stonington is the Barn Island Management Area. Barn Island Management Area is a particularly valuable resource; with over 1,000 acres, it is Connecticut’s largest, most diverse, and ecologically significant coastal wildlife management area. In addition to that significant protected open space, Mystic River Park and Donahue Park are also expected to experience significant flooding. Figure 8: Potential Property and Land Flood Vulnerability in the Town of Stonington Source: All figures were calculated using flood scenarios produced by Woods Hole Group and 2016 Town of Stonington Assessor’s data. Property value is based on values from the 2016 Stonington Assessor’s data. Values have not been adjusted for inflation or future changes to property values. Stonington’s shoreline is also experiencing significant changes due to the advancement of salt marsh from the coast into upland areas of Town, as a result of sea level rise. In total, Stonington is expected to see approximately 2000 acres of salt marsh advancement by 2080; 13% of that advancement is expected to affect land areas that are not suitable for advancement, because they are currently developed with buildings and associated infrastructure. In particular, the Village of Mystic is particularly vulnerable to salt marsh advancement, which could result in negative impacts to Stonington’s economy and tourism industry, historical resources, and property values. Historic Resources Stonington’s historic resources are essential to the character of the community and are important drivers for the Town’s tourism economy. The Town has 854 historic properties that are vulnerable to coastal flooding by 2050. Of those, 838 are located in the Town’s four largest historic coastal districts: Rossie Velvet Mill Historic District, Mystic Bridge Historic District, Ston- Executive Summary v Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Figure 9: 2050 At-Risk Historic Properties in Stonington • A hurricane barrier across the Pawcatuck River, at the constriction point south of Westerly Yacht Club. • A multi-element intervention consisting of an elevated railway, tidal control gates, a living shoreline, and green infrastructure in the areas of Lamberts Cove and Quannaduck Cove where the railway crosses from Wamphassuc Neck to Stonington Borough. • An elevated railway and tidal control gates along the railroad tracks crossing from Groton to Mystic to Latimer Point. ington Borough Historic District, and Mechanic Street Historic District. While all four districts are vulnerable to coastal flood impacts, the Mystic Bridge Historic District is the most vulnerable to coastal flooding and has the greatest number of atrisk historic homes in Stonington (see Figure 9). Resilience Solutions Potential resilience solutions were developed for each of the most at-risk assets in Stonington, including Apple Rehab Mystic, Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility, model single-family and mixed-use buildings, the Village of Mystic, and Masons Island Causeway. In addition to asset-level resilience solutions, regional resilience concepts were also developed as part of this planning effort. These concepts include larger-scale infrastructure projects that could protect large portions of Stonington from future coastal flooding. Four main regional solutions were proposed, including: • Tide gates beneath the I-95 crossing at the Mystic River. vi Executive Summary The regional intervention crossing from Groton through Mystic to Latimer Point is likely to have the most impact in Stonington as it would protect the majority of historic resources and tourism assets in the Village or Mystic; therefore, protecting Stonington’s unique character and it’s tourism industry. Funding and Financial Considerations While there are a variety of grants and other funding sources available that the Town should pursue, it is important that the Town recognize the need to contribute its own funding to these solutions. With the current political climate, it is likely that many of the government-supported funding opportunities may become unavailable. In addition, the federal government is taking steps to encourage states and cities to take on more responsibility for resilience. Some potential town funding mechanisms may include: • Town budget and capital improvement plans – The town should advocate for the inclusion of coastal flood protection and climate adaptation measures as an annual line item in the town budget and capital improvement plan. This could begin as a small allocation in the annual budget and increase over time as the Town’s flood protection priorities become clearer. • Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts and impact fees to support flood protection infrastructure. • Public-Private Partnerships (P3) – P3 allows for cost sharing between the Town and private entities and many communities are beginning to use P3 funding for large-scale infrastructure improvements. Next Steps In the short term, the Town should work to implement the following resilience options: 1. Renew Stonington’s participation in the Community Rating Systems (CRS) program. 2. Forming working partnerships with locals, state and federal actors, community stakeholders, and nonprofit institutions that also have a vested interest in reducing flood risk in Stonington and the region, as a whole. 3. Pursuing grant funding and implementing the various town funding mechanisms, such as TIF districts, P3 opportunities, and town budgeting and capital improvement plans. 4. Conducting a feasibility analysis for the potential regional adaptation solutions in order to understand the costs and benefits of these types of interventions. 2. Implement a targeted floodplain buyout and relocation program. 3. Continue to educate and cultivate active engagement from the residents of Stonington on coastal resilience issues. 4. Implement additional regulatory measures to encourage resilient development practices in floodprone areas. 5. Leverage current projects as a means for furthering the Town’s resilience goals. Over the longer-term, the Town should consider the following actions: 1. Performing a stormwater modeling analysis to understand the impact of the increased frequency and intensity of rainfall on Stonington’s flood risk. This may be completed as a town-wide analysis or separated by neighborhoods. Executive Summary vii I -5. al.4- - '1 Hana:?lh?thi'; .1- - lf-I'l can. II ?It jff'?; .Wburmawwa?-v: -. 17-..- "Wan-H .-. "4-3 '?wn ., 5' ?3 - 4.dun-II. . - I I . :.?1i?uw?k ?I?m In"; .. I - If, ?1 "Hi? - ?If; Fun.-.-.. Mwmm?. ?rapidluvr-mu?l-?in?tIs-??-wI?f-J it? hit?? J. I..-. u? ,s-Im Tu?? IN .121. . I - r.I' ?PL-Jury . - Ii ?ww?Mt-?Stonington is a coastal community bounded on 3 sides by water. The Town’s history is based upon its relationship to the sea and as such, many of its most developed areas are located near the water. Those coastal developments include four historic villages, each with its own unique character. Over the years the Town has also seen the development of waterfront communities such as Lords Point, Latimer Point and Masons Island as well as commercial areas adjacent to its highway interchanges. In contrast to the coastal neighborhoods, Stonington’s upland areas consist of historic farms, scenic rural roads, and low density residential development. The Town is fortunate to possess a combination of natural and man-made scenic resources that has attracted residents and visitors for generations. Visitors and are drawn to Stonington’s National Register Historic Districts and tourist attractions such as Mystic Seaport and Mystic Aquarium. However, such a coastal location comes with both benefits and risks: the coastal resources that can drive the economy and provide a high quality of life can also provide unique threats. Many of Stonington’s important assets and attractions are at-risk of increased flooding from sea level rise and storm surge.  The Town witnessed this coastal flood risk on October 29, 2012 when Superstorm Sandy made landfall in New York. Superstorm Sandy was the second most costly hurricane in U.S. history, causing approximately $50 billion worth of damage. The damage associated with Superstorm Sandy is second only to Hurricane Katrina, which caused over $100 billion worth of damage in 2005.1 While Connecticut was largely spared a direct hit from the storm, the state still suffered millions of dollars in damage and received $71.8 million of federal Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A portion of that funding was allocated to assist communities with local planning efforts to repair public facilities and infrastructure and increase community resilience against future storm events. As part of that allocation, the Town of Stonington received funding to complete this Coastal Resilience Plan to assess the vulnerability of key critical assets and infrastructure to coastal flood events and develop targeted resilience solutions for the most at-risk assets in the Town.2 In recent years, many communities have started to assess their risks to climate change and develop adaptation plans. However, Superstorm Sandy instilled a sense of urgency throughout the Northeastern United States and motivated many communities to take a more proactive stance on climate change. This collective action is vital to protecting the livelihood of the region given that losses from major coastal flooding and storm events are anticipated to increase in the coming years as climate change impacts worsen. Those impacts will be compounded by the increasing investment in valuable, yet vulnerable, coastal real estate. From 2011-2015, the annual average of billion-dollar weather-related disasters has more than doubled from 5.2 events per year in the previous decades to approximately 10.8 events per year in the last five years.3 That trend toward more costly and more damaging storm events is expected to continue throughout the century: in Stonington approximately $1.9 billion of coastal property could be at-risk of flooding by 2050. In the Northeast region of the United States specifically, heavy downpours and increasing sea level rise pose growing challenges that are likely to compromise the region’s aging infrastructure and increase the vulnerability of vital environmental, social, and economic systems.4 Over the last century, sea levels in the Northeast rose approximately one foot, which is 50% greater than the global Project Overview 1 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Water Street commercial district, Stonington, CT (Author: Pi.1415926535, Wikimedia Commons) average of eight inches. Sea level rise, combined with more frequent storm events and a projected increase in extreme precipitation events, poses an increasing threat to Connecticut and the surrounding states in the Northeast region.5 While Stonington was not in the direct path of Superstorm Sandy, the Town still suffered significant damage from the storm. In the wake of Superstorm Sandy, Stonington received over $280,000 of reimbursement funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to repair damage to the Town Dock, Masons Island Causeway, and other damaged sites. At only six feet above sea level, Masons Island Causeway is a particularly vulnerable asset in Stonington; as the only means of egress for more than 800 residents living on Masons Island, many residents of Stonington face significant risk as a result of coastal 2 Project Overview flood impacts to the Causeway. Many of Stonington’s residential properties are also vulnerable to coastal flood impacts; since 1978, Stonington residents have received over $4.5 million of flood insurance payouts. Significant storms in July 2009 and March 2010 resulted in significant damage to the Town. In 2009, two dams were overtopped during a nor’easter. In March 2010, the Route 184 bridge was destroyed, several roadways were damaged, and serious basement flooding impacted many homes and a few town-owned properties, including Stonington Town Hall. Historically, Stonington is a community characterized by its proximity to and relationship with the coast. With four historic coastal villages and over 1,400 properties located in the present-day 100year floodplain, Stonington faces increasing risk Mystic Seaport (Author: Gregory Moine, Wikimedia Commons) to its residents, infrastructure and critical assets. Moreover, Stonington’s economy relies heavily on tourism generated by the Town’s waterfront; this tourism economy could be significantly impacted by future coastal flooding events. While providing economic benefits from coastal tourism, Stonington’s location presents significant risk to its built infrastructure and environmental, economic, and social systems. Stonington acknowledges the risks related to its coastal location. To date, the Town has implemented several new programs, policies, and regulations to try to minimize risk to coastal flooding within the community, including: • Zoning regulations that restrict development in the 100-year floodplain and require elevation of new construction above base flood elevation (BFE); • Past participation in the Community Rating System; and • Construction, maintenance, and on-going improvements to flood control structures. Importantly, the Town does not currently have a comprehensive understanding of its risks. This understanding is vital to developing effective coastal mitigation and adaptation strategies and increasing the resilience of the community, its people and its infrastructure. This coastal resilience plan is the first step towards creating a safer and more secure future for the Town of Stonington and its residents. Project Overview 3 a. $wa .4 .4 . t??ff - h? 13? ?69; 7.1 m' t. . 4' Methodology Coastal risk is the potential for an asset or system to be impacted by a future coastal flooding event. This coastal risk assessment focused on important community assets and systems, as defined by the Town of Stonington and the Climate Change Task Force. The community facilities were organized into four main categories: • Community Facilities; • Historic Resources; • Transportation; and, • Drainage and Utilities. Community facilities in these categories, also known as assets, were ranked according to their coastal flood risk, in order to determine the most at-risk community assets. Coastal flood risk was evaluated based on three main factors: hazard, exposure and vulnerability. These factors were used to calculate a risk score for each community asset, using the following formula: Risk = Hazard x Exposure x Vulnerability Hazard is a measure of the likelihood of a future storm event impacting the asset. Coastal modeling scenarios were developed to assess future flood scenarios for the Town of Stonington. These sce- Figure 10: 2030 Flood Probability in Stonington, CT Coastal Risk Assessment 5 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Figure 11: 2050 Flood Probability in Stonington, CT narios assessed the probability of a coastal flood event (and the associated extents of that flooding) in the years 2030 and 2050 based on future sea level rise assumptions. Global sea levels have risen approximately eight inches since 1880. Since 1992, that rate of sea level rise has almost doubled compared to the prior century and there is consensus in the scientific community that sea level rise will continue to increase throughout the 21st century. The acceleration, probability, and volume are difficult to predict. Sea levels are rising faster in the Northeast United States compared to the global average, 6 Coastal Risk Assessment largely as a result of land subsidence. The National Climate Assessment predicts that sea levels will rise an additional one to four feet by the end of the century. Therefore, it was important to use conservative (i.e. leaning towards overestimation) scientific projections of sea level rise in order to analyze potential coastal flood impacts to Stonington. The rate of sea level rise used in this study accounts for expected future increases in sea level rise and is consistent with the projections detailed in the National Climate Assessment. By 2030, sea levels are estimated to rise approximately 0.55 feet and by 2050, sea level rise may increase by 1.69 feet over present-day sea levels, under the highest emissions scenario. While projections are not certainties, planning ahead requires paying attention to the highest risk scenarios. For more detail on the sea level rise assumptions used for this study, please refer to Appendix F. Based on these sea level rise scenarios, probability is defined as the percent annual chance of flooding. Figure 10 displays the probability of flooding in 2030 and Figure 11 displays the probability of flooding in 2050. Between 2030 and 2050, it is important to note that the extent of flooding in Stonington does not change significantly (see Figure 18). The more significant change is an increase in the depth of flooding in certain areas of town, as displayed in Figures 14-17. Figure 12 details the risk assessment scoring methodology for the various hazard types: Figure 13: Exposure Scores for Risk Assessment Depth of Flooding Exposure Score > 10 4 5.01-10 ft 3 2.01-5 ft 2 0-2 ft 1 Key Terms Figure 12: Hazard Scores for Risk Assessment Hazard Type each community asset that is likely to be impacted by a future storm can be included in the exposure assessment. In addition, recent studies show that the frequency of major storm events is likely to increase throughout the century. By 2100, there could be an increase of 17 times the current frequency of major Sandy-like storm events, resulting in a powerful storm approximately once every 20 years.6 Figure 13 shows the exposure scores associated with each category of flood depths: Hazard Score Present-day 1% storm or FEMA AE/VE Zone 3 2030 1% or 0.1% Storm 2 2050 1% or 0.1% storm 1 Exposure refers to the depth of flooding that may be experienced by the asset during a given storm event. Because flood depths vary depending on the intensity of the storm event, the exposure scores were standardized across all assets by using the depth of flooding at each asset during the 2050 0.1% storm event (or the 1000-year storm). The 2050 1000-year storm event was chosen for the exposure analysis because it is the most intense storm analyzed as part of this assessment. The storm has the largest flood extents and will impact the most community assets; therefore, by using the flood depths associated with this storm, Sea Level Rise Assumptions The following assumptions were made to estimate future sea level rise in Stonington. These assumptions are based on data from the National Coastal Assessment. By 2030, sea levels are expected to rise approximately 0.55ft. By 2050, sea levels are expected to rise approximately 1.69ft. FEMA Flood Mapping FEMA flood maps are based on current and historic flood-related data, including: hydrology, infrastructure, hydraulics, land use, and existing floodplain and base maps. 100-year Storm: The 100-year storm event is a storm that has a 1% annual chance of occurring in any given year. 1000-year Storm: The 1000-year storm event is a storm that has a 0.1% annual chance of occurring in any given year. Coastal Risk Assessment 7 Figure 14: Estimated Flood Depths for a 100-year Storm Event (1% Annual Chance of Flooding) in 2030 Figure 15: Estimated Flood Depths for a 1000-year Storm Event (0.1% Annual Chance) in 2030 8 Coastal Risk Assessment Figure 16: Estimated Flood Depths for a 100-year Storm Event (1% Annual Chance) in 2050 Figure 17: Estimated Flood Depths for a 1000-year Storm Event (0.1% Annual Chance) in 2050 Coastal Risk Assessment 9 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Figure 18: Difference in Flood Extents between 2030 and 2050 Vulnerability is a measure of the impact to the community if the asset is damaged in a flood event. Vulnerability was assessed according to four factors: criticality of the facility; community impact; economic impact based on replacement cost; and, impact to the tourism economy/historic resources. The vulnerability score is an average of these four factors for each asset. A critical facility is defined by the FEMA definition: “FEMA defines four kinds of critical facilities: • Structures of facilities that produce, use or 10 Coastal Risk Assessment store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water-reactive materials. • Hospitals, nursing homes and housing likely to have occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile to avoid injury or death during a flood. • Police stations, fire stations, vehicle and equipment storage facilities, and emergency operations centers that are needed for flood response activities before, during and after a flood. • Public and private utility facilities that are vital to maintaining or restoring normal services to flooded areas before, during and after a flood.”7 Figure 19 details the critical facility scores: Figure 19: Critical Facility Scores Critical Facility Critical Facility Score Critical Facility by FEMA's definition 3 Other essential assets 2 Non-critical and non-essential assets 1 Community impact is a function of the redundancy of the asset and the percentage of Stonington residents that would be impacted by failure of or damage to the asset. Figure 20 details the community impact scoring based on the percentage of residents impacted. Figure 20: Community Impact Scores Impact by % Community Impact Score 67-100% 3 34-66% 2 0-33% 1 Economic impact is a function of the value of the asset. Facilities with important and valuable infrastructure and equipment are considered high economic value and would have a high replacement cost if damaged during a storm event. Figure 21 displays the economic impact scores: Figure 21: Economic Impact Scores economy and historic character of Stonington. Because we do not have detailed statistics on the value of tourism on Stonington’s economy, we conducted a high-level assessment to identify important tourism assets and districts. Tourism and historic resources in the Town seem to be closely correlated, as the most important historic districts also seem to be the most popular tourist destinations. Any asset or district identified by the Town as an important historic district or tourist destination was given a score of three, including Mystic Seaport, Mechanic Street Historic District, Mystic Bridge Historic District, Rossie Velvet Historic District, and Stonington Borough Historic District. The vulnerability score was determined by taking an average of the critical facility, community impact, economic impact, and tourism/historic resources impact scores. The final risk score is a function of the combined hazard, exposure, and vulnerability scores. Risk Ranking Using this methodology, we created a risk score for each of the important community facilities and resources in the Town of Stonington in order to help the Town identify and prioritize Stonington’s most at-risk resources. Figure 22 and Figure 23 show the final risk ranking for Stonington’s community facilities, separated by ownership. The following abbreviations are used for each of the asset classes in Figures 22 and 23: Economic Importance Economic Impact Score CF Critical Facilities Important buildings and infrastructure 3 T Transportation Other community buildings 2 HR Historic Resources Open space and recreation areas 1 D&U Drainage & Utilties Lastly, a high-level analysis was conducted to capture the impact of a flood event on the tourism For more detail on the methodology and the full risk ranking, please refer to Appendix B. Coastal Risk Assessment 11 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Figure 22: Risk Ranking for Town and Borough-Owned Assets 12 Asset Asset Class Ownership Hazard Exposure Vulnerability Risk Masons Island Causeway CF Town 3 4 2.00 24 Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility CF Town 3 4 1.75 21 Mechanic Street Historic District HR Private and Town 3 4 1.75 21 Mystic Bridge Historic District HR Private and Town 3 4 1.75 21 Rossie Velvet Historic District HR Private and Town 3 4 1.75 21 Stonington Borough Historic District HR Private and Town 3 4 1.75 21 Boulder Avenue Pump Station D&U Town 3 4 1.50 18 Diving Street Pump Station D&U Town 3 4 1.50 18 River Road/Mary Hall Road Pump Station (Pump Station No. 3) D&U Town 3 4 1.50 18 Wolcott Avenue Pump Station D&U Town 3 4 1.50 18 River Road/Mechanic Street T Town 3 4 1.50 18 North Main Street T Town 3 4 1.50 18 Elm Street T Town and Borough 3 4 1.50 18 Flanders Road T Town 4 3 1.50 18 Cutler Street T Town 4 3 1.50 18 Town Dock CF Town 3 3 1.75 16 Catchbasins D&U Town 3 4 1.25 15 Outfalls D&U Town 3 4 1.25 15 Hewitt Road Pump Station D&U Town 3 3 1.50 14 Mechanic Street (Pump Station 1) D&U Town 3 3 1.50 14 Willow Street T Town 3 3 1.50 14 Water Street T Borough 3 3 1.50 14 Donahue Park CF Town 3 4 0.75 9 Ensign Lane Pump Station D&U Town 3 2 1.50 9 Former 4th District Voting Hall CF Town 3 3 1.00 9 Mystic River Park CF Town 3 4 0.75 9 Borough Hall CF Borough 3 2 1.25 8 Old Mystic Playground CF Town 3 3 0.75 7 Stonington Police Department CF Town 3 1 2.25 7 Stonington High School & Emergency Shelter CF Town 3 1 2.00 6 Borough Fire Station CF Borough 3 1 1.75 5 Old Mystic Pump Station D&U Town 3 1 1.50 5 Lindbergh Road Pump Station D&U Town 1 1 1.50 2 Spellman Park CF Town 1 1 0.75 1 Coastal Risk Assessment Figure 23: Risk Ranking for Assets not owned by the Town or Borough Asset Asset Class Ownership Hazard Exposure Vulnerability Risk Apple Rehab Mystic CF Private 3 4 2.00 24 Mystic Seaport CF Private 3 4 1.75 21 Greenmanville Ave Electrical Substation D&U Private 3 3 2.25 20 Cutler St Electrical Substation D&U Private 3 3 2.25 20 Amtrak Rail Line T Private 3 4 1.50 18 East Main Street T State 3 4 1.50 18 Greenmanville Avenue T State 3 4 1.50 18 North Water Street T State 3 4 1.50 18 Roosevelt Avenue T State 3 4 1.50 18 State Highway 27/Denison Avenue T State 3 4 1.50 18 Stonington Road T State 3 4 1.50 18 West Broad Street T State 3 4 1.50 18 Williams Avenue T State 3 4 1.50 18 Mystic Train Station CF Private 3 3 1.75 16 Mystic Fire Department CF Fire District 3 3 1.75 16 Quiambaug Fire Department CF Fire District 3 3 1.75 16 Alpha Avenue T State 3 3 1.50 14 Broadway Avenue T State and Town 3 3 1.50 14 Liberty Street T State 3 3 1.50 14 Westerly Bypass T State 3 3 1.50 14 Ocean Community YMCA CF Private 3 3 1.25 11 Stonington Community Center CF Private 3 3 1.25 11 Old Mystic Post Office CF Private 3 3 1.00 9 Dubois Beach CF Private 3 4 0.75 9 Barn Island Management Area CF State 3 4 0.75 9 Mystic Post Office CF Federal 3 3 1.00 9 Avalonia Land Conservancy (Ram Point) CF Private 3 4 0.75 9 Paffard Marsh Preserve CF Private 3 4 0.75 9 Denison Pequot Nature Center (Greenmanville Ave) CF Private 3 4 0.75 9 Denison Pequot Nature Center (Pequotsepos Rd) CF Private 3 4 0.75 9 Cottrell Marsh (owned) CF Private 3 4 0.75 9 TNC Gallup Salt Marsh (easement) CF Private 3 4 0.75 9 TNC Mason Island Company (easement) CF Private 3 4 0.75 9 South Broad Street T State 3 2 1.50 9 Whitehall Avenue T State 3 2 1.50 9 Pawcatuck Neighborhood Center CF Private 3 2 1.25 8 La Grua Center CF Private 3 2 1.25 8 Denison Pequotsepos Nature Center, Inc. CF Private 3 3 0.75 7 Coastal Risk Assessment 13 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Mystic Reservoir D&U Private 3 1 2.00 6 Pawcatuck Fire Station CF Fire District 3 1 1.75 5 Borough Post Office CF Federal 3 1 1.00 3 Anguilla Preserve CF Private 3 1 0.75 2 Avalonia Land Conservancy (N. Stonington Rd) CF Private 3 1 0.75 2 Avalonia Land Conservancy (North Main Street) CF Private 3 1 0.75 2 Pawcatuck Little League CF Private 3 1 0.75 2 Stonington Soccer Club CF Private 3 1 0.75 2 Based on this ranking and local knowledge of the importance of community facilities, we identified the top 5 and top 25 most at-risk assets in the community. These assets were carried into the next phase of the assessment: developing potential resilience solutions (see Section 3: Resilience Solutions). For each of the top 5 assets, we developed a detailed assessment of potential resilience solutions for each asset. Those assets include: • Apple Rehab Mystic • Masons Island Causeway • Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility • Village of Mystic • Models for a typical single-family home and typical mixed-use building in Stonington While single-family homes and businesses were not part of the initial risk assessment, feedback from the community indicated that residents were very interested in strategies for protecting their homes and businesses. Therefore, a typical single-family home and mixed-use building were included as part of the detailed resilience solutions. Inclusion of typical buildings seeks to assist residents in understanding how to make their properties more resilient. In addition, there was interest in understanding the resilience solutions that could be employed on a neighborhood and regional scale. As such, a study of the Mystic neighborhood was also included in the resilience solutions as an example of how to develop neighborhood-scale resilience strategies. For the top 25 assets, a higher-level analysis was completed to identify potential resilience solutions for the Town to further investigate as it continues its coastal resilience planning efforts. Figure 24 displays the top 25 most at-risk assets. Figure 24: 25 Most At-Risk Assets in Stonington Top 25 Assets Masons Island Causeway Mystic Bridge Historic District State Highway 1 Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility Rossie Velvet Mill Historic District Cutler St. Electrical Substation Boulder Avenue Pump Station Stonington Borough Historic District Mystic Train Station & Rail Line River Road/Mary Hall Road Pump Station Apple Rehab Mystic Barn Island Management Area Stonington Wastewater Treatment Facility Mystic Seaport Town Dock Stonington Community Center (COMO) Mystic Fire Department Mystic River Park, Cottrell Street Greenmanville Avenue Electrical Substation State Highway 27 Lords Point neighborhood Quiambaug Fire Department Donahue Park Murphy’s Point neighborhood Mechanic Street Historic District 14 Coastal Risk Assessment Figure 25: Potential Property and Land Flood Vulnerability in the Town of Stonington Source: All figures were calculated using flood scenarios produced by Woods Hole Group and 2016 Town of Stonington Assessor’s data. Property value is based on values from the 2016 Stonington Assessor’s data. Values have not been adjusted for inflation or future changes to property values. Community-wide and Neighborhood Vulnerability While this study was largely focused on assessing the vulnerability and risk of key community facilities and assets, it is important to understand Stonington’s vulnerability on a larger-scale. On a community-wide scale, 27% of the total land area is anticipated to be impacted by the 1000year coastal flood event in 2050; this accounts for approximately 5,800 acres of land. The parcels in the impact area account for 53% of Stonington’s total tax base, which represents approximately $2 billion worth of property value. Therefore, a flood event of that scale would have a significant impact on the Town’s residents, and its economy. 27% of the total land area in Stonington is anticipated to be impacted by the 1000year coastal flood event in 2050. This plan focuses on the assets that are vulnerable to coastal flood impacts. However, it is important to document the areas and assets in Stonington that are not vulnerable to coastal flooding. Identifying these locations and facilities can ensure that they are leveraged for planning, response and recovery functions during future flooding events. All of Stonington’s schools are located outside of flood-prone locations, which is important both from the perspective of protecting the children in the community as well as serving as a community gathering space and shelter during an emergency event. It is also important to assess dependencies between assets that have higher and lower vulnerability. For example, if the Town’s emergency shelter is protected from flooding, but the roads leading to the facility are flooded the Town is still exposed to significant risk during a flood event. Therefore, we looked at the vulnerability of Stonington, as a community, and assessed that vulnerability as it relates to the Town’s critical assets, transportation systems, historic resources, and natural resources.8 Coastal Risk Assessment 15 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Built Environment and Physical Infrastructure The built environment and physical infrastructure incorporated into this assessment include community assets and infrastructure, critical resources, and key physical assets and systems that are important to the community and the daily operations of the Town. Several utilities and infrastructure facilities may be vulnerable to flood impacts, including the Mystic and Stonington Wastewater Treatment Facilities, the Boulder Avenue and River Road Pump Stations, and the Greenmanville Avenue and Cutler Street Electrical Substations. Each of these facilities are critical to the efficient operations of the Town; therefore the Town should ensure that appropriate measures are taken to protect these facilities from flood impacts and ensure redundancy of critical operations within and between the facilities. Additional vulnerable community facilities include the Town Dock, Mystic and Quiambaug Fire Departments, the Apple Rehab Mystic facility, and the Mystic Seaport. Impacts to any of these facilities could have significant implications for the Town. The Town Dock is an important economic resource for the Town and if the dock is not able to continue its daily operations, due to flood damage to the structure, there could be cascading implications throughout Stonington’s economy. The Mystic and Quiambaug fire stations are important to the Town’s daily operations and emergency response; flood impacts to these facilities or the surrounding roadways may impact public health and safety and limit the ability of first responders to effectively respond to an emergency. Apple Rehab Mystic is one of the only medical facilities within Stonington and may be vital for providing medical support during an emergency event. Lastly, Mystic Seaport is one of the key economic drivers within the Town, as it attracts more than 250,000 visitors each year and Mystic, as a whole, accounts for approximately 29% of 16 Coastal Risk Assessment the total traveler spending in Connecticut.9 Thus, each of these facilities provides a critical resource for Stonington and is essential to both the daily functionality of the Town and the operations of the Town during an emergency event. Additional community facilities that may be impacted by coastal flood events include: several additional pump stations, Borough Hall, the Stonington Police Department, Stonington High School, the Mystic, Old Mystic, and Pawcatuck Post Offices, and several important community centers (including the La Grua Center, Stonington Community Center, the Former Fourth District Voting Hall, Pawcatuck Neighborhood Center, and the Ocean Community YMCA). While these facilities are less vulnerable than some of Stonington’s other physical assets, impacts to each of these facilities would negatively impact the quality of life and daily operations of Stonington. Transportation Stonington’s transportation network may also be impacted by coastal flooding. The Town has already experienced significant flood impacts to Mason’s Island Causeway during Superstorm Sandy and other past flood events. Additional impacts from coastal flooding may affect Route 27, as it extends down through Mystic, and Route 1, which runs in close proximity to the coast of Stonington between Mystic and Pawcatuck. These three roadways are the most vulnerable to flooding in Stonington. While Mason’s Island Causeway is not a major commuter corridor, it is the only means of access to and egress from the island. Therefore, flooding of the causeway will significantly impact residents of Mason’s Island, limiting their ability to get on or off the island and causing significant health and safety concerns during an emergency event, given the lack of access to food and healthcare facilities on the island. Figure 26: 2050 At-Risk Historic Structures in Stonington by Historic District Route 27 and Route 1 are both major roadways in Stonington; therefore, flooding along these roadways may impact the mobility of Stonington residents, including their daily commutes to work. ington. Similar impacts would be likely to effect the surrounding Towns, resulting in cascading impacts to Connecticut’s economy. In addition to roadways, the Northeast Corridor railway is highly vulnerable to flood impacts in Stonington. The rail line runs along the coast throughout Stonington and is expected to experience significant flood impacts. With over 260 million annual passenger trips along the Northeast Corridor, and 25,704 annual trips through Mystic amounting to $1,292,097 in annual station revenue10, flooding and damage along this railway would have significant impacts to Stonington and cascading impacts throughout the region. Impacts to the railroad infrastructure and Mystic train station would likely result in a decrease in tourism and would impact commuters who rely on the train for their daily commute in and out of StonFigure 27: 2050 At-Risk Historic Properties in Stonington Coastal Risk Assessment 17 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Smaller roadways within Stonington may also see significant flood impacts, but those roadways are less likely to significantly impact the Town, its residents, and the economy. See Figures 22 and 23 for the minor roadways that may be impacted. Historic Resources Stonington’s historic resources are essential to the character of the community and are important drivers for the Town’s tourism economy. The Town has 854 historic properties that are vulnerable to coastal flooding by 2050. Of those, 838 are located in the Town’s four largest historic coastal districts: Rossie Velvet Mill Historic District, Mystic Bridge Historic District, Stonington Borough Historic District, and Mechanic Street Historic District. While all four districts are vulnerable to coastal flood impacts, the Mystic Bridge Historic District is the most vulnerable to coastal flooding and has the greatest number of atrisk historic homes in Stonington (see Figure 18). Historic resources are particularly important assets to protect, because the assets are often irreplaceable and damage to these assets will also diminish the community’s character and quality of life. The Figure 28: Benefits of Green Infrastructure and Open Space 18 Coastal Risk Assessment physical damages sustained by historic buildings can be more expensive to repair, and losses of historic structures can impact the tourism attractiveness of the neighborhood. These historic districts are largely comprised of historic buildings; therefore, working with the State Historic Preservation Office and local historic societies to implement building-scale resilience improvements is important. Some building-scale improvements will not be feasible, because they will alter the historic nature of the building; as a result, it is important that the Town and historic commissions work together to maintain the character of the structure while also protecting the asset from future flood impacts. Natural Resources Natural resources are an important part of any community; they contribute to the character of the Town and quality of life of its residents while also providing important flood mitigation benefits. Sea level rise and coastal flooding will have a significant impact on these natural resources if they are not properly protected. Approximately 45% of the Town’s current land area is either vacant land, managed or committed open space, or agricultural land; therefore, almost half of the Town’s current land area provides an environmental benefit to the community. Trees, parks, and open space are valuable resources that provide significant environmental, social, and economic benefits to a community, as demonstrated in Figure 28. • Old Mystic Playground Sea level rise and storm surge can negatively impact natural resources by damaging or killing trees, plants and grass as a result of salt water inundation and causing flood damage to recreational facilities. The most vulnerable open space in Stonington is the Barn Island Management Area. Barn Island Management Area is a particularly valuable resource; with over 1,000 acres, it is Connecticut’s largest, most diverse, and ecologically significant coastal wildlife management area.11 In addition to that significant protected open space, Mystic River Park and Donahue Park are also expected to experience significant flooding. Additional at-risk open space includes the properties listed below. More detail on the risk ranking for these assets can be found in Figures 22 and 23. • Avalonia Land Conservancy (North Main Street) • Mystic Reservoir • Anguilla Preserve • Avalonia Land Conservancy (N. Stonington Rd) • Pawcatuck Little League • Stonington Soccer Club • Spellman Park In addition to the impact of flooding on the Town’s environmental resources, Stonington’s shoreline is experiencing significant changes • Dubois Beach • Avalonia Land Conservancy (Ram Point) • Paffard Marsh Preserve • Denison Pequot Nature Center (Cottrell St) • Denison Pequot Nature Center (Pequotsepos Rd) • Cottrell Marsh (owned) • TNC Gallup Salt Marsh (easement) • TNC Mason Island Company (easement) • Denison Pequotsepos Nature Center, Inc. Figure 29: Anticipated Salt Marsh Advancement in NW Stoninton by the 2080s Coastal Risk Assessment 19 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Figure 30: Anticipated Salt Marsh Advancement in SW Stonington by the 2080s Figure 31: Anticipated Salt Marsh Advancement in SE Stonington by the 2080s Figure 32: Stonington Neighborhoods Analyzed as part of the Neighborhood-Level Analysis 20 Coastal Risk Assessment due to the advancement of salt marsh from the coast into upland areas of Town, as a result of sea level rise.12 In total, Stonington is expected to see approximately 2000 acres of salt marsh advancement by 2080; 13% of that advancement is expected to affect land areas that are not suitable for advancement, because they are currently developed with buildings and associated infrastructure. Thus, it is important that the Town protect the 87% of identified land area that is currently open space and therefore, suitable for salt marsh advancement. This will allow the Town to maintain its wetland resources into the future. In addition, the Town must work with property owners whose land will be in direct conflict with the salt marsh advancement in order to protect those properties from impacts associated with this advancement. The Village of Mystic is particularly vulnerable to salt marsh advancement, which could result in negative impacts to Stonington’s economy and tourism industry, historical resources, and property values (see Figure 30). In addition to an overview of the Town’s vulnerability, we looked at the vulnerability of seven distinct neighborhoods within Stonington, as identified in Figure 32. Old Mystic Portions of Old Mystic are highly vulnerable to flooding; however, the neighborhood, as a whole, is less vulnerable to coastal flooding than many of the other neighborhoods throughout Stonington. By 2050, 252 properties and 334 acres of land will be vulnerable to coastal flooding. This amounts to approximately, 18% of the properties in Old Mystic and 6% of the total land area. In addition, approximately 28% of the property value in Old Mystic, amounting to $150 million, is at risk from flooding by 2050. In addition, several Figure 33: Potential Property and Land Flood Vulnerability in Old Mystic Source: All figures were calculated using flood scenarios produced by Woods Hole Group and 2016 Town of Stonington Assessor’s data. Property value is based on values from the 2016 Stonington Assessor’s data. Values have not been adjusted for inflation or future changes to property values. Coastal Risk Assessment 21 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan major roadways may experience significant flooding, including portions of Pequot Trail, Whitehall Avenue, Main Street and North Stonington Road. While the Old Mystic Fire Department is not technically vulnerable to flooding, impacts to these major roadways would significantly impact access to and egress from the fire station during a flood event. Additionally, the Old Mystic Post Office is highly vulnerable to flooding, both the facility itself and the surrounding roadways that would allow access to the facility. While the nearby pump station facility is not vulnerable, it is likely to see a greater volume of water flowing through the Figure 34: Old Mystic Flood Vulnerability (2050 100-year Storm) 22 Coastal Risk Assessment facility during a storm event and should be further assessed to understand the capacity of the facility and the potential impacts from projected flooding. It is likely that any flood event would also be accompanied by increased precipitation, which would also impact the pump station’s ability to operate effectively. There are a variety of solutions that could be implemented to protect Old Mystic from the impacts of coastal flooding. On the neighborhood scale, the I-95 Regional Adaptation and the Mystic Regional Adaptation, detailed in Section 3: Resilience Solutions, would both provide significant flood protection for Old Mystic. In addition, targeted green infrastructure solutions along Route 27, Pequot Trail, Main Street and North Stonington Road could provide beneficial flood mitigation. At the asset level, at-risk single-family homes and businesses in Old Mystic should consider implementing the building-scale solutions suggested for the typical single-family home and mixed-use business in Stonington, detailed in Section 3: Resilience Solutions. These solutions include elevation of the building and/or critical mechanical and electrical systems, temporary flood barriers, and landscaping solutions to reduce flood impacts. For more detail on these potential solutions, please refer to the Resilience Solutions Memorandum in Appendix C. Mystic erty value, will be at risk from coastal flooding. From a statistical perspective, these numbers account for 71% of total land area, 76% of parcels in Mystic, and 77% of the property value in Mystic As one of the main historical neighborhoods in Stonington, damage to the buildings located here may be more costly than damage to a typical single-family home. The physical damages sustained by historic buildings can be more expensive to repair, and losses of historic structures can impact the tourism attractiveness of the neighborhood. Both the Mystic Bridge Historic District and the Rossie Velvet Mill Historic District area located in Mystic. Within these districts, approximately 450 structures are at risk from coastal flooding by 2050, with the majority of the buildings dating to the mid-to-late 1800s. The Village of Mystic is a highly vulnerable vilDamage to cultural assets such as the Mystic Sealage within Stonington, not only from the physical port will have a significant impact on the tourism impacts of flooding on the community’s assets and economy. In addition, coastal flood impacts to one properties, but also as a main driver of tourism of the region’s critical transportation links – the and as home to one of the Town’s most important historic districts. On the asset level, Mystic Post Office, Apple Rehab Mystic, Mystic Fire Station, Mystic Train Station, Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility, the Amtrak Rail Line, Mystic Seaport, the Greenmanville Electrical Substation and the wastewater pump station are all vulnerable to the impacts of flooding. In addition, there will be limited access to each of these facilities as a result of the flooding along some of the main roadways, including East Main Street, Broadway Avenue, Williams Avenue, and Denison Avenue. By 2050, 889 acres of land and 1,259 properties, amounting to Figure 35: Potential Property and Land Flood Vulnerability in Mystic approximately $472 million in prop- Source: All figures were calculated using flood scenarios produced by Woods Hole Group and 2016 Town of Stonington Assessor’s data. Property value is based on values from the 2016 Stonington Assessor’s data. Values have not been adjusted for inflation or future changes to property values. Coastal Risk Assessment 23 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Figure 36: Mystic Flood Vulnerability (2050 100-year Storm) northeast regional Amtrak service – as well as the Mystic Train Station could have a significant impact on regional mobility and tourism accessibility. For details on potential resilience solutions for Mystic, refer to Section 3: Resilience Solutions. The Village of Mystic has significant value to the economy of Stonington due to its value as a tourist destination and the significant cultural resources in the neighborhood; therefore, the village would benefit from a comprehensive regional scale solution, as detailed in the Mystic Regional Adaptation in Section 3: Resilience Solutions. It would be difficult to protect all of Mystic’s valuable and irre- 24 Coastal Risk Assessment placeable assets without a more holistic resilience solution. However, individual asset-level solutions should also be considered as a complementary effort to any regional-scale solutions. Suggested solutions for the Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility, Apple Rehab Mystic, and neighborhood-scale solutions for the Village of Mystic are detailed in Section 3: Resilience Solutions. These solutions include a targeted green infrastructure corridor along Route 1, a living shoreline, and hard infrastructure solutions along the coast. For more detail on these potential solutions, please refer to Resilience Solutions Memorandum in Appendix C. Figure 37: Masons Island Flood Vulnerability (2050 100-year Storm) Masons Island Masons Island is a particularly vulnerable neighborhood in Stonington, largely because of the vulnerability of Masons Island Causeway. The Causeway is susceptible to flooding in the present-day and was one of the community assets most impacted during Superstorm Sandy in October 2012. In addition to the Causeway, residents of Masons Island could experience additional mobility issues due to significant flood impacts to some of the roads running throughout the island, including Ram Point Road, Old North Road, and portions of Chippechaug Trail. In the present-day, 319 of the 412 total parcels on the island may be impacted by a flood or storm event; these parcels account for approximately 87% of the land area on Masons Island and 83% of the total property value (approximately $240 million). While there is a slight increase in vulnerability by 2050, the increase is limited: approximately, five additional properties and two additional acres of land are vulnerable to flood impacts by 2050. Figure 38 displays the change in vulnerability between present-day, 2030, and 2050. These residential areas will be significantly vulnerable during a storm event, since Masons Island Causeway is the only means of access to Coastal Risk Assessment 25 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan and egress from the Island. Therefore, the biggest concern for Masons Island is that without significant investment in protecting the causeway, any residents of Masons Island would effectively be stranded during any flood event that impacts the causeway. For more information on the vulnerability of Masons Island Causeway and the potential resilience strategies, see Section 3: Resilience Solutions. Figure 38: Potential Property and Land Flood Vulnerability on Masons Island Source: All figures were calculated using flood scenarios produced by Woods Hole Group and 2016 Town of Stonington Assessor’s data. Property value is based on values from the 2016 Stonington Assessor’s data. Values have not been adjusted for inflation or future changes to property values. The most important solution for Masons Island is the suggested implementation of a bridge in place of the existing Masons Island Causeway. However, the homes on Masons Island are also at significant risk to flood impacts and individual homeowners should consider elevation as well as the other resilience solutions for single-family homes detailed in Section 3: Resilience Solutions. Masons Island could also be a good candidate for a targeted floodplain buyout or acquisition program, given the significant risk to the homes on the island as well as the access and egress issues caused by the low elevation of the existing causeway. Lords Point Figure 39: Potential Property and Land Flood Vulnerability in Lords Point Source: All figures were calculated using flood scenarios produced by Woods Hole Group and 2016 Town of Stonington Assessor’s data. Property value is based on values from the 2016 Stonington Assessor’s data. Values have not been adjusted for inflation or future changes to property values. 26 Coastal Risk Assessment Lords Point is arguably one of the most vulnerable neighborhoods in Stonington, with nearly every parcel experiencing flood impacts by 2050: 59 of the 60 acres in the neighborhood may see some level of flooding in 2050 and approximately 279 of the 280 total properties will similarly be impacted, amounting to approximately $104 million in Figure 40: Lords Point Flood Vulnerability (2050 100-year Storm) property value. These figures are only slightly higher than the present-day vulnerability of 273 properties (98% of total parcels), 58 acres (96% of total land area), and $102 million of property value (95% of total property value) experiencing some level of vulnerability to flood impacts. In addition to the property vulnerability, it is important to note that the Amtrak rail line and all three major pump stations are expected to be impacted by the 2050 100-year storm event. The impacts to these pump stations could be further exacerbated by increased precipitation accompanying a coastal flooding event. If these pump stations are not able to handle the capacity, the result could be more severe flooding as well as significant public health and environmental concerns resulting from the release of untreated sewage. Lords Point may also be a good candidate for a targeted floodplain buyout or relocation program, due to the significant vulnerability of the properties in the neighborhood. In the absence of a comprehensive buyout program, elevation of individual homes may be particularly important in this neighborhood. In addition, the portion of the Northeast Corridor rail line running through Lords Point is highly vulnerable to flood impacts and may benefit from targeted green infrastructure solutions along the rail corridor in addition to potentially raising the rail line. Coastal Risk Assessment 27 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan greater than five feet of flooding. Latimer Point is comprised of a lot of valuable marshland, open space and trees; the Town should investigate ways to utilize these natural systems to provide more comprehensive natural flood retention in this area. It may be a good candidate for a living shoreline or other green infrastructure solution. In addition, Latimer Point Road is highly vulnerable to flooding and as the only means of access to the homes on Latimer Point, implementing resilience solutions to protect this road would be valuable. Homes on Latimer Point should investigate the feasibility of elevation of the home, Figure 41: Potential Property and Land Flood Vulnerability in Latimer Point elevation of critical systems and filling Source: All figures were calculated using flood scenarios produced by Woods Hole Group and 2016 Town of Stonington Assessor’s data. Property value is based on values from the 2016 Stonington the basement, and other flood protecAssessor’s data. Values have not been adjusted for inflation or future changes to property values. tion mechanisms, including temporary flood barriers and landscaping solutions to reduce Latimer Point flood impacts. For more detail on these potential Latimer Point is also a highly vulnerable neighsolutions, please refer to the Resilience Solutions borhood. The Quiambaug Fire Station (and access Memorandum in Appendix X. roads to the fire station), the Amtrak rail line, and portions of Stonington Road are all expected to be Stonington Borough impacted by coastal flooding under the 2050 100Several important community facilities are vulneryear storm scenario. In addition, access to and able to coastal flooding in Stonington Borough, egress from Latimer Point is likely to be restricted including the Wastewater Treatment Facility, the as a result of significant potential flooding across Borough Fire Station, the Cutler Street Electrical Latimer Point Road, which is the only roadways Substation, the pump station, Amtrak rail line, and extending across Latimer Point and connecting it several important roadways. Access to the Borto the rest of Stonington. Approximately 76 propough and emergency egress may be difficult durerties and 36 acres of land in Latimer Point (79% ing a storm event as well since all major roadways of the total properties and 99% of the land area) are expected to experience some level of floodwill be exposed to flooding in 2050. This accounts ing, including Water Street, Cutler Street, Alpha for approximately 88% of the property value ($42 Avenue, and Main Street. Overall, 602 properties million) in that neighborhood. As shown in Figure and approximately $370 million in property value 38, access to the neighborhood is also likely to could be impacted by coastal flooding under the be difficult under the 100-year storm scenario, 2050 storm scenarios. This amounts to 88% of the with portions of Latimer Point Road experiencing properties and approximately 91% of the proper- 28 Coastal Risk Assessment Figure 42: Latimer Point Flood Vulnerability (2050 100-year Storm) Figure 43: Stonington Borough Flood Vulnerability (2050 100-year Storm) Coastal Risk Assessment 29 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Stonington Borough is a particularly important, and particularly vulnerable, neighborhood in Stonington. Therefore, a variety of solutions will need to be implemented to protect the Borough’s critical assets and resources. While the Stonington Borough Regional Adaptation will protect a portion of the Borough, most the critical resources in the Borough will still be exposed to a significant amount of flooding; therefore, a combination of green and grey infrastructure solutions may be needed to protect the Borough. These solutions may include sea walls and offshore breakwaters as well as Figure 44: Potential Property and Land Flood Vulnerability in Stonington Borough green infrastructure solutions along Source: All figures were calculated using flood scenarios produced by Woods Hole Group and 2016 Water Street and other vulnerable Town of Stonington Assessor’s data. Property value is based on values from the 2016 Stonington roadways. At the asset level, at-risk Assessor’s data. Values have not been adjusted for inflation or future changes to property values. single-family homes and businesses should consider implementing the building-scale ty value in Stonington Borough. In addition, 134 solutions suggested for the typical single-family acres of land may be vulnerable to flood impacts, home and mixed-use businesses in Stonington, amounting to 89% of the land area in the Bordetailed in Section 3: Resilience Solutions. These ough. solutions include elevation of the building and/or critical mechanical and electrical systems, temAs the Town already experienced during Superporary flood barriers, and landscaping solutions storm Sandy, the Town Dock is also likely to be to reduce flood impacts. For more detail on these impacted by coastal flooding and may sustain potential solutions, please refer to the Resilience damage equal to or greater than what occurred Solutions Memorandum in Appendix C. during Superstorm Sandy, which could result in detrimental effects on the portion of the Town’s Pawcatuck economy that stems from fishing if the dock is not While many of the assets in Pawcatuck are located operational. outside of the flood-prone areas, several wastewaThe Stonington Borough Historic District is also likely to be impacted by coastal flooding, with approximately 294 historic buildings at risk from flooding by 2050. These buildings are some of the oldest in Stonington, with the majority constructed in the mid-1850s. 30 Coastal Risk Assessment ter pump stations are vulnerable to flood impacts. As mentioned in previous neighborhood analyses, this flood vulnerability could be further exacerbated by increased precipitation during a coastal flood event. Further analysis of the potential combined coastal flooding and stormwater flooding should be completed in order to understand the Figure 45: Lower Pawcatuck Flood Vulnerability (2050 100-year Storm) Figure 46: Downtown Pawcatuck Flood Vulnerability (2050 100-year Storm) Coastal Risk Assessment 31 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan full vulnerability of the stormwater management system. In addition to the pump stations, River Road, Mechanic Street, and portions of Broad Street could all experience flood impacts. Specifically, a significant amount of flooding extends across Osbrook Point and is likely to cause access and egress issues along the roadway, extending down into Pawcatuck Point. However, impacts to these roadways would not cause the same level of access and egress issues as other neighborhoods may experience, because there are additional travel options within the neighborhood. Pawcatuck is also home to the Mechanic Street Historic District, which encompasses over 400 historic buildings, including a large mill complex with seven major historic industrial mill buildings. The mill buildings were constructed between 1855 and 1920 while the historic homes were constructed between 1830 and 1920. Within this district, Figure 47: Potential Property and Land Flood Vulnerability in Pawcatuck Source: All figures were calculated using flood scenarios produced by Woods Hole Group and 2016 Town of Stonington Assessor’s data. Property value is based on values from the 2016 Stonington Assessor’s data. Values have not been adjusted for inflation or future changes to property values. 32 Coastal Risk Assessment approximately 88 structures, with an average building construction date of 1870, are exposed to flooding. While Pawcatuck has several valuable assets and cultural resources that should be protected, statistically, it is one of the least vulnerable neighborhoods in terms of percentage of assets and land area impacted, with only 21% of properties, 22% of land area, and 27% of total property value in vulnerable flood locations. However, Pawcatuck is the largest neighborhood; therefore, the total numbers of impacted properties in land area is actually one of the highest in Stonington, with 1007 acres of land, 709 properties, and $251 million of property value potentially at-risk from flooding by 2050. Due to the size of the Pawcatuck neighborhood and its geographic location within Stonington, several larger-scale regional solutions may be beneficial in Pawcatuck. A portion of the Village of Pawcatuck is currently protected by a flood control structure constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 1960s. The levee and fate system was constructed to protect the manufacturing core of Pawcatuck from flooding. This structure is still operational today and provides significant flood protection to downtown Pawcatuck; however, the structure was never accredited by FEMA and thereofre, does not provide relief from FEMA’s federal flood hazard regulations. Although the flood protection impacts of this structure have not been analyzed as part of this report, the Town of Stonington recently allocated funding to conduct an in-depth study this flood control structure and the lack fo accreditation. Regional Adaptation, could provide significant protection to the neighborhoods in Pawcatuck. In addition, Pawcatuck’s natural coastline may make it a good candidate for natural solutions and green infrastructure, including the potential for the implementation of a living shoreline. The significant green and open space in Pawcatuck should be utilized for green infrastructure solutions to flood mitigation. While the Barn Island Management Area provides significant opportunity for implementing a living shoreline and other natural solutions near Pawcatuck, it is also home to valuable ecosystems and habitats that will need to be protected from the negative impacts of coastal flooding and saltwater inundation. Impacts to these valuable environmental resources should be considered as part of any potential flood mitigation solutions in the area. As with each of the other neighborhoods, at-risk single-family homes and businesses in Pawcatuck should consider implementing the building-scale solutions suggested for the typical single-family home and mixed-use business in Stonington.These solutions include elevation of the building and/or critical mechanical and electrical systems, temporary flood barriers, and landscaping solutions to reduce flood impacts. For more detail on these potential solutions, please refer to the Resilience Solutions Memorandum in Appendix C. Additional flood control structures that could be constructed to protect the Village of Pawcatuck are detailed in Section 3: Resilience Solutions. One of those solutions, the Pawcatuck River Coastal Risk Assessment 33 .42 I Section 3: Resilience Solutions Overview of Resilience Strategies The following table details a wide variety of potential resilience strategies with an overview of the strategy, the benefits of implementing the strategy and the regulatory and cost constraints that the Town should consider for each of these strategies. Resilience Solution Description Benefits Regulatory Constraints Cost PROTECTION         “Hard” Solutions Engineering solutions may include bulkheads, seawalls, levees or revetments, constructed out of stone or concrete, to protect exposed shorelines for erosion and coastal flooding. Can protect the largest High area of the Town with one solution, which reduces the need for individual building adaptations. $$$$$$$ Living Shoreline Living shorelines are comprised of a system of green infrastructure and natural solutions that create a buffer along the water’s edge to minimize erosion and absorb wave action. Provide flood protection along the shoreline and the least damaging solution to surrounding environmental resources. High $$$$$$$ Tide Gates Tide gates are deployable floodgates that can control water flow and prevent flooding. They can vary in size and are typically installed as part of a larger flood control system. Can protect a large area of High the Town without causing significant impact to environmental resources. $$$$$$$ Floodplain Buyout and Acquisition Programs Floodplain buyout and acquisition programs are voluntary programs where homeowners in at-risk flood areas can sell their homes to the government. The government will either remove those properties from the floodplain and return the land to nature or redevelop those properties in a more flood resilient manner. Provide a long-term solu- High tion to protecting private property by removing the structures from the floodplain or ensuring that they are better protected. Could remove the need for an expensive engineering solution to protect the shoreline. $$$$$ Relocation Relocation refers to the process of relocating structures outside of the floodplain. Provide a long-term solution to protecting private property by removing the structures from the floodplain. Could remove the need for an expensive engineering solution that protection the shoreline. $$$$$ High Cost Legend $ < $100,000 $$ $100,000 - $1,000,000 $$$ $1,000,000 - $10,000,000 $$$$ > $10,000,000 Resilience Solutions 35 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan 36 Raised Streets Roadways that are prone to flooding can be raised to effectively elevate the roadway above the flood elevation. Solves access and egress issues during flood events by protecting roadways from flooding. Wet Floodproofing Wet floodproofing is the practice of allowing floodwaters to enter and exit a building during a flood event. Typically, that means using flood-resistant building materials and elevating mechanical and electrical systems about the design flood elevation (DFE). Lowers risk of structural Low damage from flooding and can be cheaper than dry floodproofing. It also will not alter the exterior appearance of the structure. $-$$ Dry Floodproofing Dry floodproofing is the process of making a structure watertight below the design flood elevation (DFE), so that floodwaters do not enter the structure. Some elements of dry floodproofing include installing backflow preventers and watertight shields and sealing walls with watertight coatings. Several floodproofing Low measures can be combined to protect a structure from flooding and does not require additional land because solutions are applied to the building. Minimal alteration to the external appearance of the structure. $ Floodplain Policies and Regulations Floodplain policies and regulations can be amended to include flood resilience considerations for new construction or renovations. Innovative financing policies, such as tax increment financing (TIF) can also be employed to help fund community resilience projects. Updating policies and regulations is entirely within the Town’s control and these strategies can be used to require investment in resilience, rather than relying on voluntary participation. Medium $ Offshore Breakwaters Offshore breakwaters are stone or concrete structures constructed off the coast to absorb wave energy before the waves reach the shore. Reduce the need for sea walls and other solutions along the shoreline and could protect a large area of the Town. High $$$$$$$ Hurricane Barriers Hurricane barriers are permanent barriers typically constructed across a harbor or other water opening, extending across the water to the land on either side. Reduce the need for sea walls and other solutions along the shoreline and could protect a large area of the Town. High $$$$$$$ Temporary Flood Barriers Temporary flood barriers are barriers that can be constructed prior to a flood event and deconstructed after the event. They can range significantly in cost and construction effort, from sandbags to deployable barriers that rise automatically as floodwaters rise. Can provide effect flood protection, are reusable and easy to deploy, and do not require building or site modifications. Low $-$$ Resilience Solutions Medium $$$ Figure 48: Examples of Living Shoreline Strategies Figure 49: Examples of “Hard” Engineering Solutions Figure 50: Example of a Tide Gate at the Herring River Restoration Project in Wellfleet, MA Figure 52: Example of a Breakwater in Stonington, CT Figure 51: Example hurricane barrier from New Bedford, MA Figure 53: Example of a Temporary Flood Barrier along the Thames River Resilience Solutions 37 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Figure 54: Example of a Raised Street in Miami, FL Figure 55: Wet Floodproofing Strategies Figure 56: Dry Floodproofing Strategies 38 Resilience Solutions ADAPTATION         Buoyant Architecture Buoyant architecture allows buildings to rise and fall in response to changing water levels, either by constructing buildings on floating barges or constructing buildings on the ground with an amphibious foundation that will allow the structure to float as necessary. Can contribute to waterMedium front development and responds dynamically to rising sea levels and storm surges. $$ Elevation Structures can be elevated on piles in order to raise the structure about the design flood elevation. Other methods of elevation may include modifying the topography of the site or abandonment of the first floor. Protects buildings from wave action and flooding and often helps reduce flood insurance premiums. $-$$ Protecting and Elevating Critical Mechanical and Electrical Systems Mechanical and electrical systems are typically located in the basement of a building, the area most vulnerable to flooding. Elevating critical equipment about design flood elevation or relocating equipment to a higher floor will protect these critical systems from flood impacts. Protects critical infrastruc- Low ture from flooding and allows for the building to maintain functionality during a flood event. $-$$ Backflow Preventers During a flood event, pipes may get inundated with flood waters, resulting in the unwanted flow of water in the reverse direction. A backflow valve will prevent the backflow of these contaminated waters into a building. Protects buildings and potable water sources from contaminated flood waters. Reduces public health concerns during flood events. Low $ Sump Pumps Sump pumps are used to discharge unwanted flood waters that may enter a building during a flood event. These pumps are generally used in conjunction with other floodproofing techniques. Allows for quick drainage of water that enters a building and can be combined with other floodproofing measures. Low $ Basement Fill Filling the basement of a property is often an effective flood protection measure if all critical equipment has been relocated from the basement and the first floor of the property is above the design flood elevation. Protects building and Low critical systems from flood damage and can be more cost-effective than elevating the structure. $ Operable Windows Making sure that all windows can be opened and closed is important as the windows may be used as emergency evacuation routes during a flood event. Provide passive ventiLow lation and temperature control, minimize urban heat island impacts, and provide a method of evacuating buildings during flood events. $ Medium Resilience Solutions 39 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Figure 57: Example of Buoyant Architecture Figure 58: Example of an Elevated Home in Lindenhurst, NY Figure 60: Example of a Backflow Preventer Figure 59: Example of Protecting and Elevating Critical Equipment Figure 61: Example of Green Infrastructure Figure 62: Diagram of a Sump Pump 40 Resilience Solutions Underground Power Lines Building power lines underground instead of the traditional above-ground power lines can provide more reliable service and reduce power outages. Less prone to physical High deterioration and damage from storms, high wind, and downed trees, which all contribute to reduced service reliability. $$$ Green Infrastructure Green infrastructure is a small improvement that can reduce flood impacts while also providing co-benefits to the community. Some examples include: permeable paving, green roofs, bioswales and rain gardens, and rainwater harvesting. Reducing flood impacts, Low beautifying the community, improving air quality, providing more outdoor space, and reducing urban heat island impacts. Solutions can also be scaled to the site constraints and budget. $ Securable and Removable Equipment In some cases, equipment may not Protects equipment and Low need to be elevated. If it is acceptable critical systems from damfor equipment to get wet, making sure age from flood events. that the equipment is fully secured and anchored to prevent flotation in flood waters is important. In other cases, investing in equipment that can be removed prior to a flood event, may be a valuable investment. $ BACKUP         Microgrid Microgrids are small-scale electric grids that can provide power to a certain site or neighborhood. They operate independently of the main power grid. Allows for power continuity when the larger grid is experiencing outages and is often more energy-efficient. Medium $$$ Backup Power Backup power can be implemented through the use of batteries or generators. Provide redundancy and maintain critical functionality during power outages. Batteries may be connected to solar photovoltaics, which decreases reliance on fuel delivery and reduces energy bills. Low $$ Emergency Charging Stations Designated community emergency charging stations are important for residents who are without power for an extended period of time. Allows for greater comLow munication and continuity of business operations during an emergency. $ Renewable Energy Supply Renewable energy, such as solar and wind power, can increase resilience by reducing dependence on the larger electrical grid and reducing dependence on fuel delivery. Reduces greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), reduces energy bills, and provides backup power during an emergency event. $ Medium Resilience Solutions 41 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Figure 63: Diagram of a Microgrid 42 Figure 64: Example of a Generator (Elevated to Protect Against Flooding) Figure 65: Example of Renewable Energy (Solar Panels) Figure 66: Example of Renewable Energy (Wind Turbines) Figure 67: Example of Emergency Charging Stations Resilience Solutions COMMUNITY RESILIENCE         Community Assistance Centers Community assistance centers are central locations that can provide residents with information on resilience and preparedness and can also be a refuge and a place to get information during and after a disaster event. Help educate the public on flood risks and ways to be protect themselves and their properties. Also provide a central location for refuge and assistance. Low $ Business Continuity Program Business continuity planning ensures that businesses have the capability to maintain essential functions during potential emergency events. Maintains business functionality during emergency events, by ensuring that business owners understand their risks and have taken steps to mitigate those risks. Low $ Public Education Program Educating the public on flood safety, adaptation and mitigation measures, and emergency management plans is one of the most cost-effective strategies for resilience. Ensures that the commu- Low nity understands the risks, takes steps to mitigate those risks and protect themselves and their properties, and understands proper emergency management procedures during a major event. $ Community Rating System (CRS) FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) is a program designed to encourage community-wide floodplain management activities. CRS floodplain management activities are designed to enhance public safety, reduce property damages and human suffering, protect public infrastructure, minimize economic losses, and protect the environment. Provides an incentive for the community to invest in resilience by reducing flood insurance rates pursuant to the community’s resilience efforts. $ Building Community Ties In the event of disaster, neighbors and community institutions and leaders often become the “first responders,” assisting with providing resources, support, and information. Communities with strong social ties and important community institutions have been proven to better weather storm events. Protect residents during Low emergency events and reduce injury and/or loss of life by providing resources and assistance during an emergency. $ Emergency Shelters Locating emergency shelters in areas that are accessible during a storm event and equally distributed throughout the community is important to providing refuge during a flood event Protect residents during emergency events and reduce injury and/or loss of life. $ Stormwater Modeling Coastal flooding and rainfall events often occur simultaneously. As a result, understanding the capacity of the stormwater drainage system to handle coastal floodwaters as well as stormwater from a storm event will be important to understanding Stonington’s flood vulnerability. Help the Town understand Low the complete picture of the community’s flood vulnerability and can identify areas of particular concern during storm events. Medium Low $$ Resilience Solutions 43 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan For more detail on each of the resilience strategies and the associated costs, please refer to Appendix C. Proposed Solutions for Highest Risk Assets The following section details the potential solutions for a selection of the Town’s highest risk assets These strategies are intended to help focus Stonington’s future resilience efforts and provide a path forward in investigating potential solutions; however, the Town will need to undertake additional research and analysis (including feasibility and cost-benefit analyses) prior to implementation of any of these strategies. Boulder Avenue Pump Station & River Road Pump Station Using the flood projections in this report (and any future stormwater modeling), the Town should complete a more detailed risk assessment that looks at the location of critical systems and infrastructure within the station, the service area of the pump station and the potential consequence of failure, including residences and critical facilities that would be impacted. Likely adaptation measures would include elevating critical systems, installing backup power to ensure redundancy, implementing wet or dry floodproofing strategies, and protecting the site with flood walls or green infrastructure. Stonington Wastewater Treatment Facility The Stonington Wastewater Treatment Facility would benefit from a variety of resilience strategies. A more detailed review of the current location of key critical equipment in the facility would be needed in order to provide comprehensive design solutions. Once that review is completed, the Town should consider some of the following resilience solutions: installing backup power to ensure redundancy and make sure the facility can 44 Resilience Solutions still operate during a power outage, investigate the use of temporary or permanent flood barriers, elevating critical equipment or installing removable equipment, and better anchoring equipment that can be flooded. Town Dock The Town Dock was significantly impacted during Superstorm Sandy, demonstrating the vulnerability of the asset. Many of the proposed regional solutions (hurricane barriers, tide gates, and offshore breakwaters) could protect the Town Dock from future flood impacts during extreme weather events, but other resilience considerations should include: investigating the potential of elevating the dock and/or reinforcing the structure with stronger materials, such as steel. Mystic Fire Department Mystic Fire Department is located in an extremely vulnerable area of Mystic. Both the station and access to the station could be significantly impacted during a flood event. Potential strategies to protect the station and ensure that the Town’s fire department can respond in the event of an emergency include: relocation of the fire department to an area of Mystic that is outside the areas vulnerable to flooding, investigating wet and dry floodproofing alternatives, installing backup power and ensuring redundancy of critical systems. Quiambaug Fire Department Quiambaug Fire Department is located in an extremely vulnerable area of Latimer Point. Both the station and access to the station could be significantly impacted during a flood event. Additionally, if both Mystic Fire Department and Quiambaug Fire Department are impacted by a flood event, the town’s emergency response efforts could be significantly impacted. Potential strategies to protect the station and ensure that the Town’s fire department can respond in the event of an emergency include: relocation of the fire department to an area that is outside the areas vulnerable to flooding, investigating wet and dry floodproofing alternatives, installing backup power and ensuring redundancy of critical systems. Mechanic Street Historic District, Rossie Velvet Mill Historic District & Stonington Borough Historic District Historic districts are particularly vulnerable to flooding, because the historic resources are often irreplaceable and if damaged by flooding, cannot be rebuilt or replaced. It is important to employ a variety of strategies to make sure these assets are well-protected. Resilience strategies in historic districts may include: adjusting floodplain policies and regulations as well as historic preservation regulations to all for resilience modifications to historic structures, installing temporary or permanent flood barriers in the district, using green infrastructure to help mitigate the impacts of flooding, elevating buildings (if possible), filling the basement to prevent floodwater inundation, and relocating key mechanical and electrical systems as well as any moveable artifacts and resources that can be placed above the design flood elevation. In some instances, it may be worthwhile to investigate the feasibility of relocating the entire historic structure outside of the floodplain or regrading the site so that the structure is out of the floodplain. In addition, historic districts are ideal for public education programs around sea level rise and coastal flooding and should be leveraged to educate the public on the risks and the potential solutions for protecting property from flooding. Mystic Seaport The Mystic Seaport is a particularly important and particularly vulnerable asset in Stonington. While relocation of the structures and historic vessels may not be an option, there may be an opportunity to move important exhibits and historical resources to areas that are less vulnerable to flooding, either by relocating the resources to higher floors within the same building or moving them to a different building that is outside the floodplain. Additional considerations for protecting the seaport may include: installing backup power and wet or dry floodproofing buildings, elevating certain structures (where feasible), and using temporary or permanent flood barriers to protect these vital resources. In addition, many of the regional solutions will provide protection to the Village of Mystic and the Mystic seaport. The Seaport may also be used as a public education mechanism for teaching people about coastal resilience. Greenmanville Avenue Electrical Substation The electrical substation on Greenmanville Avenue in Mystic is highly vulnerable to flood impacts and is a critical resource for the supply of electricity in Stonington. Further investigation is needed to understand the level of redundancy built into the power grid and the various substations in order to get a comprehensive view of the substation’s vulnerability. Some potential resilience solutions for this asset may include: elevation of the building and/or critical mechanical and electrical systems within the building; installing sump pumps and backflow preventers; ensuring adequate redundancy is in place between the various substations and within the substation, including installing backup power; and looking into the potential for underground transmission lines that will protect the lines from wind and other storm damage. Cutler Street Electrical Substation The electrical substation on Cutler Street in Stonington Borough is highly vulnerable to flood impacts and is a critical resource for the supply of electricity in Stonington. Further investigation is needed to understand the level of redundancy built into the power grid and the various substations in order to get a comprehensive view of the sub- Resilience Solutions 45 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan station’s vulnerability. Some potential resilience solutions for this asset may include: elevation of the building and/or critical mechanical and electrical systems within the building; installing sump pumps and backflow preventers; ensuring adequate redundancy is in place between the various substations and within the substation, including installing backup power; and looking into the potential for underground transmission lines that will protect the lines from wind and other storm damage. Highway 27 Route 27 is one of the main roadways running along the Mystic River. The roadway is vulnerable to flooding in several locations. Detailed engineering studies should be completed to investigate the feasibility of elevating the roadway. In addition, installing green infrastructure along the roadway could provide significant flood mitigation benefits. Highway 1 Route 1 is one of the main roadways running along the coast, from Mystic to Pawcatuck. The roadway is vulnerable to flooding in several locations. Detailed engineering studies should be completed to investigate the feasibility of elevating the roadway. In addition, installing green infrastructure along the roadway could provide significant flood mitigation benefits. Donahue Park Donahue Park is in a vulnerable coastal location along the Pawcatuck River. The park does not currently have any buildings or equipment that would be negatively impacted from flooding, so flooding to the park is unlikely to cause significant damage. However, the Town should consider implementing green infrastructure solutions in the park to help mitigate flooding to the surrounding Village of Mystic. In addition, the park could be leveraged as an opportunity to create public awareness around 46 Resilience Solutions sea level rise and to build community ties by having community events in that location. Barn Island Management Area Barn Island Management Area is an extremely important resource within Stonington; it is the largest coastal wildlife conservation property in the State of Connecticut. While the area is largely open space and does not have a lot of important buildings or infrastructure to protect, the Town should work with CT DEEP to understand the impacts of flooding on the ecosystems and wildlife habitats within the management area. Potential solutions in this area may include a variety of green infrastructure and/or living shoreline interventions that can mitigate flooding without impacting the important habitats and ecosystems on the land. Mystic River Park Mystic River Park is in a vulnerable coastal location along the Mystic River. The park does not currently have any buildings or equipment that would be negatively impacted from flooding, so flooding to the park is unlikely to cause significant damage. However, the Town should consider implementing green infrastructure solutions in the park to help mitigate flooding to the surrounding areas in Pawcatuck. In addition, the park could be leveraged as an opportunity to create public awareness around sea level rise and to build community ties by having community events in that location. Mystic Train Station & Rail Line Amtrak has undertaken an extensive visioning process for the Northeast Regional Corridor over the last several years. Stonington should engage with Amtrak regarding the risk to the Mystic Train Station and the Northeast regional rail line. Raising the rail line above flood elevation is one potential solution in Stonington. This solution could provide multiple co-benefits by providing the town with the opportunity to install flood gates and other flood protection infrastructure below the raised rail line. Additional solutions that could protect the rail system include raising critical infrastructure, installing renewable energy supplies and backup power, and elevating at-risk stations, such as Mystic Train Station. Additionally, the resilience solutions implemented could be used as an opportunity to educate the public on the region’s flood risk, given the large number of commuters and tourists that utilize the services of the Northeast Regional Corridor. Stonington Community Center (COMO) The Stonington Community Center is vulnerable to flooding, but also an important resource for ensuring community resilience to flooding. Protecting the COMO from flooding will serve multiple co-benefits for creating a resilient community. Potential resilience strategies for the physical protection of the COMO include: elevating the building, installing backup power, elevating critical systems, investigating the use of both wet and dry floodproofing techniques, protecting the asset with temporary or permanent flood barriers and installing green infrastructure solutions. The COMO can also be leveraged as a community assistance center where residents can learn about climate change risk and potential resilience solutions; it can be used as a location for hosting public education programs and other events; and, can be used for building community ties and fostering relationships and forming a network within the community. In addition, in the event of a disaster the community center could be used to assist residents by providing charging stations and other necessities that they may not be able to access during an emergency. Lords Point Neighborhood Lords Point is one of the most vulnerable neighborhoods in Stonington. The neighborhood is almost entirely residential in character and as a result, may be a good candidate for investigating the potential of relocating homes outside the floodplain, either through implementing a voluntary floodplain buyout and acquisition program or investigating other alternatives for incentivizing homeowners to relocate. In the absence of relocation, other potential resilience strategies may include hardening the shoreline with sea walls and other flood barriers, creating a living shoreline, and installing offshore breakwaters. If a largescale neighborhood-wide solution is not possible, individual homes may be protected by filling the basements or elevating the homes, elevating critical infrastructure and systems within the homes, using temporary flood barriers, and installing green infrastructure on individual properties and along roadways. Using renewable energy and investigating the feasibility of installing a microgrid in the neighborhood would be beneficial in maintaining power in the neighborhood during a flood event. Additionally, the neighborhood may benefit from identifying a location for a community assistance center and holding events to build community ties and educate the neighborhood on coastal risk and resilience. Murphy’s Point Neighborhood Murphy’s Point is one of the most vulnerable neighborhoods in Stonington. Many of the regional solutions proposed in this plan may not provide protection to the Murphy’s Point neighborhood; therefore, the neighborhood may be a good candidate for investigating the potential of relocating homes and businesses outside the floodplain, either through implementing a voluntary floodplain buyout and acquisition program or investigating other alternatives for incentivizing relocation. In the absence of relocation, other potential resilience strategies may include hardening the shoreline with sea walls and other flood barriers, creating a living shoreline, and installing Resilience Solutions 47 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan offshore breakwaters. If a large-scale neighborhood-wide solution is not possible, individual homes may be protected by filling the basements or elevating the homes, elevating critical infrastructure and systems within the homes, using temporary flood barriers, and installing green infrastructure on individual properties and along roadways. Using renewable energy and investigating the feasibility of installing a microgrid in the neighborhood would be beneficial in maintaining power in the neighborhood during a flood event. Additionally, the neighborhood may benefit from identifying a location for a community assistance center and holding events to build community ties and educate the neighborhood on coastal risk and resilience. Most At-Risk Assets Through the risk assessment, the Town identified its most at-risk assets. The following section provides a detailed discussion of the resilience solutions developed for each of Stonington’s top six most at-risk assets. Apple Rehab Mystic As both a significant economic driver for the community, and home to an elderly population that may be at particular risk during storm events, Apple Rehab Mystic was identified as a priority asset for protection during emergency events. Resilience strategies for the facility involve both physical protections and operational procedures put in place to mitigate the impact of a flood event. While the strategies suggested here are considered specifically for the Apple Facility, many of these strategies are applicable to other large facilities within the Town of Stonington. Project Elements Potential project elements include temporary or permanent flood barriers, landscaping, floor shields and other dry flood proofing measures 48 Resilience Solutions to be implemented in the case of an emergency. Because the facility is not immediately adjacent to the water, large-scale permanent flood barriers such as flood walls may not be appropriate. However, impermeable walls, flood wraps, waterproof membranes, sprays and other sealants that protect the ground floor can be quickly deployed in the case of anticipated flooding. Given the size of the facility, it may be necessary to prioritize a limited number of buildings or rooms, retrofitted with waterproofing applications such as sealants and waterproofed walls. Additionally, emergency measures such as gravel filled containers, sandbags and water-filled barriers can reduce the impact of any storm surges. In the medium-term, alternative energy sources, including additional solar panels mounted on the facility’s roof, can provide electricity when and if outside sources are temporarily disabled. Because the facility serves a vulnerable population that relies on electric-operated medical equipment and may be particularly vulnerable to prolonged exposure to heat or cold, ensuring an adequate supply of electricity is especially critical. Another strategy entails the introduction of green infrastructure on to the site. Apple rehab sits adjacent to four small parking lots and Broadway Avenue, and may be vulnerable to flooding due to the high proportions of impermeable paving. Efforts to mitigate the impact of flooding, in both normal rainfall events and longer-term flood impacts, could include the introduction of green infrastructure, native plantings, trees and permeable paving materials for the parking facilities and along Broadway Avenue. Depending on surrounding infrastructure enhancements, a longer term strategy may include investigating relocating the facility to a less vulnerable location. If significant infrastructure improvements are made to reduce flooding vulnerability, elevation of the building may still be considered. Figure 68: Apple Rehab Mystic, potential strategies A range of operational strategies should complement the protections described above. These include well-rehearsed emergency evacuation procedures with clearly-delineated responsibilities, information dissemination and adequate disbursement of key supplies in the case of an emergency. Storing food, medical equipment, clothing, blankets, and other emergency supplies in dry, elevated or otherwise protected areas within the facility is also critical. floodwaters, ensuring that the building functions adequately during the event, and establishing quick recovery after an emergency. Unlike assets described elsewhere in this report, it may not be feasible to evacuate large numbers of residents, who may have limited mobility. The facility should therefore prioritize protective measures that allow at least some areas within the building to continue functioning even in the midst of a disaster event. Community Benefits Ensuring that residents are safe and well-cared for in the event of an emergency delivers a clear social good to the community, including residents These risk reduction strategies should focus on protection of human life, reducing damage from Resilience Solutions 49 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan and their family members and friends. Helping the facility recover quickly and resume operations soon after an event may also carry ancillary economic benefits to the town. Additionally, green infrastructure measures that bolster the attractiveness of the streetscape and reduce the amount of impervious surface in the neighborhood will result in reduced flood risk during typical rain events and extraordinary flooding. Potential Costs Developing a comprehensive and rehearsed operational plan for preparing for storm events – including communication and evacuation procedures, and storing and protecting food, water and medical supplies – will incur minimal financial costs. Procuring and storing temporary floodproofing measures such as flood shields, waterproof membranes and other sealants are more expensive, and emergency barriers carry a higher cost that includes procurement, training and storage expenses. Additional landscaping that introduces elevation changes to the site, and new alternative energy supplies will incur additional costs. The cost of additional solar panels will be defrayed by cost savings during normal times, however. Implementation Unlike other resilience measures that require buyin from multiple stakeholders, strategies for Apple Rehab Mystic can be implemented unilaterally by the facility in consultation with residents. The engineered solutions proposed here are not overly complex – solar panels and landscaping may require some engineering consultation, but other proposed measures can be implemented largely in consultation with product manufacturers. As a result, the single largest barrier to implementation may be cost, as well as the training required to instruct staff on new operational procedures. Strategies may be implemented over the short and medium term. 50 Resilience Solutions Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility The Town of Stonington is responsible for three sanitary sewer systems and related wastewater treatment facilities, the oldest of which is the Mystic Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Mystic plant, which receives higher flows and loads than either the Pawcatuck and Stonington Borough plants, has been in service for over 40 years and lies directly adjacent to Mystic Harbor, immediately south of downtown Mystic. Due to its proximity to the village, its vulnerability to flooding and its criticality to the overall sanitary system, the treatment facility was deemed a high priority asset. Project Elements The facility, which is located on the harbor, is particularly vulnerable to coastal flood events. Additionally, all of the surrounding roads, including Edgemont Street and Broadway, are vulnerable to significant flooding, which would prohibit access to the facility during a flood event. Potential project elements include a range of measures to prevent water from entering the facility, as well as strategies to protect key equipment from being damaged by floodwaters. Although the tanks and equipment are elevated, an additional layer of protection would include flood barriers such as walls or berms surrounding the facility. Landscaping that provides additional elevation, and plantings that reduce the flow or intensity of water along the water’s edge will also reduce the force and elevation of flooding. Another layer of protection exists in the combination of operational and physical measures that protect key equipment, including electrical controls, computers and records. These materials may reside in elevated or flood-proofed areas. The plant may also invest in capacity to temporarily remove and store vulnerable components in anticipation of a flood event. Figure 69: Mystic Wastewater Treatment Plant, potential strategies Alternative energy sources – including wind and solar power, backup generators and substations to power the plant – will also be critical to operate equipment in the event of a power outage or other impact to the energy supply. In some cases, pumping systems and channel or culvert systems may be used to collect and divert flood water from the facility. Community Benefits Given its vulnerable location, there exists significant risk to the Mystic Wastewater Treatment Plant, and severe consequence if it fails. The strategies described above are intended to achieve two key aims of, first, reducing or eliminating the risk of sewage overflow into the harbor and, second, resuming normal operations immediately after a flooding event. Protecting the treatment facility has clear and significant impact on the village of Mystic, which relies on the treatment plant to process all waste for the village. Additionally, allowing untreated waste to enter the harbor would bring significant ecological harm to the area, and negatively impact the town’s economy which relies heavily on tourism and recreational activities. Potential Costs Because of the plant’s proximity to Mystic Har- Resilience Solutions 51 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan bor and due to the complexity of the equipment involved, strategies to mitigate flood impacts on the plant may be more expensive than for other assets identified. Specifically, high costs may be involved in developing the required mix of permanent flood barriers, equipment relocation, and alternative power sources. Electrical infrastructure, including substations, backup generators, solar panels or wind turbines that reduce dependency on the electrical grid will carry significant costs. However, the facility is critical to the functioning of the town, both on a daily basis and following a storm event. Implementation Upgrades to the wastewater treatment facility are the responsibility of the town and do not directly impact private landowners. The greatest obstacle to implementation is, therefore, the significant funding required to install the various mitigation strategies described above. Model Single-Family Home Stonington is a highly residential community and, as such, there is a lot of interest in understanding what individual homeowners can do to protect their own properties. This set of solutions is intended to provide a range of solutions that homeowners can consider implementing on their properties. Understanding the geography of the site, the character of the neighborhood, the expected intensity and frequency of flooding on the site, and the homeowner’s budget and appetite for risk will all be key considerations for determining which solutions are best suited for each property. Project Elements There are a variety of protection and adaptation strategies that homeowners can implement on their own properties. These strategies include landscaping and green infrastructure to capture stormwater runoff and protect the house from 52 Resilience Solutions flood waters. Many homeowners likely already use sandbags to protect their property during a known flood event. Sand bags are a low-cost protection solution. There are several alternative types of emergency barriers, such as floor shields, that can also be used as a flood protection mechanism. Additionally, elevation of the property or filling the basements to prevent entry of floodwaters are some of the more complex flood protection solutions. Some additional adaptation measures include installing a sump pump, ensuring that electric wiring is in either protected from floodwaters or installed in such a way that it can be easily replaced if damaged, and installing a generator to maintain power in the event of an emergency. In some cases the Town and the most vulnerable residential neighborhoods may start planning for relocation or buyout/acquisition programs as longer term adaptation measures. Community Benefits Stonington is a largely residential community. As a result, if each individual property owner takes action to protect their property, those actions could have a large impact on the resilience of the community, as a whole. Additionally, if homeowners start taking action to protect and adapt their properties, other property owners are likely to take notice. These efforts might influence neighbors or nearby business owners to take steps to protect their own properties and also help educate the public on coastal flooding and resilience. Potential Costs For homeowners, costs can vary widely. Resilience measures such as landscaping and using sand bags, can often be implemented at relatively low cost to the homeowner. However, the most intensive resilience measures, such as elevation, often come at a high upfront cost to the homeowner and many homeowners may have difficulty implementing these measures without additional Figure 70: Model Single-Family Home, potential strategies funds. Overall, there are strategies that can be implemented across all income levels and each homeowner will take a different approach to resilience. By combining a variety of different strategies, homeowners can tailor their resilience solutions to their own income levels and risk appetites. Implementation Overall, implementation of these strategies is typically dependent on the income of the homeowner and whether they have the funds to take action. However, if funds are readily available, many of these strategies are relatively easy to implement when compared to large-scale engineering solutions. Implementation of these strategies may require cooperation from the Town. Often homeowners will need to acquire building permits for implementing these strategies. In addition, some strategies may be in conflict with current zoning requirements or other town regulations. Therefore, the homeowners will need to work with the Town for the appropriate variances or waivers to those requirements. One common issue is that homeowners that want to elevate their homes often have difficulty because the elevation would cause Resilience Solutions 53 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan their home to be raised above the height restrictions for the community. Model Mixed-Use Building Stonington has a variety of mixed-use and commercial buildings in the downtown areas of Stonington Borough and the villages. Similar to the single-family property solutions listed above, there was a great deal of interest in understanding what resilience solutions are available to property owners for mixed-use and commercial structures throughout Stonington. A combination of building-specific strategies as well as green infrastructure and landscaping along the streetscapes can provide significant protection from coastal flooding. When implementing strategies in these commercial districts, it is important to understand how different strategies will change the character and feel of the streetscape. For example, elevation of all of the buildings would inhibit the fluid interaction between the pedestrians on the street and the businesses and thus, negatively impact the user experience. Therefore, a variety of strategies should be employed to reduce any negative impacts to the tourism experience and the general look and feel of the downtown corridors. Project Elements Strategies for protecting and adapting the building include elevation, where appropriate, as well as a mix of protection and adaptation strategies. In the example above, elevation may be difficult because of the size of the structure; however, there are some free-standing structures in some of these downtown locations, where elevation is a potential option. In lieu of elevating the entire building, property owners may consider elevation of mechanical and electrical systems, filling basements to prevent infiltration of flood waters, installing temporary floodproofing measures like floor shields and sandbags, and using materials that are flood-resistant. More expensive protec- 54 Resilience Solutions tion measures include retrofits of interior spaces to waterproof interior walls and install impermeable coatings for core areas (either structurally critical spaces, or areas used for protecting key equipment). Interior raised floors may also be introduced into ground floor retail spaces without negatively impacting internal uses, or changing the opening to the street. In addition, property owners should consider installing generators and other forms of backup power and investigate the potential of renewable energy, such as solar panels. Additional strategies should be employed along the streetscape. Some of those strategies may include flood barriers, such as flood walls, berms and levees along the coast that prevent floodwaters from reaching critical facilities. These permanent measures have proven to be highly effective elsewhere, but require greater financial investment than temporary alternatives, and may negatively impact the local streetscape. In order to maintain Stonington’s unique and historic character, green infrastructure may be a more appropriate solution along these downtown streetscapes, as they often enhance the aesthetic of the area and also provide stormwater management solutions. Some potential strategies include street trees, rain gardens, impermeable paving, bioswales and plantings. Community Benefits In addition to the intended flood mitigation benefits, these strategies can provide long-term economic benefits and cost savings. On an individual level, business owners that consider switching to renewable energy sources may see long-term cost savings. On a community level, small businesses and the character of these downtown, mixed-use corridors are essential to Stonington’s economy, both from the revenue generated by the businesses themselves and the tourism generated by the historic nature and character of the Stonington. Figure 71: Model Mixed-Use Building, potential strategies Protecting these assets from flood vulnerability is important to protecting Stonington’s future economy. Potential Costs The financial costs ranged drastically depending on the solutions that the Town and the business owners choose to implement. Planting street trees and using sandbags as flood protection measures are fairly low cost. Some of the more permanent solutions, such as elevation of critical equipment and installing flood barriers would come at a greater cost. In addition to immediate financial costs associated with each of these measures, implementation should be careful to consider potential negative effects of such strategies on the local streetscape, as discussed above. Implementation Because decisions about mixed-use properties involve multiple landowners, tenants and users, implementation will require aligning the interests of a range of stakeholders and ensuring that the character of Stonington is not negatively impacted by these flood mitigation strategies. Choosing what strategies are best-suited for particular areas will necessitate a broad conversation about community priorities – what areas are most in need of public dollars, and what areas carry the largest benefit to the larger community. However, strategies in these locations may be phased – those solutions that can be implemented at the discretion of the business owner may be implemented in an earlier phase than those that require community buy-in. Stonington should review the suggested strategies and Resilience Solutions 55 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan create a phased plan that accounts for budget, ease of implementation, and which strategies are most effective for the location. Village of Mystic The Village of Mystic is an important historic and economic development area, located in both Groton and Stonington, CT. The village is situated along the Mystic River and the portion of the village located in Stonington is home to many historic resources and tourist destinations. As such, the village is an important part of both the character and the economy of Stonington. Historically, the village was home to one of the area’s most important seaports; that seaport is now home to one of the nation’s leading maritime museums and is an important tourism destination in the Town of Stonington. The portion of the village that is located in Stonington is also home to the Mystic Aquarium, the Mystic Train Station (and Amtrak rail line), a multitude of historical resources located in the Mystic Bridge Historic District, the Mystic Wastewater Treatment Plant, and a variety of residential properties, businesses, parks, and roadways. Project Elements In order to develop a comprehensive strategy to protect the neighborhood, as a whole, and its key assets, a variety of resilience solutions must be considered. Due to the historic character of the neighborhood and its important relationship with the coast, strategic retreat is not a popular option; therefore, flood prevention and protection will be critical. A comprehensive approach to neighborhood-scale resilience will require a combination of green and grey infrastructure as well as individual asset-level solutions and larger neighborhood-wide protection. At an individual asset level, detailed solutions have been provided for Apple Rehab Mystic and the Mystic Wastewater Treatment Plant. Similarly, the strategies provided for the typical single-family home and 56 Resilience Solutions mixed-use business provide detail on how individual homeowners and business owners in Mystic can implement resilient solutions on their own properties. Many of these strategies are also applicable to other building assets. On a more neighborhood-wide scale, a variety of temporary and permanent strategies can be used in commercial, residential, and mixed-use zones and, specifically, along pedestrian-friendly corridors located in downtown areas. While more natural solutions are typically the preferred option, a combination of both grey infrastructure – hardscapes and engineered solutions – and green infrastructure – such as trees, plantings and landscaping – may be needed in Mystic. Potential measures may include a green corridor along Route 1, preserved green and open space throughout the neighborhood, and a combination of living shorelines and coastal flood barriers along the coast. Both green and grey solutions can provide additional community benefits, including more beautification of the neighborhood, additional green space that can be accessed and used by the residents, and new access points to the waterfront. Additional strategies should include regulatory considerations, such as a waterfront overlay zone that may restrict the types of uses in those zones and also enforce alternative building methods. These strategies are intended to work together as one cohesive whole, rather than implementing a variety of strategies separately without consideration of how they will interplay with each other. Community Benefits Beyond their value as flood mitigation measures, these measures may carry a range of other positive benefits. In particular, green infrastructure that introduces new green space to the local streetscape brings both ecological benefits and additional social benefits. Reducing the amount of permeable paving in downtown areas, for instance, can Figure 72: Mystic, potential small-scale strategies Figure 73: Mystic, potential neighborhood-scale strategies Resilience Solutions 57 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan reduce flooding during typical rainfall events. New plantings reduce the impact of the ‘urban heat island effect’ and new street trees provide shade on hot summer days. Flood barriers have the potential to reduce or limit access to the water if designed poorly, but may actually highlight or channel pedestrian activity to the waterfront if designed carefully and with an eye to minimizing disruption to natural pedestrian movement. When implemented in a manner that is sensitive to the needs of the community, local property owners, and users, these strategies can provide flood protection while also improving the look and feel of the neighborhood. Unlike many of the other strategies proposed for the town, these strategies will inherently involve multiple stakeholders, including not only the people who live and work in affected areas, but also those who frequent these areas as shoppers, tourists, or otherwise as part of their regular routine. As such, the process of negotiating what strategies are appropriate where, and who assumes responsibility for financing, building, and maintaining key infrastructure, will involve substantial effort to ensure that all stakeholders are heard and that costs and benefits are distributed fairly. Potential Costs In addition to immediate financial costs associated with each of these measures (which vary widely depending on the solutions that the Town chooses to implement), implementation should be careful to consider potential negative effects of such strategies on the local streetscape. The downtown Mystic area is currently a vibrant, walkable area. Implementing these measures should consider how each measure interacts with the local streetscape. For instance, while protecting ground floor commercial land uses is of high priority, any new flood protection measure should take care to maintain a strong connection with the street, 58 Resilience Solutions through easy access and attractive facades. New green infrastructure should be planned to minimize costs associated with streetscape changes, such as widening sidewalks or digging up pavement to accommodate new plantings. Implementation Because decisions about mixed-use properties involve multiple landowners, tenants and users, implementation will require aligning the interests of a range of stakeholders. Choosing what strategies are best-suited for particular areas will necessitate a broad conversation about community priorities – what areas are most in need of public dollars, and what areas carry the largest benefit to the larger community. Additionally, all strategies must balance flood mitigation demands with the needs of local users; store owners may be reluctant to disrupt normal retail activity to prepare for the uncertainty of a future storm event. While there are no easy answers to these questions, open conversations about available resources and shared priorities, viewed in light of risk assessments provided elsewhere in this report, will help begin a process of implementing these strategies. Strategies may be implemented over the short and long term, with immediate investigations into the availability of temporary measures, and longer term considerations of more complex and permanent solutions such as flood barriers and green infrastructure. Masons Island Causeway Masons Island is an approximately 600-acre island containing three marinas, a yacht club, a 47-acre nature preserve, and numerous residential homes. Masons Island also provides the only landbased access to Enders Island. Since the Masons Island Causeway is the only land-based access to the island, its long-term usability is an important component for emergency planning and climate change adaptation in Stonington. Figure 74: Proposed elevation of Masons Island Causeway Figure 75: Current Image of Masons Island Causeway Masons Island Causeway and the adjacent access roads have high probabilities of coastal flood impacts. The Causeway itself has a relatively low elevation and is already susceptible to flood events, in the present-day. The annual probability of flooding for the Causeway is only expected to increase throughout the century, with annual flood probabilities ranging from: • 10% to 20% in the present day, • 10% to 50% by 2030, • 20% to 100% by 2050, to • 100% by 2070. Resilience Solutions 59 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan A 1% probability event can flood the Masons Island Causeway and access roads under present-day conditions. Under future scenarios, the extent and depth of this flooding will increase. Project Elements The Masons Island proposed regional adaptation, displayed above, is comprised of the following elements: • Masons Island Bridge • Elevating portions of Masons Island Road north of Shaffer’s Boat Livery • Hybrid shoreline treatment with rising gate for Shaffer’s Boat Livery vicinity • Green infrastructure solution (berm and living shoreline) for portion of Gled Hill Street east of bridge • Green infrastructure solution (marsh creation, living shoreline, natural berm) for portion of Masons Island Road south of bridge • Elevating portion of Masons Island Road south of bridge • Elevating Dubois Drive north of bridge These elements may be strategically phased over time to distribute capital investment and implement adaptive management, while providing the necessary level of protection against the combined effects of future sea level rise and storm surge. The priority element for the Masons Island regional adaptation project should be the replacement of the causeway with a suitably elevated bridge. The figure below provides a rendering of the proposed Masons Island Bridge. While a bridge is recommended, other alternatives, including raising the causeway could also be considered. The proposed bridge alternative also promotes improved tidal exchange and flushing throughout Mystic Harbor 60 Resilience Solutions and may have ancillary ecological benefits for the region. Near term accessibility of the bridge during storm conditions will be insured if additional elements (in addition to the bridge or elevation of the causeway) are constructed contemporaneously. On the mainland, implementing green infrastructure along Gled Hill Street and a proposed hybrid shoreline treating at Shaffer’s Boat Livery will prevent inundation of the mainland approach to the bridge and address access issues at Shaffer’s created by the bridge approach. On the island, elevating Dubois Drive and installing green infrastructure (e.g., living shorelines, expanded salt marsh, berms) along Masons Island Drive will prevent inundation of the island approach to the bridge and reduce the probability of flooding in northern portions of Masons Island. These road raising, green infrastructure, and nature-based solutions would need to be developed and designed more fully in a subsequent phase of work. Community Benefits The proposed solutions for Masons Island Causeway could have significant community benefit to Stonington and its residents. The proposed solutions will not only help protect the 600+ residents of Masons Island, both during storm events and nuisance flooding, but they will also help to minimize flooding in neighboring areas of Stonington. In addition, given the vulnerability of the Causeway to flood events, there is likely to be increased maintenance costs associated with future flooding to the Causeway. By constructing a bridge, the Town can minimize those future impacts and maintenance costs. While these adaptation elements will maintain access to Masons Island and provide some regional reductions in flood vulnerability over the approximate design life of the project, the project- Figure 76: Masons Island Causeway, potential strategies ed flooding for 2070 (and beyond) presents severe challenges to maintaining safe and reliable access to Masons Island during storms. While the proposed Masons Island regional adaptation project should provide for long-term daily access to the island in non-storm conditions, decisions will have to be made in the future regarding the emergency management planning for Masons Island (e.g. preemptive evacuation). Potential Costs The components of this project range greatly in cost. There is likely to be significant costs from feasibility, planning, design, and construction phases associated with the proposed Masons Island Bridge project, as well as the potential raising of Masons Island Road. Some of the green infrastructure solutions are likely to be less costly and have quicker implementation timeframes than the proposed “hard” solutions. Implementation The strategy for Masons Island Causeway is a phased solution, with the top priority being the construction of the proposed Masons Island Bridge and complementary green infrastructure solutions along Gled Hill Street and at the Shaffer’s Boat Livery, in the near-term. By 2030, a second phase of elements may become necessary to protect access to the bridge. These elements include elevating both mainland and island portions of Masons Island Road, and tying them into the existing green infrastructure and hybrid shoreline treatments on either side of the bridge. These construction of a proposed Masons Island Bridge along with potential future elevation of portions of Masons Island Road will require significant time to implement. These are larger infrastructure projects and therefore, will need stakeholder buy-in and agreement within Town management that these projects are necessary. Resilience Solutions 61 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan In addition, due to the high cost of these types of projects, the Town will need time to identify funding sources or build the project into the Town’s budget and capital improvement planning process. And lastly, the planning, design, approval, and construction process for the bridge will take a significant amount of time to complete. In order to navigate the potential roadblocks to implementation, the Town will need to conduct a more extensive study of the feasibility of such a solution and the benefits to the Town. Regional Solutions In addition to the local, facility-based adaptations that are intended to improve resiliency of an individual facility, structure, or asset, there are also potential regional adaptations that can be implemented to protect a larger area from flood risk. Typically, these regional adaptations focus on renovation at flood entry points, where a larger upland area is flooded by water arriving from a vulnerable section of the coastline. In many cases, these regional solutions can be more cost effective than local adaptations by protecting a larger upland area consisting of numerous buildings, facilities, homes, and roads that encompass multiple asset types and stakeholders. As such, in many cases the overall cost of the adaptation can then be shared across stakeholders. The challenges with regional adaptations typically involve coordination, communication, and agreement between various stakeholders, all of whom may have different agendas or needs for protection. However, if these challenges can be overcome, regional adaptations usually provide the most cost-effective resiliency option, while also providing ancillary benefits beyond just protection of an individual structure. For example, while a local adaptation may reduce flooding to a structure, a regional solution may also maintain access to the structure by protecting the surrounding area and transportation services. 62 Resilience Solutions In order to assess potential viable regional adaptations, the flood risk maps were evaluated for each climate change scenario to identify key flood entry points and flood pathways within Stonington. While there are other flood entry points and flood pathways that may be viable sites for regional adaptations, the locations identified here were targeted to protect critical community assets. Additionally, Stonington’s geographic landscape limits the amount of focused and nonexpanding flood entry points. Most of Stonington’s shoreline consists of wide flood entry locations where flood waters inundate the land over large areas, thereby limiting potential cost effective, targeted regional solutions. These solutions are intended to provide a range of potential options aimed at protecting Stonington’s key critical assets as well as the largest amounts of land area; these adaptation options are not the only possible alternatives and they may not be the best possible alternatives. But rather, the intent was to provide some initial concept designs for regional adaptation solutions. A more detailed analysis would need to be completed in order to fully evaluate all of the possible alternatives and to understand the costs and benefits of each solution as well as the feasibility of implementation. One important component of that more detailed analysis is an assessment of downstream impacts. When a flood adaptation option is designed to keep water out of a certain area, property, or structure, the flood water that would normally have advanced and filled that site may be redirected to another area. This can occur at both a local scale and a regional scale. Therefore, resiliency designs need to consider potential impacts from redirected flood waters to neighboring areas or parcels. On a local scale, the volume of re-directed water is typically relatively small. As such, there will be insignificant increases in the total water surface elevation for the surrounding region and increased flooding will not occur. However, while local scale adaptations rarely increase the water level, potential designs can sometimes redirect water in a way that changes local flow velocities and pathways. For example, if a flood wall is constructed around a building, water that would normally have flooded that structure may now be redirected through a narrower pathway increasing velocity through an area. This is usually a localized problem and does not typically occur for a majority of adaptations. Even if it does occur, it may not be problematic. Likewise, regional scale options that protect larger areas, such as those considered for Stonington, may also redirect flood waters into adjacent areas. For example, blocking off the upstream portion of the Mystic River at the I-95 bridge crossing would inhibit a volume of water from advancing upstream, forcing the water to remain in downstream areas. For a vast majority of these areas, there is no increase in downstream water surface elevation since the downstream area (typically the harbor, ocean, or bay) is significantly larger than the upstream area. The volume of water inhibited from flowing upstream is simply spread over a larger downstream area (i.e., the volume of the ocean is huge) and as such there is no increase in water surface elevation. For example, hurricane barriers, like those in Stamford, CT or New Bedford, MA, do not create increased flooding downstream during storm events since the redirected water is simply redirected to a much larger water body. Analyses completed for numerous flood adaptation designs indicate that the volume of water blocked from flooding large upland areas does not result in increased flooding for areas downstream of the proposed barrier. Similar results would be expected for most of the regional adaptations proposed in Stonington, where the downstream water bodies are much larger than the upstream areas protected. The one exception would be the Upper Mystic River adaptation at the I-95 crossing where the downstream area is on the same order of magnitude (volume wise) as the upstream blocked area. In these cases, similar to dams placed on a river, the constricted riverine areas may result in downstream impacts due to the obstructed flood adaptation. Regardless of the adaptation being considered on either a local or regional scale, the potential redirection of flood waters is typically conducted as part of the design process for any adaptation solution. Therefore, when conducting the engineering design of the potential coastal or resiliency design, the potential impact of the proposed solution on neighboring properties should be evaluated. I-95 Regional Adaptation The vulnerability and risk assessment, completed as part of this project, indicates that storm surge could inundate portions of the Upper Mystic River basin under present day and future conditions. The probability that the banks of the Upper Mystic River could be overtopped by flood waters, resulting in subsequent inundation of roads and residential areas is, as shown in Figure 77, up to: • 20% (or approximately every 5 years) under present day conditions, • 20% (or approximately every 5 years) by 2030, • 50% (or approximately every 2 years) by 2050, and • 100% (annual flooding) by 2070. Potential inundation in this region of Stonington would affect large segments of Route 27, developed areas along Main Street in Old Mystic, and developed areas along Whitehall Avenue. Although storm surge can also cause inundation Resilience Solutions 63 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Present 2030 2050 Figure 77: Coastal Flood Exceedance Probability (CFEP) for the Upper Mystic River Basin. The red dashed circle shows the potential location of an I-95 adaptation. along the western banks of the Mystic River, topography and development patterns in Groton result in less vulnerability. The bermed area created by the I-95 crossing at the Mystic River provides an opportunity for a regional intervention. Retrofitting one of the I-95 bridges with an array of adjustable tide control gates underneath the bridge to prevent storm surge from propagating further upriver could prevent storm surge inundation in the Upper Mystic River basin. These tide gates would be adjustable so that most of the time they would be open to allow tidal exchange, but would be able to be closed in the case of an impending storm event. Such a regional adaptation could prevent up to: 64 Resilience Solutions • 113 acres of present day inundation, • 121 acres of inundation by 2030, • 141 acres of inundation by 2050, and • 159 acres of inundation by 2070. The proposed I-95 Regional Adaptation would be redundant (or the need for it would be greatly reduced) if the Mystic Regional Adaptation (discussed later) is implemented downstream. Therefore, this solution may not be the most beneficial for Stonington; the other alternatives discussed in this section may be more effective at protecting a larger area of Stonington. Pawcatuck River Regional Adaptation Storm surge could inundate portions of the Pawcatuck River basin under present day and future conditions. The probability that the banks of the Pawcatuck River could be overtopped by flood waters, resulting in subsequent inundation of roads and developed areas is, as shown in Figure 81, up to: • 20% (or approximately every 5 years) under present day conditions, • 50% (or approximately every 2 years) by 2030, Figure 78: Example of a Tide Gate at the Herring River Restoration Project in Wellfleet, MA • 100% (annual flooding) by 2050, and • 100% (annual flooding) by 2070. Figure 79: Potential location for a hurricane barrier in the Pawcatuck River Basin (in white) Figure 80: Example hurricane barrier from New Bedford, Massachusetts Potential inundation in this region of Stonington would affect segments of River Road and adjacent residential areas, segments of Mechanic Street, and developed areas in Pawcatuck and Westerly. The constriction and adjacent elevated area on the Pawcatuck River, south of the Westerly Yacht Club and Stonington on the River, provides an opportunity for a regional intervention. A hurricane barrier (Figure 80) at this location to prevent storm surge from progating further upriver could prevent storm surge inundation in the Upper Pawcatuck River basin. Similar to adjustable tide gates, the hurricane barrier would be open a majority of the time, but could be closed to protect the upstream basin during an impending coastal storm event. It is estimated that such a regional adaptation could prevent up to: • 422 acres of present day inundation, Resilience Solutions 65 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Present 2030 2050 Figure 81: Coastal Flood Exceedance Probability (CFEP) for the Pawcatuck River Basin. The black dashed square shows the potential location of a regional adaptation. • 443 acres of inundation by 2030, • 490 acres of inundation by 2050, and • 562 acres of inundation by 2070. Stonington Borough Regional Adaptation Storm surge could inundate portions of the upland areas surrounding Lamberts Cove and Quannaduck Cove under present day and future conditions. The probability that the railroad tracks across Stonington Harbor could be overtopped by flood waters, resulting in subsequent inundation of roads and developed areas to the north is, as shown in Figure 83, up to: • 20% (or approximately every 5 years) under present day conditions, 66 Resilience Solutions • 20% (or approximately every 5 years) by 2030, • 50% (or approximately every 2 years) by 2050, and • 100% (annual flooding) by 2070. Potential inundation in this region would affect segments of Wamphassuc Point Road, Route 1, Route 1A, North Main Street and Alpha Avenue, and adjacent residential and commercial areas. The linear berm of the railroad tracks may provide an opportunity for a regional intervention. A multi-element intervention (consisting of elevating railroad tracks from Noyes Avenue to the Wadawanuck Club, a living shoreline treatment at the top of Wamphassuc Neck, tidal control gate arrays at each railroad bridge, and a green infrastruc- Figure 82: Elements of potential regional protection approach for the Stonington Borough area. Present 2030 2050 Figure 83: Coastal Flood Exceedance Probability (CFEP) for the Stonington Borough area. Resilience Solutions 67 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan ture berm from the Wadawanuck Club to the Elm Street pedestrian railroad overpass) could prevent storm surge inundation in the areas around Lamberts Cove and Quannaduck Cove. Depending on the target elevation, the adaptation project may also require modifications to roadways that cross or pass over the railroad (Noyes Avenue, Wamphassuc Point Road, and Alpha Avenue). Elements of this potential regional protection approach are shown in Figure 82. It is estimated that such a regional adaptation could prevent up to: • 252 acres of present day inundation, • 261 acres of inundation by 2030, • 278 acres of inundation by 2050, and • 302 acres of inundation by 2070. Mystic Regional Adaptation Storm surge could inundate portions of the upland areas surrounding the Mystic River, Pequotsepos Brook, and the cove east of Latimer Point under present day and future conditions. The probability that the banks of these water bodies could be overtopped, resulting in subsequent inundation of roads, residential, and commercial areas is, as shown in Figure 85, up to: Again, the linear berm of the railroad tracks provides an opportunity for a regional intervention. A multi-element intervention (consisting of elevating railroad tracks from Fort Rachel Marina to the Wilcox Road and tidal control gate arrays at each railroad bridge and culvert) could prevent storm surge inundation in the areas around the Mystic River, Pequotsepos Brook, and the cove east of Latimer Point. Depending on the target elevation, the adaptation project may also require modifications to roadways that cross or pass over the railroad (Broadway Avenue, Masons Island Road, and Latimer Point Road). Elements of this proposed regional resiliency option are shown in Figure 86. It is estimated that such a regional adaptation could prevent up to: • 706 acres of present day inundation, • 734 acres of inundation by 2030, • 795 acres of inundation by 2050, and • 869 acres of inundation by 2070. • 100% (annual flooding) in the present-day, • 100% (annual flooding) by 2030, • 100% (annual flooding) by 2050, and • 100% (annual flooding) by 2070. Potential inundation in this region of Stonington would affect large portions of downtown Mystic, areas in the Mystic River basin north of I-95, as well as Route 27, Route 1, Hewitt Road, and Mistuxet Avenue. These areas contain dense residential, commercial, and industrial development, as well as a number of critical assets. 68 Resilience Solutions Figure 84: Example of a Raised Rail Present 2030 2050 Figure 85: Coastal Flood Exceedance Probability (CFEP) for the Mystic Region. Figure 86: Elements of potential regional protection approach for the Mystic area. Resilience Solutions 69 Cost-Benefit Analysis While there is an inherent appreciation that climate resilience is a good thing, it is a more challenging task to fully capture that benefit in monetary terms. There have been several attempts to develop a general metric for assessing the savings associated with investing in climate resilience as compared with the costs associated with post-disaster response and recovery. The results vary based on the factors identified as part of each analysis, but some of the outcomes have shown the following rates of return on investment: • $1 invested in building resilience saves $4 in disaster response and recovery13 In order to understand the full value of the proposed solutions, a more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis would be required. A holistic cost-benefit analysis would include not only the economic considerations but also social and environmental co-benefits. Below is a representative listing of the types of information that would be included in a more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. Economic impacts: • Direct, physical impacts • Business continuity and cascading regional impacts • Lost opportunities • $1 invested in resilience saves: $4-7 in response, $5-10 in avoided economic losses14 • Creditworthiness and insurability • $1 invest in disaster preparedness saves $7-10 on response15 Social impacts: • $1 invested in preparedness is worth $15 in disaster relief efforts16 To supplement these estimates, this plan provides a high-level overview of the amount of land area and value of property in Stonington that could be at-risk to future sea level rise and storm surge, as well as an estimate of the acres of land that would be protected from inundation as a result of each of the proposed regional adaptation solutions. The costs associated with the adaptation solutions were expressed as an order of magnitude. Likewise, the land values were ascertained simply by using the current market values available in the town’s assessors’ database. It is important to note that these values are highly generalized, high level estimates and should only be used to understand the potential order of magnitude of these costs, impacts and potential savings. They should be not be used for any detailed planning work or design and engineering studies. • Costs associated with not being able to access critical services • Job loss, public health impacts, decrease in quality of life • Recurrent challenges borne by those most vulnerable • Public safety concerns Environmental considerations: • Degradation of the natural environment and associated ecosystems Funding Many of the solutions suggested in this plan will require a significant amount of funding in order to implement. The following section details potential funding sources and initiatives; however, funding sources are constantly changing and the Town will Financial Considerations 71 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan need to remain diligent in identifying new funding opportunities as they become available. While there are a variety of funding sources available, it is important that the Town recognize the need to contribute its own funding to these solutions. With the current political climate, it is likely that many of the government-supported funding opportunities may become unavailable. In addition, the federal government is taking steps to encourage states and cities to take on more responsibility for resilience. FEMA is in the process of developing a disaster deductible that will require state and local government to implement resilience measures in order to be eligible for certain post-disaster funding sources provided by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the current funding opportunities require a minimum of a 25% matching contribution for the entity that receives the grant. Therefore, the Town will need to think about identifying ways to leverage Town funds for coastal resilience projects. Some potential town funding mechanisms may include: • Town budget and capital improvement plans – The town should advocate for the inclusion of coastal flood protection and climate adaptation measures as an annual line item in the town budget and capital improvement plan. This could begin as a small allocation in the annual budget and increase over time as the Town’s flood protection priorities become clearer. • Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts and impact fees to support flood protection infrastructure. • Public-Private Partnerships (P3) – P3 allows for cost sharing between the Town and private entities and many communities are beginning to use P3 funding for large-scale infrastructure improvements. 72 Financial Considerations Additional funding sources include: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funding from Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) can be used for infrastructure improvements. Within Connecticut, the CDBG programs – also known as the Small Cities Program – is only available to towns and cities with populations of less than 50,000. Resilience based intentions should be described in annual Action Plan (or in their overall Consolidated Plan if due again after a 5 year period). If the work significantly departs from what has been proposed in the previous Consolidated Plan, communities must submit an amendment to HUD for incorporating new approaches. For the Town to use CDBG funding from HUD, they must meet the national objectives of the program: • Benefit to low- and moderate-income(LMI) persons; • Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; and • Meet a need having a particular urgency (referred to as urgent need). While 20% of the CDBG grant can be deducted for administrative purposes, 70% of the overall grant must benefit LMI persons. In Stonington, past CDBG Small Cities grants have been used to revitalize public housing. If the town demonstrated in the future that at least 70% of this source would still benefit LMI populations, it could ostensibly use the remaining funds on administrative and infrastructure resilience projects having particular urgency. The intended use would have to be clear and presented to the State of Connecticut in the application for funding. This source would likely cover a minor project or part of a project and cannot be viewed as a substantial source of funding for larger infrastructure projects. The Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program, from which this Coastal Resilience Plan was funded, is associated with federally-declared disasters. Eligible uses of the funding depend on the Action Plan of the CDBG-DR grantee and how the grantee determines the funds will be used, subject to HUD’s restrictions. In this case, the State of Connecticut is the CDBG-DR grantee and those funds are administered through the Connecticut Department of Housing. Typically, eligible uses for CDBG-DR funds are based on a post-disaster needs assessments of housing, economic development, and infrastructure. For the latest allowable uses, refer to the State of Connecticut’s CDBG-DR Action Plan and associated Amendments. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sponsored a 2017 Coastal Resilience Grants Program that supports two categories of activities: (1) activities that improve capacity for coastal jurisdictions to manage extreme weather events and climate-related hazards, and (2) activities that restore and strengthen existing coastal ecosystems to mitigate the impact of extreme weather and climate hazards. Although the 2017 application window has closed, the program may be reprised and is a potential source of future funding. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary program that incentivizes communities to engage in floodplain management activities beyond the minimum standards set forth in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Property owners in the community can receive up to a 45% discount on their flood insurance premiums, depending on the floodplain management activities implemented by the community. Stonington previously participated in the CRS program and is actively working with FEMA to have Stonington reinstated into the program. The FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides post-disaster federal aid to states and local communities to mitigate the risks of future disasters. HMGP recipients may include individuals, businesses and private nonprofits, but all groups must apply through their local governments. Grants support flood mitigation projects, including acquisition and relocation of flood-prone properties, dry floodproofing, elevation of properties, soil stabilization projects, hazard mitigation plans, and more. FEMA HMGP funds have a match requirement. FEMA will provide up to 75 percent of the project funding through HMGP and the grantee is required to fund the remaining 25% (or more depending on the terms of the grant). Homeowners, for instance, may receive HMGP funding to floodproof residences, but must show support from other sources. One potential source could be the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) coverage, which helps individuals cover the cost of preparation measures to reduce future flood damage, a requirement of the NFIP in certain instances. FEMA also offers Preparedness (Non-Disaster) Grants for communities wishing to enhance their capacity for emergency preparation, response and recovery. The FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program provides funding to state and local governments, and certain non-profits, to implement measures that will reduce or eliminate risk of flood damage to buildings insured under NFIP. The primary responsibility for administering mitigation activities resides with the states. The state point of contact is the State Hazard Mitigation Officer. Cost sharing is typically required for Financial Considerations 73 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan all FMA projects, with the federal government providing up to 75% of the cost of the project. The FEMA Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) program supports comprehensive, all-hazard emergency preparedness systems and planning, including planning for future disasters and catastrophic events. Cost sharing is required and the federal government will provide up to 50% of the funding for a specific project. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Nonpoint Source Program and the Urban Waters Small Grants Program provides up to $60,000 of funding to states to reduce pollution from stormwater runoff, improve water quality and generally create healthy urban waters. Such projects should spur further community revitalization and, ideally, will benefit underserved communities. The types of projects funded in the Small Grants Program may yield co-benefits of flood or storm mitigation. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s (NFWF) 2017 Resilient Communities Program helps communities prepare for future impacts associated with sea level rise, water quantity and quality. The program includes focuses on water quality and sea level rise. Specifically, communities are eligible for between $100,000 and $250,000 for projects supporting “community capacity building and demonstration projects” and $200,000 to $500,000 for projects to combat sea level rise. Between three and six grants are typically awarded annually, with projects lasting up to 24 months. Matching contributions of 1:1 or higher are considered more competitive; matching funds may include cash, in-kind contributions of labor or time, materials, and services donated. Although the 2017 funding proposal date has passed, the Resilient Communities Program is a good 74 Financial Considerations option for future funding. The Connecticut Institute for Resilience and Climate Adaptation (CIRCA) administers the Municipal Resilience Grant Program, focused on furthering the climate resilience of Connecticut’s municipalities. CIRCA has administered other grant programs in the past, so it would be valuable to pay attention for future grant opportunities. The Connecticut Flood and Erosion Control Board (FECB) program. Under this program, the Town creates a local flood control board that could be eligible for state funding. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers offers a variety of grant opportunities in addition to its ongoing flood control work, both to construct and maintain flood control structures, such as those in the Village of Pawcatuck. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) administers the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program and the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) program. The EWP responds to emergencies created by natural disasters and is designed to help people and conserve natural resources that are impacted by floods, fires, windstorms, and other natural occurrences. The WFPO provides technical and financial assistance to States, local governments, and Tribes to plan and implement authorized watershed project plans to provide watershed protection, flood mitigation, and other watershed benefits. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) provides communities with a permanent, independent source of low-cost financing for a wide range of water quality infrastructure proj- ects, including stormwater projects, watershed pilot projects, energy efficiency, and wastewater treatment facilities. Philanthropic Sources include several large philanthropic organizations that support resilience work on a regular basis. These include the Rockefeller Foundation, the Kresge Foundation, the Tides Foundation, and the Oak Foundation, to name a few. Smaller grants are made available by organizations such as Lions Club International Foundation, which offers grants for disaster preparedness and recovery. Partners for Places offers grant funding for local projects that promote healthy environments, strong economies, and well-being of all residents. The grant is made possible through a partnership with the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities, the Urban Sustainability Directors Network Bloomberg Philanthropies, The JPB Foundation, Kendeda Fund, the New York Community Trust, the Summit Foundation and Surdna Foundation. Grants range from $25,000 to $150,000 depending on the size and length of project and require a one-to-one match with local foundations. Enterprise Community Partners recently closed their 2017 application for the Climate and Cultural Resilience Grant Program, which awarded five grants of $100,000 to local organization looking to build more resilient communities. It may be valuable to pay attention to future opportunities from Enterprise. Resilience bonds are an emerging resource that modifies traditional catastrophe bonds to provide insurance savings that can be captured as rebates in order to invest in resilient infrastructure. Financial Considerations 75 - '78?l'f 5:24Section 5: Next Steps Top Priority Based on the town-wide vulnerability and risk assessment, the neighborhood-specific assessments, and the proposed regional solutions for the Town of Stonington, the proposed Mystic Regional Adaptation is likely to have the greatest capacity to protect the Town of Stonington from coastal flood impacts. The Mystic Regional Adaptation solution protects the greatest amount of vulnerable land area and would likely preclude the need for an additional resilience solution, such as the I-95 Regional Adaptation, in the upper Mystic River basin. In addition, the Village of Mystic is one of the town’s most vulnerable neighborhoods in terms of number of vulnerable assets and land area as well as impacts to the Town’s economy. Stonington’s economy is largely a tourism-driven economy and many of the resources that drive that tourism are located in and around the Village of Mystic, including important and priceless historical assets. In addition, the solution would help protect the Mystic Amtrak station, which is also highly vulnerable and plays an important role in bringing tourists to Stonington as well as allowing Stonington residents to commute in and out of the Town for access to jobs. There may be opportunities for collaboration and cost sharing with businesses and residents that would be protected by this solution, including the coordination with the neighboring Town of Groton, which would also benefit from the implementation of this type of solution. Next Steps This Coastal Resilience Plan is intended to be a first step in the Town of Stonington’s efforts to become more prepared for and protected against coastal flood events. While the Mystic Regional Adaptation solution is a high priority solution for the Town, we recognize that implementing this type of solution will be challenging, as it will require a significant amount of funding, coordination across multiple local, state and federal actors, and several years of coordination, design and construction. Therefore, the following section details additional smaller scale solutions that can help ensure a more resilient future for Stonington and will result in less challenging implementation and funding barriers. Short-Term (Over the next 1-2 years) 1. Stonington should renew its participating in the Community Rating System (CRS) program and work to improve its CRS score in order to improve the community’s resilience and reduce flood insurance premiums for the residents and business owners in the community. 2. Stonington should consider the feasibility of implementing a targeted floodplain buyout and relocation program for the most at-risk areas of town. Potential pilot studies for this type of program could focus on vulnerable neighborhoods, like Masons Island or Lords Point, or could be based on all properties located in the current FEMA VE zone or designated as atrisk properties as part of The Nature Conservancy’s Salt Marsh Advancement study. 3. The Town has already done a significant amount of community engagement through this planning process and other town-wide Next Steps 77 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan resilience initiative. It is important to build off the current interest and engagement from the community, cultivated as part of this planning process, and continue to engage with the community on a regular basis in regards to on-going resilience and flood protection initiatives. Education is often one of the most important aspects of making a community more resilient. Communities that not only understand their risks, but also build deep community ties and the communities that are more prepared for flood events and are more resilient in the face of flood events, as a result of the connections within the community. Some examples of future community engagement efforts could include: • Developing brochures and other quick guides to disseminate to residents and business owners to explain their risks and ways that they can better protect their properties and assets. • Maintaining the dialogue on coastal resilience with the Mystic Aquarium, Mystic Seaport, and other key community stakeholders, so they can promote events, distribute materials, and engage with their members on these important issues. One key group to continue engagement with is the Mystic Aquarium’s Youth Conservation Corps. This group of teens is actively engaged in environmental conservation and has been excited to be part of this planning study. They also provide an important, and often missed, connection to the younger demographic and can engage and educate their peers on these important issues; issues that will have a greater impact on their generation than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations. Some community events could include a coastal resilience-related 78 Next Steps scavenger hunt, geared at engaging young families, creating community art pieces, such as statues or murals, that help educate on climate change and flooding, and hosting community tree planting and other events. 4. Stonington has already taken several steps towards modifying its policies and regulations to encourage more resilient building practices; however, additional regulatory measures should be implemented to require more resilient development practices in floodprone areas. These regulatory measures may include: extending the boundaries of the CAM Overlay District and the Flood Hazard Overlay District, allow for more flexibility in the regulations for residents looking to implement resilience solutions on their properties, and modifying elevation and height restriction requirements. For more information, please refer to the Regulatory Audit Memorandum in Appendix X. 5. One important, and often overlooked, action is to leverage current projects as a means for furthering the Town’s resilience goals. Obtaining funding and buy-in for infrastructure and development projects specifically geared at flooding and climate change can sometimes be difficult; however, the Town should formulate a process for ensuring that existing and future capital improvement projects also incorporate resilient design solutions. One example of this type of effort can be seen in Partners HealthCare’s Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital in Boston, MA. Partners made a commitment to incorporating many resilience initiatives into this hospital during construction and they found that incorporating these resilience measures only increased the cost of construction by less than 1%. By thinking progressively, they were able to both keep costs down and ensure that their patients, staff, and the facility, itself, are all protected against future flood scenarios. Taking this approach to resilience is often a more cost-effective approach and an easier mechanism for making progress on resilience than proposing and funding an entirely new capital project geared at resilience. Long-Term (Over the next 5 years) 1. Perform a stormwater modeling analysis to understand the impact of rainfall on Stonington’s flood risk. Stonington is likely to experience increased rainfall events as a result of climate change and it is important to understand whether the Town’s current drainage infrastructure has the capacity to handle this increase in precipitation. In addition, increased rainfall events in conjunction with a coastal flood event could have significant impacts on the flood risk of the Town. This analysis could be performed in phases, as necessary, depending on time and budget constraints. 2. In order to make meaningful progress on coastal flood protection and resilience, it will be vital for the Town to form working partnerships with local, state and federal actors as well as community stakeholders and nonprofit institutions. This will build off and often overlap with the Town’s continued community engagement efforts, but will also require a separate, dedicated effort to identify important partners and facilitate a dialogue on these flood-related concerns. Some potential partners that the Town should explore developing relationships with include: • Historic commissions and non-profits. Because Stonington has a large amount of priceless historic resources, engaging with entities that have an interest in protecting these resources would be highly valuable. Some examples include the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation and the Connecticut Office of Culture and Tourism. These relationships will likely be valuable in gaining support and promoting awareness of the Town’s vulnerability, but also identifying funding sources to implement flood protection solutions. • Federal, state and local institutions that are actively engaged in coastal resilience issues. The University of Connecticut’s Connecticut Institute for Resilience Climate Adaptation (CIRCA) would be a valuable partner in these efforts. Similarly, Connecticut Sea Grant is also very active on coastal resilience issues and may have opportunities for grant funding to further Stonington’s resilience work. • Neighboring communities, such as Groton, Westerly and New London. New London could be a particularly important partner, due to the location of the United States Coast Guard Academy and the Naval Submarine Base. Both institutions are likely to garner interest on a federal level, which may result in additional funding for regional solutions that could also protect those important facilities. Stonington should leverage this plan to advance the climate change and resilience conversation by educating its neighboring communities on the risks and advocating for a regional climate coalition to coordinate on these issues. Flooding is not limited to Town boundaries and efforts to minimize coastal flooding concerns will require regional solutions. This coalition could be limited Next Steps 79 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan to neighboring municipalities or it could be a broader coalition that includes local chambers of commerce and business leaders, neighborhood leaders, and other stakeholders in the region. • Business owners within Stonington who are particularly at risk. The Town should facilitate conversations with these institutions to investigate potential mutually-beneficial projects. Some examples may include Amtrak, local energy providers, Apple Rehab Mystic, Mystic Aquarium, and Mystic Seaport. • Non-profit entities who are already working in this space or should be acting in this space. The Nature Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land are two national actors that have particular interests in coastal resilience; however, there are likely many local non-profits who would also be interested in engaging with Stonington on this topic. • Partnerships with similar communities. These types of partnerships could help Stonington leverage lessons learned in communities that are grappling with similar issues. Two particular communities could be Annapolis, MD and Norfolk, VA. Both of these communities have significant flood risk in addition to having priceless historic resources that they would like to protect from flood damage. Reaching out to the community planners and historic preservation officers in these communities may help Stonington identify important next steps from furthering its coastal resilience efforts. 80 Next Steps 3. The Town should consider implementing a TIF district, including funding for coastal resilience in its annual budget and pursuing opportunities for public-private partnerships geared at implementing resilience solutions. Amtrak may be a potential partner in these endeavors. 4. Pursuing a variety of grants, loans, and other outside sources of funding to fund the implementation of a variety of resilience solutions. 5. Conduct a feasibility analysis of the potential regional adaptation solutions in order to identify the costs and benefits of each solution and develop a potential implementation plan. .. v: 1 1 ?7 m- @f?ll giggly/y . ,1 Stormgtom Commoms (Author: By PM 46926585, Wikimodia Commoms) i??l IHHI i I 81 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan End Notes 1. U.S. News & World Report, “The Deadliest and Costliest Hurricanes in U.S. History,” Accessed June 2017. https://www. usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/06/18/deadliest-costliest-hurricanes-in-us-history 2. Town of Stonington. “Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CBDG-DR) Planning Application.” Submitted to State of Connecticut Department of Housing. 2015. 3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administraton, National Centers for Environmental Information. “Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Overview.” Accessed June 2017. https://www.ncdc noaa.gov/billions/ 4. U.S. Global Change Research Program, “National Climate Assessment: Northeast Region,” Accessed June 2017. http:// nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/regions/northeast 5. Ibid. 6. Lin, Ning, Robert E. Kopp, Benjamin P. Hortron, and Jeffrey P. Donnelly. “Hurricane Sandy’s Flood Frequency Increasing from Year 1800 to 2100.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113 (2016): 12071-12075. Accessed June 2017. http://www.pnas.org/content/113/43/12071.full.pdf 7. Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Unit 6: Additional Regulatory Measures.” Accessed June 2017. https://www. fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1535-20490-3720/unit6.pdf 8. The neighborhoods were roughly defined using Stonington’s fire district boundaries with modifications from the Town Planning Department. 9. Dehnel, Chris. “Tourism Drives Mystic’s Economy.” The Hartford Business Journal (Hartford, CT). May 18, 2015. http:// www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/20150518/PRINTEDITION/305159962/1043 10. The Great American Stations. “Mystic, CT (MYS),” Accessed July 2017. http://www.greatamericanstations.com/stations/ mystic-ct-mys/ 11. Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection. “Barn Island Management Area,” Accessed July 2017. http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2723&Q=578666&deepNav_GID=1655 12. Ryan, A., and A.W. Whelchel. “A Salt Marsh Advancement Zone Assessment of Stonington, Connecticut.” The Nature Conservancy, Coastal Resilience Program (2014). Publication Series #1-T. 13. Multihazard Mitigation Council. “Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities.” National Institute of Building Sciences (2005). http://www.floods.org/PDF/MMC_Volume1_ FindingsConclusionsRecommendations.pdf 14. Schipper, E. Lisa F., Frank Thomalla, Gregor Vulturius, Karlee Johnson, Richard J.T. Klein. “Background Paper Prepared for the 2015 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction.” The United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction (2014). Accessed July 2017. https://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-GAR-Background-paper-Climate-DRR.pdf 15. Catholic Relief Services, “Emergency Resonse and Recovery,” Accessed July 2017. https://www.crs.org/our-work-overseas/program-areas/disaster-risk-reduction-and-resilience 16. Healy, Andrew, and Neil Malhotra. “Myopic Voters and Natural Disaster Policy.” American Political Science Review 103 (2009): 387-406. Accessed July 2017. http://myweb.lmu.edu/ahealy/papers/healy_malhotra_2009.pdf 82 End Notes & Image Sources Image Sources • Figures 29, 31, 32: Ryan, A., and A.W. Whelchel. “A Salt Marsh Advancement Zone Assessment of Stonington, Connecticut.” The Nature Conservancy, Coastal Resilience Program (2014). Publication Series #1-T. • Figure 48-49: SAGE. “Natural and Structural Measures for Shoreline Stabilization.” Accessed July 2017. http://sagecoast. org/docs/Living%20Shoreline%20Brochure_Inside.jpg • Figure 51 & 80: NOAA Restoration Center, NE Region. “New Bedford Harbor.” Accessed July 2017. http:// newenglandboating.com/new-bedford-harbor-being-assessed-after-storm/ • Figure 52: Christine Corrigan. “The Old Stonington Wharf in Stonington Borough.” The Westerly Sun. Accessed July 2017. http://www.thewesterlysun.com/home/9394873-154/effort-to-repair-stonington-harbor-breakwater-gets-support.html • Figure 53: Flood Control International. “Removable Flood Barriers.” Accessed July 2017. http://www. floodcontrolinternational.com/PRODUCTS/FLOOD-BARRIERS/demountable.php • Figure 54: Emily Michot. “Pedestrians in the Sunset Harbour Neighborhood of Miami Beach.” Miami Herald. Accessed July 2017. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article41141856.html • Figure 55: FEMA. “Wet Floodproofing Strategies.” Accessed July 2017. http://www.resilientdesign.org/fundamentals-ofresilient-design-wet-floodproofing/ • Figure 57: A Better City: Challenge for Sustainability. “Floating Buildings.” Accessed July 2017. http:// challengeforsustainability.org/resiliency-toolkit/floating-buildings/ • Figure 58: Steve Pfost. “The front of an elevated home in Lindenhurst on Sunday, June 21, 2015.” Newsday. Accessed July 2017. http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.10689668.1438250876!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_600/ image.JPG • Figure 59: Dave Saville. “Elevating mechanical equipment flooding hurrican damage in Carolina Beach, North Carolina.” FEMA. http://www.resilientdesign.org/fundamentals-of-resilient-design-wet-floodproofing/ • Figure 60: A Better City: Challenge for Sustainability. “Dry Floodproofing: Backflow Preventers.” Accessed July 2017. http://challengeforsustainability.org/resiliency-toolkit/backflow-preventers/ • Figure 61: CleanWater Nashville. “Green Infrastructure.” Accessed July 2017. http://www.cleanwaternashville.org/greeninfrastructure • Figure 62: Revolution Plumbing and Heating. “Sump Pump.” Accessed July 2017. http://revolutionplumbing.ca/reginaplumbing-tips-resources/ • Figure 63: Siemens. “Microgrids.” Accessed July 2017. http://w3.usa.siemens.com/smartgrid/us/en/microgrid/pages/ microgrids.aspx • Figure 64: Lyons, Lori. “St. John Generator Project ups Parish Flood Response.” L’Observateur (LaPlace, LA). March 22, 2017. http://m.lobservateur.com/2017/03/22/st-john-generator-project-ups-parish-flood-response/ • Figure 65: Dimitrova, Diyana. “Invisibility Cloaks Could Make Solar Panels 9 Percent More Efficient.” Accessed July 2017. https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/invisibility-cloak-solar-panels/ • Figure 66: Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. “Minnesota Wind Power Suppliers.” Accessed July 2017. https://apps.deed.state.mn.us/mwa/deed/windpowerdeed.aspx • Figure 67: Yoneda, Yuka. “Breaking: AT&T and Goal Zero Roll Out Street Charge Solar-Powered Phone Charging Stations in NYC.” Accessed July 2017. http://inhabitat.com/nyc/breaking-att-and-goal-zero-roll-out-street-charge-solar-poweredphone-charging-stations-in-nyc/ • Figure 74: Marinas.com. “Shaffer’s Boat Livery.” Accessed July 2017. https://marinas.com/view/marina/2gc2vz_Shaffers_ Boat_Livery_Mystic_CT_United_States End Notes & Image Sources 83 2% Appendix A: GIS Data and Methodology Memo and GIS Maps Appendix B: Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Memo Appendix C: Resilience Solutions Memo Appendix D: Regulatory Audit Memo Appendix E: Literature Review Memo Appendix F: Sea Level Rise Memo Appendix G: Community Engagement Efforts Appendices 85 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Appendix A: GIS Data and Methodology Memo and GIS Maps Memorandum To Date Keith Brynes, Town Planner Town of Stonington February 16, 2017 Copies Reference number 251043.00 From Lisa Dickson, Arup Katie Wholey, Arup Subject GIS Data and Methodology File reference As part of the coastal resilience assessment, we collected all readily-available GIS data from the Town of Stonington in order to assess which assets are vulnerable to coastal flooding. Woods Hole Group (WHG) also compiled coastal flood projections for the following time horizons: present-day, 2030, 2050, and 2070. The information below details the GIS data we collected and what we are planning to use for the vulnerability and risk assessment. The data in red in the “Additional Data” category is the information that we received from the Town, but we are proposing not to use for this assessment. 1 GIS Layers We worked with New England Geosystems to collect all of the town’s available GIS layers applicable to this study. The following table includes all of the layers we received from New England Geosystems and any additional applicable information for each of the layers. Category Drainage Utilities Layer Name Description GPS_Outfalls GPS_outfallsAnno CulvertPoints Stormwater Outfalls GPSCBPoints GPSCBpoints2 Catch Basins StormMH Stormwater Manholes CulvertPipes StormLines Stormwater Pipes and Notes from NE Geosystems GPS_outfallsAnno = Labels for GPS_Outfalls layer CulvertPoints and GPS_Outfalls are different versions of the town’s data on outfalls GPSCBPoints has 7 more points than GPSCBPoints2, so GPSCBPoints is likely the most upto-date layer CulvertPipes are the pipes that connect between culverts. StormLines are drain pipes J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_GIS DATA AND METHODOLOGY_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 1 of 6 Memorandum underground which are usually connected by catch basins san_manholes san_pumpstations Sewer_Accts san_pipes Sewer_Districts Sewer_service_areas util_lines ROW_Easement Environmental Resources Hydro_Names hydroArc hydro_poly Island_Names WetlandSurvey Basins ShellFish Groundwaterprotection Groundwaterprotection_2 tree_cover Soils_poly DEP_soils AquiferDEP Wastewater Manholes Wastewater Pump Stations Address points for all properties on town sewer Wastewater Pipes Sewer Districts Areas of Town Connected to Sewer Electrical Transmission Lines Right of Ways and Easements Water Bodies Hydro_Names = Labels for hydroArc Hydro_poly is the same as hydroArc, but it also contains streams Labels of Islands Wetlands Boundary (by Survey) Watersheds The layer was created from digitizing over a large scale map. The actual property boundaries Shellfishing would have to be researched in the properties (owned) archives for precise areas. Some are owned privately and possibly by the Town. Designated groundwater These seem to be the same layer. protection zones Tree Canopy DEP_soils has non wetland soils Soil Types deleted and Soils_poly contains all soils, including non-wetlands soils Regulated Aquifers J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_GIS DATA AND METHODOLOGY_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 2 of 6 Memorandum Boundaries Coastal_Town_Boundary town Address_points Borough_Boundary Border_Town_Poly Zoning_2010 CAM PARCELS_2015 Critical Assets Stonington Boundary Coastal town boundary is in relation to where the parcels ends. Town would include the water areas that fall within Stonington's jurisdiction. Point locations of all Addresses in Stonington Stonington Borough Boundary Bordering Town Boundaries Zoning Districts Coastal Area Management Zone Parcel boundaries FEMA Base Flood Elevation. It is a line representing how far between FEMA Base Flood FEMA_BFE_2013 one side of the coast to the other Elevation side of the flood coast in the 100yr flood zone. FEMA_2013 FEMA Flood Zones Hand-picked items that were believed to be points that would be POI_point Points of interest of interest like schools, police, fire, aquarium etc. No certain schema and not sure who picked them. School Parcels (not Schools_poly building footprint) Town Hall Parcel Town_Hall_poly (not building footprint) All Town-owned town_owned_property_poly Parcels Point Locations of Police_Dept_Point the Stonington Police Department Fire Station Parcels Fire_Station_Poly (not building footprints) Point Location of Schools Schools Preserved open Open_space space J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_GIS DATA AND METHODOLOGY_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 3 of 6 Memorandum plan_lines Digitized layer of planimetric features located on the Aerial photo of 1999. They are interpreted Fences, Walls, to the best guess of whoever was Culvert, Hedges, digitizing those objects. Whether a Retaining Wall, wall is really just a wall or a Trail retaining wall is not verified. This layer was purchased in conjunction with their 1999 aerial photo. buildings Building Footprints PlaniPoly Cemetery, Docks, Golf Course, Headwall, Pier, Pools, Sports, Stock Piles, Tanks Assessor_Database_2015 Assessor’s data Road Paved and Unpaved Roads, Driveways and Parking Railroad Railroad tracks Transportation Centerline roadLine Historic Resources Additional Data Digitized layer of planimetric features located on the Aerial photo of 1999. They are interpreted to the best guess of whoever was digitizing those objects. This layer was purchased in conjunction with their 1999 aerial photo. GISLINK, MBL or unique ID would be best fields to join with parcels layer. Street centerline layer, contains Streets (except dirt names and address ranges along roads) with other information Street Curbs Showing street curbs. NewLondon_SHPO State Historic Note: This layer was provided by Properties Layer Keith (not NE Geosystems) streetlights Street locations Fire_Hydrants_2016 Location of Fire Hydrants FireDistricts_Poly Voting_Districts light Fire District Boundaries Voting Districts J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_GIS DATA AND METHODOLOGY_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 4 of 6 Memorandum Woods Hole Group (WHG) also prepared coastal flood layers based on projected sea level rise and storm surge for the present-day, 2030, 2050, and 2070. The following table details what layers were provided. Layer Name Present-day Probability Present-day 1% annual storm Present-day 0.1% annual storm 2030 Probability 2030 1% annual storm 2030 0.1% annual storm 2050 Probability 2050 1% annual storm 2050 0.1% annual storm 2070 Probability 2070 1% annual storm 2070 0.1% annual storm 2 Description Probability of flooding (displayed as an annual %) in the present-day Depth of flooding associated with a 1% annual storm (or 100-year storm) in the present-day Depth of flooding associated with a 0.1% annual storm (or 1000-year storm) in the present-day Probability of flooding (displayed as an annual %) in 2030 Depth of flooding associated with a 1% annual storm (or 100-year storm) in 2030 Depth of flooding associated with a 0.1% annual storm (or 1000-year storm) in 2030 Probability of flooding (displayed as an annual %) in 2050 Depth of flooding associated with a 1% annual storm (or 100-year storm) in 2050 Depth of flooding associated with a 0.1% annual storm (or 1000-year storm) in 2050 Probability of flooding (displayed as an annual %) in 2070 Depth of flooding associated with a 1% annual storm (or 100-year storm) in 2070 Depth of flooding associated with a 0.1% annual storm (or 1000-year storm) in the present-day Mapping Methodology Because there is very little difference between the 2030 and 2050 coastal flooding scenarios (see maps below) and this study is heavily focused on developing solutions rather than analyzing vulnerability, we propose mapping the assets against the 2050 1% storm and completing the vulnerability assessment based on that scenario. The layers are organized into those five main categories in the table above and we anticipate that the maps will follow a similar schema. The categories include: drainage and utilities, environmental resources, critical assets, transportation, and historic resources. The layers identified as “boundaries” in the table above, will be used to assist with the basemaps. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_GIS DATA AND METHODOLOGY_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 5 of 6 Memorandum 2030 1% Annual Flood 2050 1% Annual Flood J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_GIS DATA AND METHODOLOGY_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 6 of 6 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Ledyard Groton Present-Day Flood Probability North Stonington Service Layer Credits: Eeri, Present Flood Probability Westerly .1 Open -etMap contributors,.and the GIS user community 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 ?:_Miles Ledyard Groton I r! Service Layer Credits: Esri, Flood Depth (ft) 2 ft 4.5 ft Present-Day 100-year Storm Flood Depths Dry 2.5ft 5ft : 3ft -10ft North Stonington Westerly . Open -etMap contributors,.and the (518- user- community 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 ?:_Miles Ledyard Present-Day 1000-year Storm Flood Depths Semi'ce Layer Credits: Esri, North Stonington Open Flood Depth [:L]4ft (ft) : 2ft : 5ft :]3ft -10ft >10ft Westerly -etM-ap contributors, .and the (518- user- commu?nity 2030 Flood 0.5 10 0 0.35 0.7 1.1??63 2030 Flood Probability Probability 1 20 North 02 Ledyard Westerly Groton ,.and the (518- user- community Service Layer Cred-its: Esri, HERE, D'eLorme?, Mapmy?1_?OpenStreetMap contri 0.35 0.7 1.4 2030 100-year Storm Flood Depths Miles North Stonington Ledyard Groton f? :?OpenStreetMap contri Service Layer Cred-its: Esri, HERE, D'eLorme?, Mapmy 2030 100-year Storm Flood Depth (ft) 0' - s- 3.1' 5' - >10' Westerly ,.and the (518- user- community 0 0.35 0.7 1.4 Ledyard Groton 2030 1000-year Storm Flood Depths North Stonington w. . . OpenStreetMap contri Service Layer Cred-its: Esri, HERE, D'eLorme?, Mapmy I 2030 1000-year Storm Flood Depth (ft) 0' - s- 3.1' 5' - >10' Westerly ,.and the (518- user- community 0.35 0.7 1.4 2050 Flood Probability ?050 ?990' 0-5 10 Miles 1 20 North Stonington Ledyard Westerly Groton -A ,.and the? (518- user- community Service Layer Cred-its: Esri,_ HERE, DeLorme, Mapmy 5w?. penStreetMap contri 2050 100-year 0.35 0.7 1.4 - 2050 100-year Storm Flood Depths storm Flood Depth (ft) 0' 3' CI 3.1' - 5' North - Stonington - Miles Ledyard Groton Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, D'eLorme, StreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community 0.35 0.7 2050 1000-year Storm Flood Depths Miles North Stonington Ledyard Groton .-openStreetMap contri 1 Service Layer Cred-its: Esri, HERE, D'eLorme?, Mapmy 2050 1000-year Storm Flood Depth(ft) - 10' - Westerly ,.and the (518- user- community I Difference in Flood Extens between 2030 and 2050 7' 1 2030 to. 2050 ?oodplain dri ffe re noes wk North Stonington/ ?V?x 0.35 0.7 1.4 0 ?:?Miles Ledyard 8 27 Groton . Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorr?ne-, Open Space Animal Control Facility Borough Hall Post Office Community Center Stonington Free Library Town Dock Transfer Station Police Station I Fire Station 2050 100-year Mystic Aquarium Storm Mystic Seaport Flood Depth (ft) Olde Mystic Village 0' - 3' School 3.1' . 5' - 5.1' . 10' Mystic Train Station - >1 0' Nursing Center Town Hall Westerly i ll" RII StreetMap contributOrs-, and the user community Community Facilities 696666 Stonington Police Station Animal Control Facility Transfer Station Stonington Town Hall Stonington Borough Hall Stonington Free Library Town Dock Mystic Train Station Apple Rehab Mystic Pawcatuck Neighborhood Center La Grua Center Stonington Community Center (COMO) Ocean Community YMCA Former Fourth District Voting Hall Mystic Seaport Olde Mystic Village Mystic Aquarium Pawcatuck Post Of?ce Stonington Borough Post Office Mystic Post Office Old Mystic Post Office Pawcatuck Fire Department Wequeteduock Fire Department Stonington Borough Fire Department Ouiambaug Fire Department Mystic Fire Department Old Mystic Fire Department Stonington Superintendent of Schools Mystic Middle School Deans Mill School Stonington Human Services Building Stonington High School Pawcatuck Middle School West Broad Street School West Vine Street School 035 0.7 1_4_ Stonington Major Transportation Resources No?h Stonington Ledyard PEQL-JGW Groton JA Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, IeLorme, Mapm z" OpenStreetMap contrio Masons Island I 2050 100-year Causeway Storm Event Road Type Flood Depth (ft) Primary (State . . Highway) El 0 3 Secondary (Town I: 3'1. 5' Road) - Railroad 10' Westerly ,l gill-41 and the GIS user community 0 0.35 0.7 1.4_ Ledyard Groton Stonington Drainage and Utilities Nodh Stonington Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, D'eLorme, Mapmy . A - OpenStreetMap Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility Pawcatuck Wastewater Treatment Facility Stonington Wastewater Treatment Facility 2050 100-year Storm Flood Depth (ft) 0- - 3- 3.1' - 5' - 5.1' - 10' Electrical Substation - 10' Mystic Reservoir Wastewater Pumpstations ributors,_and the GIS user community 2050 100-year 0 0.35 0.7 1.4 - . Stonington Historic Districts Storm Flood Depth (ft) ?:?Miles l:l0"3' North Stonington - Ledyard Mechanic Street Historic District Rossie Velvet Mill Historic District 1 . Westerly Groton 5- ll. . T. I. . Mystic?Bridge 14;? HistoricDistrict a? . ?3 a! *1 a" It?. ?1 "vi ~c I Stonington Boroug Historic District Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, D'eLorme, StreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community - ?1 29 035 07 Stonington Neighborhoods (reviewed as part of this Plan) 3' i - Sv??hp r. ?a -7 \laJQf? Groton Nlo Stonington A ?u?z I I Westerly {Ta ?13 Ii" State Auport penStre'etMa?p - Road Type 2050 100-year Primary (State Highway) Storm Ledyard - Secondary (Town Road) Depth (ft) .. Wastewater Pu mpstations 0' - 3' . Post Office [3 3.1' - 5' . Fire Station - 5-1' - 10' Buildings - >10' Open Space . 0 Grotdn Mystic (2050 100-year Stormy aQt._rv Layer?gregts: Esri, HERE, D- ?ma OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS?serCao munity . Road Type 2050 100-year Primary (State Highway) Storm Secondary (Town Road) Depth (ft) Railroad 0' - 3' Mystic Train Station 3.1' - 5' Mystic Wastewater - 5.1' - ?10 Treatment - >10. Electrical Substation Mystic Reservoir Wastewater Pumpstations Post Office Community Center Fire Station Mystic Seaport School 9 a ?gun-Pp Nursing Center Buildings Open Space ba'?b?bh?mb no Papaya-=9 $39 :?ua ?a?-Qtf - 05 '3 Groton an: u'lJ new?? 'h m0 Mystic (2050 100- -year Storm)?, on. 'i and the GIS user comr?mity .z whoa Va 49 <39 Road Type Buildings U0 . Fire Station Mason's Island Causeway 0' - 3' g?l? Railroad Primary (State Highway) Open Space Storm 2050 100-year 51' 5 ill: 10' Masons Island (2050 100-year Storm) Flood Depth (ft) - - orme, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Road Type 2050 100-year Primary (State Highway) Storm Railroad Flood Depth (ft) . Fire Station 0' - 3' Buildings [2 3.1' - 5' Open Space - 5.1' - 10' (d {f 0 smoNiNGmoN . :31 "0,6 Want, a? . ?In .3) Latimer Point (2050 100-year Storm) Mapm?ylndia, r335 OpenStreetM-ap contributors, and the (318- user Community Road Type 2050 10.0-year Primary (State Highway) Storm Railroad Flood Depth (ft) 4 . Wastewater Pumpstations 0' - 3' Buildings - 3.1' - 5' - 5.1' - 10' >10' Lords Point (2050 loo-year Storm) Q5 1 . . 0 Road Type 2050 100-year 1 Miles . Secondary (Town Road) Storm I Railroad Flood Depth (ft) a? at - Do a- onington Wastewater . Treatment Facility 31,_ 5, B: CD Electrical Substation - r3 2 - -. -5-1 - 592! ES I: . Wastewater Pumpstations - >10, Borough Fire Station Post Office Community Center Stonington Free Library Town Dock Town Hall Buildings Open Space 5 :39 55' gs, Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Mapmy ndia, 0 I. 0 0.125029? -:IMiles Road Type Primary (State Highway) Railroad Pawcatuck Wastewater Treatment Facility Electrical Substation Wastewater Pu mpstations Animal Control Facility Transfer Station Police Station Fire Station School Buildings Open Space Westerly In." 2050 100-year Storm Flood Depth (ft) 1: o- - s- 3.1' - 5' - 5.1' - 10' >10' Lower Pawcatuck (2050 100-year Storm) Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, D'eLorme, OpenStreetM-ap contributors, and the? (518- user- community 1Downtown Pawcatuck (2050 100-year Storm) a 9 gaunt? 43 0.: :3 or?; on?; u" De- Spawn . who ?rm? ?Etnj'g FIG an I: cm c?m'a TIE-Jamaal: natal] a $93 an 0:273 spunky? ?my I. unth?han '35 a'?aeu ?on?ua'uth dogma animal: a a nn-? D?onn?nug'iil ?gang: anannan??' In 1:31] I?Claml shun?: an. E?S'n'ln?la? d? "aim nonlhn menu "a "Opennauunnuu Egyfg?uu Dig nun-1:9 anon Ina qn? a noun? 05:: minimal: nunu'htltinqo nan ham-?0 3 . In?u?u nq??mnn15?un? "a than ma??noq?aqg gage. a Westerly Open Space Buildings . Community Center . Fire Station . School . Post Office . WastewaterPumpstations Railroad Second ary (Town Road) Flood Depth (ft) Primary (State Highway) Storm 2050 100-year Road Type Appendix B: Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Memo Memorandum To Keith Brynes, Town Planner Town of Stonington, CT Copies Date April 28, 2017 Reference number 251043-00 From Katie Wholey, Arup Lisa Dickson, Arup Subject Town of Stonington Risk Assessment 1 File reference Overview The Vulnerability and Risk Assessment is intended to provide a high-level analysis of the impact of coastal flooding on Stonington’s most important community assets and resources. The Town suffered considerable damage from Superstorm Sandy, including impacts to the Town Dock, Masons Island Causeway and several other facilities. As a result, the Town of Stonington started a comprehensive planning process to assess its vulnerability to impacts from sea level rise and coastal flooding. This memo details the first step in that process. 2 Methodology Each of the assets and resources included in this assessment were provided by the Town’s GIS services and vetted by the Town Planning Department, the Town Engineer, and the Climate Change Task Force. In most cases, assets are individual buildings or structures (e.g. fire station or wastewater treatment facility); however, some assets may consist of larger areas or multiple components dispersed across Stonington (e.g. Barn Island Management Area or drainage facilities). In addition, a high level overview of some of Stonington’s most important neighborhoods was also included in this assessment. Due to the large number of outfalls and catch basins in Stonington, the decision was made to treat both of these as individual asset classes, instead of assessing the risk to each individual outfall and catch basin. Similarly, Stonington has a large number of historic properties; because most of these properties are concentrated in four historic districts, the assessment of the historic resources was based on the risk to the district as a whole. This risk assessment is based on an analysis of the type of hazard (or the likelihood of the coastal flooding event) to which the asset is exposed, the level of exposure (or how much flooding is expected to impact the asset), and the vulnerability of the asset (or the level of importance of that asset to the community). The risk score incorporates each of these components using the following equation and definitions. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 1 of 17 Memorandum Risk = Hazard x Exposure x Vulnerability Hazard The hazard analysis is intended to assess the likelihood that an asset will be impacted by coastal flooding. The scoring was based on the following ranking of storm types: Hazard Type Present-day 1% storm 2030 1% storm 2050 1% storm Hazard Score 3 2 1 Note: For the 2030 and 2050 hazards, we also included assets that were impacted by the 0.1% storm. Exposure The exposure analysis focuses on the anticipated depth of flooding associated with the 0.1% annual storm in 2050. Because some of the assets spread across several anticipated flood depths, we used the maximum depth of flooding at any point along the asset. For example, whereas a building can be assessed at a specific point location, a roadway or park spans a lot more area; therefore, the maximum depth was used in order to provide one depth number for each asset. The following chart details the breakdown of exposure scores: Depth of Flooding > 10 ft. 5.01-10 ft. 2.01-5 ft. 0-2 ft. Exposure Score 4 3 2 1 Vulnerability The vulnerability score is based on a set of assumptions for each of these assets; these assumptions are intended to provide a measure of the asset’s importance to the community. In order to accomplish this, four scores are given to each asset and then combined into one overall vulnerability score. The first score is a measure of the criticality of the facility. This scoring is based on the FEMA definition of a critical facility. “FEMA defines four kinds of critical facilities:  Structures or facilities that produce, use or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water-reactive materials. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 2 of 17 Memorandum    Hospitals, nursing homes and housing likely to have occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile to avoid injury or death during a flood. Police stations, fire stations, vehicle and equipment storage facilities, and emergency operations centers that are needed for flood response activities before, during and after a flood. Public and private utility facilities that are vital to maintaining or restoring normal services to flooded areas before, during and after a flood.”1 In addition, “other essential assets” refers to assets that are important to providing essential municipal services, but are not included in FEMA’s definition of critical facilities. Municipal services are typically defined as services that residents expect the local government entity to provide in exchange for the residents’ tax dollars (i.e. schools). Based on this definition, the following scoring system was developed: Critical Facility Critical Facility by FEMA's definition Other essential assets Non-critical and non-essential assets Critical Facility Score 3 2 1 A second analysis was performed to assess the consequence of failure of the asset. A simple estimate was completed to approximate the percentage of the population that would be impacted by failure of the asset. The analysis was a high-level representation of the redundancy of each asset. Percentage impacted is a function of the number of facilities that provide the same services to the community, as a whole. For example, Stonington only has one high school and emergency shelter, therefore the assumption was made that flooding of the high school would impact 100% of Stonington’s population; similarly, there are six fire stations in Stonington, so the assumption was made that failure of any one of these facilities would impact 16.66% of the population. In the case of the three wastewater treatment facilities, it is important to note that the Stonington WPCA provided data on the service areas for each facilities; therefore no assumptions needed to be made because that data was used to assess the impact to the community for each of those facilities. The impact to the community was scored based on the following system: Impact by % 67-100% 34-66% 0-33% Community Impact Score 3 2 1 The third analysis used to determine vulnerability was a high-level economic impact analysis. For this analysis, assumptions were made regarding the magnitude of the anticipated replacement cost of each 1 https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1535-20490-3720/unit6.pdf J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 3 of 17 Memorandum asset; a simple assessment was then conducted to assess the direct economic impact based on damage to the asset in question. A more detailed and in-depth cost-benefit analysis for the most at-risk assets is anticipated in the next phase of this scope of work. This economic impact was assessed according to the following system: Economic Impact/Replacement Cost High = important infrastructure equipment Medium = other buildings Low = open space and recreation areas Economic Impact Score 3 2 1 The fourth analysis was intended to capture the importance of historic districts and tourism in Stonington. Tourism is largely driven by the historic nature of the Town and its proximity to the ocean and as a result, tourism has become an important economic driver for the Town. Because we do not have detailed statistics on the value of tourism on Stonington’s economy, we conducted a high-level assessment to identify important tourism assets and districts. Tourism and historic resources in the Town seem to be closely correlated, as the most historic districts also seem to be the most popular tourist destinations. Therefore, we combined the two into one category to assess the value of tourism and historic resources. Any asset or district identified by the Town as an important historic district or tourist destination was given a score of three. All other assets were not scored in this category. Specifically, the assets that received a score of three in this category include:  Mystic Seaport  Mechanic Street Historic District  Mystic Bridge Historic District  Rossie Velvet Historic District  Stonington Borough Historic District An average was taken of the critical facility score, the community impact score, the economic impact score, and the tourism/historic resources score in order to determine one vulnerability score. It is important to note that the vulnerability assessment of the historic districts was based on the criticality of the impacted historic properties to the Town of Stonington and its residents; the assessment did not take into account other types of facilities that may be located within the historic district, since those facilities were assessed separately and given their own individual risk scores. Therefore, the historic districts may have a lower risk score than some of the facilities located in those districts, because they have different vulnerability scores based on different levels of criticality to the Town. Risk The risk score was determined by multiplying the hazard score, the exposure score, and the vulnerability score to establish one overall risk score for each asset. The risk score will be used to prioritize the most at-risk assets in Stonington (Note: The highest possible risk score for any asset is 36). The following example details the full risk scoring for one of Stonington’s assets. Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility: J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 4 of 17 Memorandum Hazard:  This asset is at risk as early as the present-day 100-year flood event o Hazard Score = 3 Exposure:  Maximum depth of flooding during the 2050 0.1% annual storm = 10.9 ft. o Exposure Score = 4 Vulnerability  Wastewater Treatment is considered a critical facility under FEMA’s definition o Critical Facility Score = 3  The Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility services approximately 14% of the population in Stonington (based on data provided by the WPCA); therefore, failure of the asset would impact approximately 14% of the population o Community Impact Score = 1  Wastewater treatment facilities require expensive infrastructure in order to function properly; therefore, damage to the facility would have a high economic impact o Economic Impact Score = 3  Wastewater treatment facilities are not a tourist attraction o Tourism/Historic Resources Score = N/A  Overall vulnerability score = (3 + 1+ 3 + 0) / 4 = 1.75 Risk Hazard Score (3) x Exposure Score (4) x Vulnerability Score (1.75) = 21 3 Risk Assessment Based on this methodology, we assessed the risk across a variety of community assets and resources in Stonington. The full risk assessment and back-up information can be found in the attached Risk Assessment spreadsheet. The results of the analysis are displayed in the following tables – the first table displays the risk associated with town-owned assets while the second table displays the risk associated with important assets in Stonington that fall outside of the Town’s jurisdiction. The results were divided in this way in order to prioritize those assets that the Town has direct control over as compared to those assets where the Town will need to serve in more of an awareness and advocacy role in order to encourage the owners of those assets to make improvements to the asset’s resilience. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 5 of 17 Memorandum Assets were divided into four main categories as detailed below:  Drainage and Utilities (D&U): Drainage and utility infrastructure, including wastewater treatment plants, pumping stations, catch basins, and outfalls.  Critical Assets (CA): Important assets in Stonington, including critical facilities (fire stations, schools, police stations) and open space.  Transportation (T): Transportation assets, including major roadways and rail infrastructure.  Historic Resources (HR): Important historic districts in Stonington Drainage & Utilities J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 6 of 17 Memorandum Critical Assets J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 7 of 17 Memorandum Transportation J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 8 of 17 Memorandum Historic Resources J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 9 of 17 Memorandum The purpose of this Memo is to identify that most at-risk assets in order to determine which assets will be the focus of developing resilience solutions. However, it is important to note that, as part of the Coastal Resilience Plan, we will also complete a high-level review of the five focus areas/neighborhoods that have particular importance to the Town:  Downtown Mystic (including Mystic Seaport)  Old Mystic  Waterfront Communities (including Masons Island, Latimer Point, and Lords Point)  Stonington Borough  Pawcatuck (including Downtown Pawcatuck and Lower Pawcatuck) J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 10 of 17 Memorandum Risk Ranking The following tables show the results of the risk ranking, with the assets separated by ownership type. Town and Borough-Owned Assets Asset Masons Island Causeway Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility Asset Class Ownership Hazard Exposure Vulnerability Risk CA Town 3 4 2.00 24 CA Town 3 4 1.75 21 HR Private and Town 3 4 1.75 21 Mystic Bridge Historic District HR Private and Town 3 4 1.75 21 Rossie Velvet Historic District HR Private and Town 3 4 1.75 21 Stonington Borough Historic District Boulder Avenue Pump Station Diving Street Pump Station HR D&U D&U Private and Town Town Town 3 3 3 4 4 4 1.75 1.50 1.50 21 18 18 River Road/Mary Hall Road Pump Station (Pump Station No. 3) Wolcott Avenue Pump Station River Road/Mechanic Street North Main Street D&U D&U T T 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 18 18 18 18 Elm Street Flanders Road Cutler Street Town Dock Catchbasins Outfalls Hewitt Road Pump Station Mechanic Street (Pump Station 1) Willow Street Water Street Donahue Park Ensign Lane Pump Station T T T CA D&U D&U D&U D&U T T CA D&U 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 2 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.75 1.25 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.75 1.50 18 18 18 16 15 15 14 14 14 14 9 9 Mechanic Street Historic District Town Town Town Town Town and Borough Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Town Borough Town Town J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 11 of 17 Memorandum Former 4th District Voting Hall Mystic River Park Borough Hall Old Mystic Playground Stonington Police Department Stonington High School & Emergency Shelter Borough Fire Station Old Mystic Pump Station Lindbergh Road Pump Station Stonington Town Park CA CA CA CA CA CA CA D&U D&U CA Town Town Borough Town Town Town Borough Town Town Town 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 0.75 1.25 0.75 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.50 0.75 9 9 8 7 7 6 5 5 2 1 Assets Not Owned by the Town or Borough Asset Apple Rehab Mystic Mystic Seaport Greenmanville Ave Electrical Substation Cutler St Electrical Substation Amtrak Rail Line East Main Street Greenmanville Avenue North Water Street Roosevelt Avenue State Highway 27/Denison Avenue Stonington Road West Broad Street Williams Avenue Mystic Train Station Mystic Fire Department Quiambaug Fire Department Alpha Avenue Asset Class CA CA D&U D&U T T T T T T T T T CA CA CA T Broadway Avenue Liberty Street Westerly Bypass Ocean Community YMCA T T T CA Ownership Hazard Exposure Vulnerability Risk Private 3 4 2.00 24 Private 3 4 1.75 21 Private 3 3 2.25 20 Private 3 3 2.25 20 Private 3 4 1.50 18 State 3 4 1.50 18 State 3 4 1.50 18 State 3 4 1.50 18 State 3 4 1.50 18 State 3 4 1.50 18 State 3 4 1.50 18 State 3 4 1.50 18 State 3 4 1.50 18 Private 3 3 1.75 16 Fire District 3 3 1.75 16 Fire District 3 3 1.75 16 State 3 3 1.50 14 State and Town 3 3 1.50 14 State 3 3 1.50 14 State 3 3 1.50 14 Private 3 3 1.25 11 J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 12 of 17 Memorandum Stonington Community Center CA Old Mystic Post Office CA Town Open Space (Dubois Beach) CA Barn Island Management Area CA Mystic Post Office CA Avalonia Land Conservancy (Ram Point) CA Paffard Marsh Preserve CA Denison Pequot Nature Center (Greenmanville Ave) CA Denison Pequot Nature Center (Pequotsepos Rd) CA Private Private Private State Federal Private Private Private Private 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 11 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Cottrell Marsh (owned) TNC Gallup Salt Marsh (easement) TNC Mason Island Company (easement) South Broad Street Whitehall Avenue Pawcatuck Neighborhood Center La Grua Center Denison Pequotsepos Nature Center, Inc. Mystic Reservoir Pawcatuck Fire Station Borough Post Office Anguilla Preserve Avalonia Land Conservancy (N. Stonington Rd) CA CA CA T T CA CA CA D&U CA CA CA CA Private Private Private State State Private Private Private Private Fire District Federal Private Private 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.25 0.75 2.00 1.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 7 6 5 3 2 2 Avalonia Land Conservancy (North Main Street) CA Private 3 1 0.75 2 Pawcatuck Little League Stonington Soccer Club CA CA Private Private 3 3 1 1 0.75 0.75 2 2 J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 13 of 17 Memorandum 4 Top 25 Assets Based on this analysis and conversations with the Town, the following assets highlighted were identified as the top 25 most are-risk assets in Stonington. These assets will be reviewed at a higherlevel for potential resilience solutions. Town / Borough Owned  Masons Island Causeway  Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility  Boulder Ave. Pump Station  River Road/Mary Hall Rd. Pump Station  Stonington Wastewater Treatment Facility  Town Dock Assets Not Owned by Town or Borough  Mystic Fire Dept.  Quiambaug Fire Dept.  Mechanic Street Historic District  Mystic Bridge Historic District  Rossie Velvet Mill Historic District  Stonington Borough Historic District  Apple Rehab Mystic  Mystic Seaport  Greenmanville Ave. Electrical Substation  State Hwy 27  Donahue Park  State Hwy 1  Cutler St. Electrical Substation  Mystic Train Station & Rail Line J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 14 of 17 Memorandum  Barn Island Management Area  Stonington Community Center (COMO)  Mystic River Park, Cottrell Street  Lords Point neighborhood  Murphy's Point neighborhood 5 Top 5 Assets After the higher-level review of the Top 25 most at-risk assets, the next step in the Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan is to develop resilience solutions for five of the Town’s most at-risk assets. Based on the results of this risk assessment and discussions with the Town, Arup recommends completing detailed resilience solutions for the following five assets:  Apple Rehab Mystic: One of the most at-risk medical facilities in Stonington.  Masons Island Causeway: Masons Island Causeway is an important asset as it is the only means of access and egress for nearly 800 residents living on Masons Island. It was also impacted by Superstorm Sandy and is often flooded even during smaller flooding events.  Mystic Wastewater Treatment Plant: Mystic Wastewater Treatment Plant services approximately 14% of the population in Stonington and is a valuable part of the town’s infrastructure.  Mystic (neighborhood, seaport, historic district): Mystic is one of the most important tourist destinations in Stonington and is also home to several important historic properties. In addition, Mystic Seaport ranked as one of the Town’s most at-risk assets. This asset would be treated as a neighborhood and the resilience solution would be a neighborhood-scale recommendation with a secondary emphasis on protecting historic properties and the Mystic Seaport.  A typical single-family structure in Stonington and a typical mixed-use building (based off examples from Pawcatuck): Although individual properties were not assessed as part of this risk assessment, feedback from the Town, the CCTF, and the public have shown that there is a strong interest in protecting personal property and understanding what individual homeowners or small business owners can do to make their properties more resilient. Therefore, we are recommending an assessment of resilience solutions for a typical single-family home structure and a typical commercial mixed-use structure as a means to incorporate the community’s interest and concerns. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 15 of 17 Memorandum Appendix A: List of All Assets Reviewed J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_FINAL_20170428.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 16 of 17 Critical Assets Animal Control Facility Borough Fire Station Borough Hall Pawcatuck Post Office Old Mystic Post Office Mystic Post Office Borough Post Office La Grua Center Stonington Community Center Pawcatuck Neighborhood Center Former Fourth District Voting Hall Ocean Community YMCA Stonington Free Library Town Dock Transfer Station Stonington High School School Adminstration Central Office Mystic Middle School Pawcatuck Middle School Apple Rehab Mystic Stonington Police Department Borough Fire Station Mystic Fire Department Old Mystic Fire Department Pawcatuck Fire Department Quiambaug Fire Department Wequetequock Fire Department Mystic Aquarium Mystic Seaport Olde Mystic Village Town Hall Barn Island Management Area Denison Pequot Nature Center Mystic River Park Stonington Soccer Club Anguilla Preserve Town Open Space (Jerry Browne Road) Avalonia Land Conservancy (N. Stonington Road) Town Open Space (route 2) Mystic Little League Field The Nature Conservancy Mason Island Company (easement) Town Open Space (Elm Street) Avalonia Land Conservancy (North Main Street) Town Open Space (Water & High Streets) Avalonia Land Conservancy (Ram Point) The Nature Conservancy Cottrell Marsh (owned) The Nature Conservancy Gallup Salt Marsh (easement) Town Open Space (Dubois Beach) Williams Beach (Mystic Community Center) Paffard Marsh Preserve Avalonia Land Conservancy Stonington Town Park Moss Park (Enterprise Avenue, Rear) Town Open Space (Farmholme Road) Avalonia Land Conservancy (Williams Rd, Rear) Town Open Space (Water & High Streets) Old Mystic Playground Pawcatuck Little League Pawcatuck Park Denison Pequotsepos Nature Center, Inc Mystic Train Station Historic Districts Mechanic Street Historic District Mystic Bridge Historic District Rossie Velvet Historic District Stonington Borough Historic District Transportation Amtrak Rail Line Masons Island Causeway Al Harvey Road Alpha Avenue Broadway Avenue Coogan Boulevard Cutler Street Deans Mill Road Denison Avenue East Main Street Elm Street Flanders Road Greenmanville Avenue Hickey Drive Jerry Browne Road Liberty Street Main Street Mistuxet Avenue New London Turnpike North Main Street North Stonington Road North Water Street Norwich-Westerly Road Pequot Trail River Road/Mechanic Street Roosevelt Avenue Route 27 South Broad Street State Highway 27 Stonington Road Taugwonk Road Voluntown Road Water Street West Broad Street Westerly Bypass Whitehall Avenue Williams Avenue Willow Street Drainage & Utilities Cutler St. Electrical Substation Greenmanville Ave. Electrical Substation Outfalls Catch Basins Cutter Drive Pump Station Hewitt Road Pump Station Diving Street Pump Station Flanders Road Pump Station Ensign Lane Pump Station Boulder Avenue Pump Station White Rock Road Pump Station Clarks Village Pump Station Spellman Street Pump Station (Pump Station No. 2) Extrusion Drive Pump Station Wolcott Avenue Pump Station River Road/Mary Hall Road Pump Station (Pump Station No. 3) Mechanic Street (Pump Station 1) Lindbergh Road Pump Station Maritme Drive Pump Station Old Mystic Pump Station Pawcatuck Wastewater Treatment Facility Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility Stonington Wastewater Treatment Facility Mystic Reservoir Memorandum Appendix B: Risk Scoring Tables J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\MEMO_VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT_V4.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 17 of 17 Risk = Hazard x Exposure x Vulnerability Hazard = the hazard area where the asset is located (based on storm type and FEMA flood zones) Hazard Type Hazard Score Present-day 1% storm or FEMA AE/VE Zone 3 2030 1% or 0.1% Storm 2 2050 1% or 0.1% storm 1 Exposure = Depth of flooding (in ft) to which the asset is exposed Depth of Flooding Exposure Score > 10 5.01-10 ft 2.01-5 ft 0-2 ft 4 3 2 1 Vulnerability = Criticality of facility and impact on community Critical facility is based on FEMA's definition of critical facility (found on pg. 6-18 to 6-20 here: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1535-20490-3720/unit6.pdf): Structures or facilities that produce, use or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water-reactive materials. Hospitals, nursing homes and housing likely to have occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile to avoid injury or death during a flood. Police stations, fire stations, vehicle and equipment storage facilities, and emergency operations centers that are needed for flood response activities before, during and after a flood. Public and private utility facilities that are vital to maintaining or restoring normal services to flooded areas before, during and after a flood. Critical Facility Critical Facility Score Critical Facility by FEMA's definition 3 Fire, Police, Wastewater Treatment, Electric substation, Mystic Reservoir, sewer treatment plant Other essential assets 2 Other municipal buildings (i.e town hall), community/neighborhood centers, schools, Amtrak, major roadways, pump stations, outfalls, catch basins Non-critical and non-essential assets 1 Impact on community is a function of assumptions made relative to % of community served by the asset; assumed % population affected based on redundancy of other facilities performing similar services (for wastewater treatment facilities, we used actual numbers provided by the WPCA) Impact by % Community Impact Score 67-100% 3 34-66% 2 0-33% 1 Economic Impact is a function of the value of the asset impacted; facilities with important infrastructure or equipment are considered high, buildings and structures without vital infrastructure are medium, open space is low Impact Economic Impact Score High = important infrastructure equipment 3 Medium = other buildings 2 Low = open space and recreation areas 1 Impact on Tourism/Economy is a function of areas designated as important historic and tourism areas of the Town; because Stonington's economy is supported by tourism, this is an important factor to consider Impact Tourism Score High = important historic district/tourist attraction 3 Vulnerability is an average of the critical facility, community impact, and economic impact score For example, if critical facility score = 3, economic impact score = 1, and community impact score = 2, then vulnerability score = (3+1+2)/3 = 2 Asset Community Facilities TNC Mason Island Company (easement) Avalonia Land Conservancy (Ram Point) TNC Cottrell Marsh (owned) TNC Gallup Salt Marsh (easement) Town Open Space (Dubois Beach) Ocean Community YMCA Paffard Marsh Preserve Old Mystic Playground Donahue Park Barn Island Management Area Borough Fire Station Borough Hall Borough Post Office Denison Pequot Nature Center (Cottrell St) Denison Pequot Nature Center (Pequotsepos Rd) Denison Pequotsepos Nature Center, Inc. Former 4th District Voting Hall La Grua Center Old Mystic Post Office Pawcatuck Fire Station Pawcatuck Neighborhood Center Stonington Community Center Stonington High School & Emergency Shelter Stonington Town Park Town Dock Mystic Seaport Mystic Fire Department Quiambaug Fire Department Stonington Police Department Pawcatuck Little League Stonington Soccer Club Anguilla Preserve Avalonia Land Conservancy (N. Stonington Rd) Avalonia Land Conservancy (North Main Street) Apple Rehab Mystic Mystic Post Office Mystic River Park Mystic Train Station Drainage & Utilities Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility Stonington Wastewater Treatment Facility Greenmanville Ave Electrical Substation Cutler St Electrical Substation Mystic Reservoir Hewitt Road Pump Station Diving Street Pump Station Ensign Lane Pump Station Boulder Avenue Pump Station Wolcott Avenue Pump Station River Road/Mary Hall Road Pump Station (Pump Station No. 3) Mechanic Street (Pump Station 1) Lindbergh Road Pump Station Old Mystic Pump Station Outfalls Hazard Hazard Score Exposure Max Depth in 2050 0.1% (in ft) Exposure Score Vulnerability Critical Facility Vulnerability Score Economic Impact Impact on Community Total Risk Score Tourism Impact Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA 2050 100 / 500 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA FEMA 2030 100 / 500 & FEMA FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA 2050 100 / 500 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA 2030 100 / 500 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA FEMA 2030 100 / 500 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA FEMA 2050 100 / 500 Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA FEMA FEMA FEMA FEMA FEMA FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 17.2 17.4 17.5 17.1 16.7 6.9 18.2 9.0 17.8 17.4 0.0 3.0 0.0 14.8 12.2 6.8 9.0 3.2 9.6 0.0 2.8 9.5 0.0 1.6 8.3 10.5 5.3 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 7.9 16.9 5.3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 1 2 1 4 4 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 3 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA 2030 100 / 500 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 2050 100 / 500 FEMA Present 100 (109) & FEMA (119) & 2030 100 / 500 (126) & 2050 100 / 500 (130) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 10.9 8.2 9.9 5.5 0.0 8.7 11.8 5 11.1 10.5 13.1 7 1.6 1.3 4 3 3 3 1 3 4 2 4 4 4 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 17.2 4 2 1 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.25 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.75 1.25 1 0.75 0.75 0.75 1 1.25 1 1.75 1.25 1.25 2 0.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 2.25 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 2 1 0.75 1.75 9 9 9 9 9 11.25 9 6.75 9 9 5.25 7.5 3 9 9 6.75 9 7.5 9 5.25 7.5 11.25 6 0.75 15.75 21 15.75 15.75 6.75 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 24 9 9 15.75 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1.75 1.75 2.25 2.25 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 21 15.75 20.25 20.25 6 13.5 18 9 18 18 18 13.5 1.5 4.5 2 1.25 15 3 Asset Catchbasins Historic Resources Mechanic Street Historic District Mystic Bridge Historic District Rossie Velvet Historic District Stonington Borough Historic District Transportation Masons Island Causeway Amtrak Rail Line Alpha Avenue Broadway Avenue Cutler Street Denison Avenue East Main Street Elm Street Flanders Road Greenmanville Avenue Liberty Street Main Street North Main Street River Road/Mechanic Street North Water Street Roosevelt Avenue South Broad Street State Highway 27 Stonington Road Water Street West Broad Street Westerly Bypass Whitehall Avenue Williams Avenue Willow Street Hazard Present 100 (568) & FEMA (617) & 2030 500 (700) & 2050 500 (724) FEMA (43), Present 100 (45), 2030 100 / 500 (84), 2050 100 / 500 (88) FEMA (359), Present 100 (328), 2030 100 / 500 (401), 2050 100 / 500 (402) FEMA (207), Present 100 (22), 2030 500 (50), 2050 500 (54) FEMA (206), Present 100 (133), 2030 100 / 500 (270), 2050 100 / 500 (294) Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Present 100 & FEMA Hazard Score Exposure Max Depth in 2050 0.1% (in ft) Exposure Score Vulnerability Critical Facility Vulnerability Score Economic Impact Impact on Community Total Risk Score Tourism Impact 3 13.4 4 2 1 2 1.25 15 3 11.9 4 1 1 2 3 1.75 21 3 15.8 4 1 1 2 3 1.75 21 3 11.6 4 1 1 2 3 1.75 21 3 16.6 4 1 1 2 3 1.75 21 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 11.8 17.8 9.96 9.25 9.84 9.74 17.47 11.56 7.37 11.2 9.48 8.65 10.04 13.89 16.32 10.25 2.11 10.46 16.35 8.65 11.96 8.61 2.06 16.57 7.9 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 24 18 13.5 13.5 18 13.5 18 18 18 18 13.5 13.5 18 18 18 18 9 18 18 13.5 18 13.5 9 18 13.5 Appendix C: Resilience Solutions Memo Memorandum To Mr. Keith Brynes, Town Planner Town of Stonington, CT Date Mr. Scot Deledda, Town Engineer Town of Stonington, CT Reference number From Lisa Dickson, Arup Katie Wholey, Arup File reference Subject Proposed Resilience Solutions Copies June 1, 2017 251043.00 Overview Based on the Vulnerability and Risk assessment for the Town of Stonington, previously completed as part of this scope of work, the Top 25 and the Top 5 most at-risk assets for the Town were identified. Those at-risk assets were carried into this next phase of work to identify proposed resilience solutions for each of the assets. For the Top 25 assets, we have identified high-level solutions that are intended to help the Town understand the types of resilience solutions that may be well-suited for Stonington and should be explored in further detail as the Town moves towards a more resilient future. More detailed solutions were developed for each of the Top 5 assets. These resilience solutions provide greater detail on the various benefits associated with each solution as well as estimated costs for implementing those solutions at each site. Potential Resilience Strategies Protection “Hard” Solutions for Shoreline Protection There are a variety of engineered solutions to protect coastal shorelines from flooding and erosion. These solutions include (but are not limited to) bulkheads, seawalls, levees and revetments. Bulkheads, seawalls, and levees are traditionally made of stone or concrete whereas revetments are typically constructed from stone. These “hard” engineering solutions are intended to protect exposed shorelines from erosion and mitigate the effects of sea level rise and storm surge. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 1 of 28 Memorandum Living Shoreline Living shorelines include a wide range of ecological solutions that protect coastal areas from erosion, sea level rise, and coastal flooding. These solutions prioritize natural solutions and green infrastructure over “hard” coastal engineering solutions. Living shorelines are typically a system of green infrastructure (or “soft” engineering solutions) that creates a buffer along the water’s edge with the goal of minimizing erosion and absorbing wave action. Tides Gates (or Floodgates) Tide gates, also known as floodgates, are gate that can be deployed to control water flow and prevent flooding. These gates are typically implemented as part of a larger flood control system to protect the coast from large storm surges. Floodplain Buyout and Acquisition Programs A large portion of homes and businesses in Stonington were built in the floodplain and, therefore, are at increased risk from coastal flooding. Buyout and acquisition programs are some of the most costeffective to reduce flood risk to these vulnerable properties. Floodplain buyout programs are typically voluntary programs where owners in the floodplain can be “bought out” by the government. The government entity removes those properties from the floodplain and often returns the land to nature by creating community parks and open space that can be flooded during a storm event, but also provide recreational opportunities to the community. Relocation Relocation can mean moving homes and businesses to an area on the same lot that is outside the floodplain or it can be relocating structures to an entirely different lot that is outside the floodplain. Relocation can be a complement to buyout and acquisition programs. Raised Streets and Infrastructure Rebuilding and raising streets that are prone to flooding during storm events is a common form of mitigation. Additionally, other types of infrastructure may be suitable for this type of strategies, including rail lines. Cities and towns typically invest in additional mitigation measures along with raising the streets and infrastructure, including installing pump stations and raising the height of adjacent seawalls. Wet Floodproofing Wet floodproofing is typically used for structures that cannot easily be elevated, such as large multifamily residential buildings. Instead of elevating the building above the design flood elevation (DFE), wet floodproofing allows for floodwaters to enter and exit the building during flooding events. In order wet floodproof the building, mechanical and electrical systems (along with other utilities and J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 2 of 28 Memorandum equipment) must be elevated above DFE, flood-resistant materials should be used in the area below DFE, and modifications must be made to the building to allow the floodwaters to both enter and exit the building (typically through the use of flood vents). Dry Floodproofing Dry floodproofing is the process of making a structure watertight below DFE. Dry floodproofing measures typically include sealing walls with waterproof coatings, installing backflow preventers, and installing watertight shields over windows and doors (also known as floor shields). Floor shields are temporary, watertight barriers that are placed over windows and doors to prevent floodwaters from entering through those building openings. Floodplain Policies and Regulations Amendments to Stonington’s regulations can assist in limiting the amount and type of construction occurring in flood prone areas. Changes to the regulations should include both more stringent requirements as well as less stringent requirements, as needed. For example, building codes could require elevation of mechanical systems above DFE for all new construction or major renovations in the floodplain whereas zoning regulations may consider loosening height restrictions for individuals who would like to elevate their properties or allowing for more flexibility in locating mechanical systems above DFE, so that the regulations are not a barrier to increasing resilience. Additionally, innovative financing, such as tax increment financing (TIF) can be employed to help fund community resilience projects. Offshore Breakwaters Offshore breakwaters are stone or concrete structures constructed off the coast to absorb wave energy before they reach the shore. Breakwaters can significantly protect the coast from damaging storm surges and often provide new habitats for marine species living in the area. Hurricane Barrier Hurricane barriers are permanent barriers typically constructed across a harbor or other water opening, extending across the water to the land on either side. The barriers are costly, large-scale infrastructure projects that are typically implemented as a more regional solutions, rather than a site-specific protection measure. These barriers vary widely in length and height and construction type, depending on the specific site where they are constructed and typically include some sort of gate to allow for the passing of boats through the barrier. Temporary Flood Barriers Temporary flood barriers can range significantly in cost and construction timeframes for implementation, from using sand bags to protect properties during an anticipated flood event to J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 3 of 28 Memorandum installing deployable flood barriers. Most home owners and business owners in coastal communities already use sandbags to protect their properties from coastal flooding, but temporary flood barriers should be considered as alternatives to sand bags. Temporary flood barriers can be constructed/deconstructed during an event and are typically reusable. However, they range in cost and level of effort needed to deploy these barriers. Some examples include inflatable flood barriers that use incoming flood waters to inflate the barrier as the storm surge increases and modular barriers that are constructed from a range of materials. Adaptation Buoyant Architecture (or Floating Buildings) Buoyant architecture allows buildings to rise and fall in response to rising water levels. There are two methods of constructing floating buildings. The first is by constructing the buildings on floating barges that are anchored in place with piles and the second version are built on the ground, but can float if water inundates the surrounding area. The goal is to implement systems that add buoyant displacement to existing structures without raising the living or public space. Different structures allow for varying levels of buoyancy either directly underneath, around the perimeter, or a combination of both. This enables the building to go up and down with the rising waters. Elevation Buildings in the floodplain can be protected by elevating the buildings above DFE. There are several different methods of elevating buildings, including using fill to modify the topography of the site and elevate the building, abandonment of the first floor and wet floodproofing that area, and elevating the structure on piles. Protecting and Elevating Critical Mechanical and Electrical Systems Traditionally, critical mechanical and electrical systems are located in the basement or first floor of a building, the floors most vulnerable to impacts from flooding. Elevating critical equipment above DFE or relocating equipment to a higher floor or the roof will protect these critical systems from flooding. This includes ensuring the electrical wiring is located above DFE or taking sufficient measures to ensure that the equipment is protected by installing watertight enclosed walls and other floodproofing measures. Backflow Preventers (or Backflow Valves) Backflow valves are installed on sewage pipes to prevent the backflow of contaminated water into a building. During a flooding or rainfall event, pipes can get inundated with flood waters, resulting in the unwanted flow of water in the reverse direction. These contaminated waters can cause flood damage as well as serious public health concerns. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 4 of 28 Memorandum Sump Pumps Sump pumps are used to discharge unwanted flood waters that may enter a building during a flood event. Sump pumps are often used in conjunction with other floodproofing techniques and require electricity in order to operate. Therefore, a backup generator or battery power should also be installed. Fill Basement or Cellar If the first floor is above DFE, then filling the basement may be an effective flood protection option. The critical mechanical, electrical, heating, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment must be relocated above DFE prior to filling the area. In order to maintain the square footage of the property, property owners often construct a new floor on top of the existing structure to replace the area lost by filling the basement. Operable Windows Operable windows provide many co-benefits. During a flood event, operable windows may be important for emergency routes out of a building; however, operable windows are also essential for temperature control and minimizing urban heat island impacts through passive ventilation. Underground Power Lines Underground power lines are less prevalent in the United States than they are in European nations, largely due to the increased costs associated with placing lines underground. However, underground power lines can have several benefits and provide more reliable services, especially during a storm event. Above-ground utility lines are prone to outages, physical deterioration, safety issues and storm impacts, including wind and downed trees; many of those issues can be mitigated by placing lines underground. Green Infrastructure There are a wide variety of green infrastructure strategies that can be implemented to help control flooding. Many of these strategies also have significant co-benefits in reducing the urban heat island effect and beautifying the community with more green space. Some examples of green infrastructure measures that should be considered include:  Permeable paving: Permeable paving allows for stormwater to drain through porous pavement into a stone base layer that helps capture and filter stormwater to reduce runoff into the stormwater management system.  Green roofs: Green roofs are vegetated areas grown on roofs with the intention of enhancing stormwater management as well as reducing heat absorption.  Bioswales and rain gardens: Bioswales and rain gardens seek to achieve the same goals: slowing and filtering stormwater; however, bioswales are designed to manage greater quantities of water J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 5 of 28 Memorandum than rain gardens and usually require the use of engineered soils as well as deeper trenches. Rain gardens are shallow depressions planted with native plants and grasses and positioned near a runoff source to capture water before it enters the sewer and storm drainage systems.  Rainwater harvesting: Harvesting rainwater in barrels or cisterns can reduce the amount of runoff from buildings during a storm event and lessen the amount of water entering the town’s drainage system. This rainwater can be used for watering gardens and other uses that do not require potable water. Securable and Removable Equipment Efforts can be made to ensure that equipment is protected from flood impacts. In some case, it is acceptable for the equipment to get wet, so elevating the equipment above DFE may be unnecessary; however, it is important to ensure the equipment is fully secured to prevent flotation in flood waters. Additionally, it may be valuable to invest in equipment that can be temporarily removed in advance of a flood event. Backup Microgrid A microgrid is a small-scale version of the centralized electricity system that includes all the necessary components to operate in isolation of the centralized grid. Microgrids operate independently allow for the import or export of electricity when connected to the wider electricity grid. This enables power continuity in critical areas when power outages and service disruptions affect the wider grid. Backup Power Backup power can be implemented through the use of batteries or generators. Batteries can be used to store energy for emergencies, allowing for buildings to maintain power for essential functions for hours or days without electricity. Increasingly, battery systems are being used in conjunction with solar photovoltaics (PV), decreasing the reliance on fuel delivery and reducing energy bills. Generators are another common form of backup power. Generators range in size and cost, depending on the need of the home or business owner and can provide essential backup power for heat, hot water, charging medical devices and cellphones, and providing power to appliances. Emergency Charging Stations In the event of a storm or power outage, many residents are often without backup power. Designating emergency charging stations in advance of an outage can significantly increase the resilience of the community by allowing them to charge cell phones, laptops, and other electronics that allow for effective communication and continued business operations during the event. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 6 of 28 Memorandum Renewable Energy Supply Renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, provide a variety of benefits to the community. In addition, to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, renewable energy also allows for continuity of power supply, since the power source is not dependent on the grid. In the event of a power outage, buildings and systems that operate on renewable energy will be able to maintain their power sources. Community Resilience Community Assistance Centers A central location that can provide emergency preparedness information to residents and can also be a central location for disaster recovery information and resources in the event of a disaster. Business Continuity Program Business continuity planning ensures that businesses have the capability to maintain essential functions during a range of potential emergencies. The assistance provided by a Business Continuity Program would include planning assistance, access to alternative spaces or facilities, communications provisions, and provisions for vital records backup and management. At the base of this program is the creation of a part-time Business Continuity Program facilitator responsible for educating the local business community on crisis preparedness and management, organizational structure, and policies and procedures. Public Education Program Educating the public on flood safety, adaptation and mitigation measures, and emergency management plans is one of the most cost-effective strategies for resilience. An active public engagement program will ensure that community understands the risks, takes steps to mitigate those risks and protect themselves and their properties against those risks, and understands proper emergency management procedures during a major event. Community Rating System FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) is a program designed to encourage community-wide floodplain management activities. CRS floodplain management activities are designed to enhance public safety, reduce property damages and human suffering, protect public infrastructure, minimize economic losses, and protect the environment. In addition, participation in CRS can reduce flood insurance premium rates by up to 45%, depending on the community’s level of participating. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 7 of 28 Memorandum Building Community Ties and Organizing for Resilience In the event of disaster, neighbors and community institutions and leaders often become the “first responders,” assisting with providing resources, support, and information. Communities with strong social ties and important community institutions have been proven to better weather storm events. In addition to having strong social ties, it is important for communities, neighborhoods, and institutions to form networks to share lessons learned, best practices, and resources. Location/Relocation of Emergency Shelters Locating emergency shelters in areas that are accessible during a storm event and equally distributed throughout the community is important to providing refuge during a flood event. Specifically, designating shelters that are outside the floodplain and ensuring that access to those shelters is not blocked by flooded streets is essential. Stormwater Modeling and Analysis As a complement to this study, an assessment of Stonington’s stormwater management system will also be a critical piece to ensuring the community’s resilience. Coastal flooding and rainfall events do not typically happen in silos, but rather are combined during large storm events. As a result, understanding the predicted amount of rainfall and the capacity of the stormwater drainage system to handle coastal floodwaters as well as stormwater from a rain event will be important to effectively mitigating and adapting buildings and systems to future flood events. Top 25 Resilience Solutions The following table details the potential solutions for each of the Top 25 assets in the Town. These strategies will be further investigated as part of the final Coastal Resilience Plan, but will also require additional research and analysis on the part of the Town prior to implementation. The strategies are intended to help focus Stonington’s future resilience efforts and provide a path forward in investigating potential solutions. Asset Masons Island Causeway Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility Apple Rehab Mystic Pump Stations (Boulder Ave & River Rd) Resilience solutions for protecting the asset Community resilience strategies that can be “hosted” by the asset Included in Top 5 solutions Included in Top 5 solutions Included in Top 5 solutions  Backup power  Dry floodproofing  Wet floodproofing  Green infrastructure J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 8 of 28 Memorandum Stonington Wastewater Treatment Facility Town Dock Fire Departments (Mystic & Quiambaug)                 Historic District (Mechanic Street, Mystic Bridge,  Rossie Velvet Mill &  Stonington Borough)     Mystic Seaport      Electrical Substation (Greenmanville Ave &  Cutler St)   State Roads (Highway 27  & Highway 1)  Backup power Dry floodproofing Wet floodproofing Securable and removable equipment Green infrastructure Raised infrastructure Tide gates Temporary flood barrier Hurricane barrier Offshore breakwater Relocation Backup power Dry floodproofing Wet floodproofing Floodplain policies and regulations Protecting and elevating critical mechanical and electrical systems Fill basement or cellar Dry Floodproofing Wet Floodproofing Elevation Relocation Backup power Dry floodproofing Wet floodproofing Elevation Backup power Underground power lines Sump pump Backflow preventers Elevation Raised street Green infrastructure Public education program Public education program  Parks (Donahue Park, Barn Island Management Area & Mystic River Park)  Green infrastructure  Public education program Building community ties and organizing for resilience J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 9 of 28 Memorandum Mystic Train Station & Rail Line Stonington Community Center (COMO) Neighborhoods (Lords Point & Murphy's Point)                        Relocation Raised infrastructure Renewable energy supply Backup power Emergency charging stations Renewable energy supply Backup power Elevation Wet floodproofing Dry floodproofing Green infrastructure Floodplain buyout and acquisition Relocation Floodplain policies and regulations Shoreline hardening Living shoreline Offshore breakwaters Temporary flood barrier Elevation of homes Protecting and elevating critical mechanical and electrical systems Renewable energy supply Microgrid Green infrastructure Public education program      Community assistance center Public education program Building community ties and organizing for resilience Community assistance center Building community ties and organizing for resilience J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 10 of 28 Memorandum Top 5 Resilience Solutions Solution #1: Masons Island Causeway Masons Island is an approximately 600-acre island containing three marinas, a yacht club, a 47-acre nature preserve, and numerous residential homes. Masons Island also provides the only land-based access to Enders Island. Since the Masons Island Causeway is the only land-based access to the island, its long-term usability is an important component for emergency planning and climate change adaptation in Stonington. Masons Island Causeway and the adjacent access roads have high probabilities of coastal flood impacts. The Causeway itself has a relatively low elevation and is already susceptible to flood events, in the present-day. The annual probability of flooding for the Causeway is only expected to increase throughout the century, with annual flood probabilities ranging from:  10% to 20% in the present day,  10% to 50% by 2030,  20% to 100% by 2050, to J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 11 of 28 Memorandum  100% by 2070. A 1% probability event can flood the Masons Island Causeway and access roads under present-day conditions. Under future scenarios, the extent and depth of this flooding will increase. Project Elements The Masons Island proposed regional adaptation, displayed above, is comprised of the following elements:  Masons Island Bridge  Elevating portions of Masons Island Road north of Shaffer’s Boat Livery  Hybrid shoreline treatment with rising gate for Shaffer’s Boat Livery vicinity  Green infrastructure solution (berm and living shoreline) for portion of Gled Hill Street east of bridge  Green infrastructure solution (marsh creation, living shoreline, natural berm) for portion of Masons Island Road south of bridge  Elevating portion of Masons Island Road south of bridge  Elevating Dubois Drive north of bridge These elements may be strategically phased over time to distribute capital investment and implement adaptive management, while providing the necessary level of protection against the combined effects of future sea level rise and storm surge. The priority element for the Masons Island regional adaptation project should be the replacement of the causeway with a suitably elevated bridge. The figure below provides a rendering of the proposed Masons Island Bridge. While a bridge is recommended, other alternatives, including raising the causeway could also be considered. The proposed bridge alternative also promotes improved tidal exchange and flushing throughout Mystic Harbor and may have ancillary ecological benefits for the region. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 12 of 28 Memorandum Near term accessibility of the bridge during storm conditions will be insured if additional elements (in addition to the bridge or elevation of the causeway) are constructed contemporaneously. On the mainland, implementing green infrastructure along Gled Hill Street and a proposed hybrid shoreline treating at Shaffer’s Boat Livery will prevent inundation of the mainland approach to the bridge and address access issues at Shaffer’s created by the bridge approach. On the island, elevating Dubois Drive and installing green infrastructure (e.g., living shorelines, expanded salt marsh, berms) along Masons Island Drive will prevent inundation of the island approach to the bridge and reduce the probability of flooding in northern portions of Masons Island. These road raising, green infrastructure, and nature-based solutions would need to be developed and designed more fully in a subsequent phase of work. Community Benefits The proposed solutions for Masons Island Causeway could have significant community benefit to Stonington and its residents. The proposed solutions will not only help protect the 600+ residents of Masons Island, both during storm events and nuisance flooding, but they will also help to minimize flooding in neighboring areas of Stonington. In addition, given the vulnerability of the Causeway to flood events, there is likely to be increased maintenance costs associated with future flooding to the Causeway. By constructing a bridge, the Town can minimize those future impacts and maintenance costs. While these adaptation elements will maintain access to Masons Island and provide some regional reductions in flood vulnerability over the approximate design life of the project, the projected flooding for 2070 (and beyond) presents severe challenges to maintaining safe and reliable access to Masons Island during storms. While the proposed Masons Island regional adaptation project should provide for long-term daily access to the island in non-storm conditions, decisions will have to be made in the future regarding the emergency management planning for Masons Island (e.g. preemptive evacuation). Potential Costs The components of this project range greatly in cost. There is likely to be significant costs from feasibility, planning, design, and construction phases associated with the proposed Masons Island Bridge project, as well as the potential raising of Masons Island Road. Some of the green infrastructure solutions are likely to be less costly and have quicker implementation timeframes than the proposed “hard” solutions. Implementation The strategy for Masons Island Causeway is a phased solution, with the top priority being the construction of the proposed Masons Island Bridge and complementary green infrastructure solutions along Gled Hill Street and at the Shaffer’s Boat Livery, in the near-term. By 2030, a second phase of elements may become necessary to protect access to the bridge. These elements include elevating both mainland and island portions of Masons Island Road, and tying them into the existing green infrastructure and hybrid shoreline treatments on either side of the bridge. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 13 of 28 Memorandum These construction of a proposed Masons Island Bridge along with potential future elevation of portions of Masons Island Road will require significant time to implement. These are larger infrastructure projects and therefore, will need stakeholder buy-in and agreement within Town management that these projects are necessary. In addition, due to the high cost of these types of projects, the Town will need time to identify funding sources or build the project into the Town’s budget and capital improvement planning process. And lastly, the planning, design, approval, and construction process for the bridge will take a significant amount of time to complete. In order to navigate the potential roadblocks to implementation, the Town will need to conduct a more extensive study of the feasibility of such a solution and the benefits to the Town. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 14 of 28 Memorandum Solution #2: Apple Rehab Mystic As both a significant economic driver for the community, and home to an elderly population that may be at particular risk during storm events, Apple Rehab Mystic was identified as a priority asset for protection during emergency events. Resilience strategies for the facility involve both physical protections and operational procedures put in place to mitigate the impact of a flood event. While the strategies suggested here are considered specifically for the Apple Facility, many of these strategies are applicable to other large facilities within the Town of Stonington. Project Elements Potential project elements include temporary or permanent flood barriers, landscaping, floor shields and other dry flood proofing measures to be implemented in the case of an emergency. Because the facility is not immediately adjacent to the water, large-scale permanent flood barriers such as flood walls may not be appropriate. However, impermeable walls, flood wraps, waterproof membranes, sprays and other sealants that protect the ground floor can be quickly deployed in the case of anticipated flooding. Given the size of the facility, it may be necessary to prioritize a limited number of buildings or rooms, retrofitted with waterproofing applications such as sealants and waterproofed walls. Additionally, emergency measures such as gravel filled containers, sandbags and water-filled barriers can reduce the impact of any storm surges. In the medium-term, alternative energy sources, including J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 15 of 28 Memorandum additional solar panels mounted on the facility’s roof, can provide electricity when and if outside sources are temporarily disabled. Because the facility serves a vulnerable population that relies on electric-operated medical equipment and may be particularly vulnerable to prolonged exposure to heat or cold, ensuring an adequate supply of electricity is especially critical. Another strategy entails the introduction of green infrastructure on to the site. Apple rehab sits adjacent to four small parking lots and Broadway Avenue, and may be vulnerable to flooding due to the high proportions of impermeable paving. Efforts to mitigate the impact of flooding, in both normal rainfall events and longer-term flood impacts, could include the introduction of green infrastructure, native plantings, trees and permeable paving materials for the parking facilities and along Broadway Avenue. A range of operational strategies should complement the protections described above. These include well-rehearsed emergency evacuation procedures with clearly-delineated responsibilities, information dissemination and adequate disbursement of key supplies in the case of an emergency. Storing food, medical equipment, clothing, blankets, and other emergency supplies in dry, elevated or otherwise protected areas within the facility is also critical. Community Benefits These risk reduction strategies should focus on protection of human life, reducing damage from floodwaters, ensuring that the building functions adequately during the event, and establishing quick recovery after an emergency. Unlike assets described elsewhere in this report, it may not be feasible to evacuate large numbers of residents, who may have limited mobility. The facility should therefore prioritize protective measures that allow at least some areas within the building to continue functioning even in the midst of a disaster event. Ensuring that residents are safe and well-cared for in the event of an emergency delivers a clear social good to the community, including residents and their family members and friends. Helping the facility recover quickly and resume operations soon after an event may also carry ancillary economic benefits to the town. Additionally, green infrastructure measures that bolster the attractiveness of the streetscape and reduce the amount of impervious surface in the neighborhood will result in reduced flood risk during typical rain events and extraordinary flooding. Potential Costs Developing a comprehensive and rehearsed operational plan for preparing for storm events – including communication and evacuation procedures, and storing and protecting food, water and medical supplies – will incur minimal financial costs. Procuring and storing temporary floodproofing measures such as floor shields, waterproof membranes and other sealants are more expensive, and emergency barriers carry a higher cost that includes procurement, training and storage expenses. Additional landscaping that introduces elevation changes to the site, and new alternative energy supplies will incur additional costs. The cost of additional solar panels will be defrayed by cost savings during normal times, however. Implementation J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 16 of 28 Memorandum Unlike other resilience measures that require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, strategies for Apple Rehab Mystic can be implemented unilaterally by the facility in consultation with residents. The engineered solutions proposed here are not overly complex – solar panels and landscaping may require some engineering consultation, but other proposed measures can be implemented largely in consultation with product manufacturers. As a result, the single largest barrier to implementation may be cost, as well as the training required to instruct staff on new operational procedures. Strategies may be implemented over the short and medium term. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 17 of 28 Memorandum Solution #3: Village of Mystic J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 18 of 28 Memorandum The Village of Mystic is an important historic and economic development area, located in both Groton and Stonington, CT. The village is situated along the Mystic River and the portion of the village located in Stonington is home to many historic resources and tourist destinations. As such, the village is an important part of both the character and the economy of Stonington. Historically, the village was home to one of the area’s most important seaports; that seaport is now home to one of the nation’s leading maritime museums and is an important tourism destination in the Town of Stonington. The portion of the village that is located in Stonington is also home to the Mystic Aquarium, the Mystic Train Station (and Amtrak rail line), a multitude of historical resources located in the Mystic Bridge Historic District, the Mystic Wastewater Treatment Plant, and a variety of residential properties, businesses, parks, and roadways. Project Elements In order to develop a comprehensive strategy to protect the neighborhood, as a whole, and its key assets, a variety of resilience solutions must be considered. Due to the historic character of the neighborhood and its important relationship with the coast, strategic retreat is not a popular option; therefore, flood prevention and protection will be critical. A comprehensive approach to neighborhoodscale resilience will require a combination of green and grey infrastructure as well as individual assetlevel solutions and larger neighborhood-wide protection. At an individual asset level, Solution #2 and Solution #4 detail how to protect Apple Rehab Mystic and the Mystic Wastewater Treatment Plant. Similarly, Solution #5 provides detail on strategies that individual homeowners and business owners in Mystic can implement on their own properties. Many of these strategies are also applicable to other building assets. On a more neighborhood-wide scale, a variety of temporary and permanent strategies can be used in commercial, residential, and mixed-use zones and, specifically, along pedestrianfriendly strips located in downtown areas. Potential measures include both grey infrastructure – hardscapes and engineered solutions – and green infrastructure such as trees, plantings and landscaping. Both green and grey solutions can provide additional community benefits, including more beautification of the neighborhood, additional green space that can be accessed and used by the residents, and new access points to the waterfront. Additional strategies should include regulatory considerations, such as a waterfront overlay zone that may restrict the types of uses in those zones and also enforce alternative building methods. These strategies are intended to work together as one cohesive whole, rather than implementing a variety of strategies separately without consideration of how they will interplay with each other. Community Benefits Beyond their value as flood mitigation measures, these measures may carry a range of other positive benefits. In particular, green infrastructure that introduces new green space to the local streetscape brings both ecological benefits and additional social benefits. Reducing the amount of permeable paving in downtown areas, for instance, can reduce flooding during typical rainfall events. New plantings reduce the impact of the ‘urban heat island effect’ and new street trees provide shade on hot summer days. Flood barriers have the potential to reduce or limit access to the water if designed poorly, but may actually highlight or channel pedestrian activity to the waterfront if designed carefully and with an eye to minimizing disruption to natural pedestrian movement. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 19 of 28 Memorandum When implemented in a manner that is sensitive to the needs of the community, local property owners, and users, these strategies can provide flood protection while also improving the look and feel of the neighborhood. Unlike many of the other strategies proposed for the town, these strategies will inherently involve multiple stakeholders, including not only the people who live and work in affected areas, but also those who frequent these areas as shoppers, tourists, or otherwise as part of their regular routine. As such, the process of negotiating what strategies are appropriate where, and who assumes responsibility for financing, building, and maintaining key infrastructure, will involve substantial effort to ensure that all stakeholders are heard and that costs and benefits are distributed fairly. Potential Costs In addition to immediate financial costs associated with each of these measures (which vary widely depending on the solutions that the Town chooses to implement), implementation should be careful to consider potential negative effects of such strategies on the local streetscape. The downtown Mystic area is currently a vibrant, walkable area. Implementing these measures should consider how each measure interacts with the local streetscape. For instance, while protecting ground floor commercial land uses is of high priority, any new flood protection measure should take care to maintain a strong connection with the street, through easy access and attractive facades. New green infrastructure should be planned to minimize costs associated with streetscape changes, such as widening sidewalks or digging up pavement to accommodate new plantings. Implementation Because decisions about mixed-use properties involve multiple landowners, tenants and users, implementation will require aligning the interests of a range of stakeholders. Choosing what strategies are best-suited for particular areas will necessitate a broad conversation about community priorities – what areas are most in need of public dollars, and what areas carry the largest benefit to the larger community. Additionally, all strategies must balance flood mitigation demands with the needs of local users; store owners may be reluctant to disrupt normal retail activity to prepare for the uncertainty of a future storm event. While there are no easy answers to these questions, open conversations about available resources and shared priorities, viewed in light of risk assessments provided elsewhere in this report, will help begin a process of implementing these strategies. Strategies may be implemented over the short and long term, with immediate investigations into the availability of temporary measures, and longer term considerations of more complex and permanent solutions such as flood barriers and green infrastructure. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 20 of 28 Memorandum Solution #4: Mystic Wastewater Treatment Plant The Town of Stonington is responsible for three sanitary sewer systems and related wastewater treatment facilities, the oldest of which is the Mystic Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Mystic plant, which receives higher flows and loads than either the Pawcatuck and Stonington Borough plants, has been in service for over 40 years and lies directly adjacent to Mystic Harbor, immediately south of downtown Mystic. Due to its proximity to the village, its vulnerability to flooding and its criticality to the overall sanitary system, the treatment facility was deemed a high priority asset. Project Elements The facility, which is located on the harbor, is particularly vulnerable to coastal flood events. Potential project elements include a range of measures to prevent water from entering the facility, as well as strategies to protect key equipment from being damaged by floodwaters. Although the tanks and equipment are elevated, an additional layer of protection would include flood barriers such as walls or berms surrounding the facility. Landscaping that provides additional elevation, and plantings that reduce the flow or intensity of water along the water’s edge will also reduce the force and elevation of flooding. Another layer of protection exists in the combination of operational and physical measures that protect key equipment, including electrical controls, computers and records. These materials may reside in J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 21 of 28 Memorandum elevated or flood-proofed areas. The plant may also invest in capacity to temporarily remove and store vulnerable components in anticipation of a flood event. Alternative energy sources – including wind and solar power, backup generators and substations to power the plant – will also be critical to operate equipment in the event of a power outage or other impact to the energy supply. In some cases, pumping systems and channel or culvert systems may be used to collect and divert flood water from the facility. Community Benefits Given its vulnerable location, there exists significant risk to the Mystic Wastewater Treatment Plant, and severe consequence if it fails. The strategies described above are intended to achieve two key aims of, first, reducing or eliminating the risk of sewage overflow into the harbor and, second, resuming normal operations immediately after a flooding event. Protecting the treatment facility has clear and significant impact on the village of Mystic, which relies on the treatment plant to process all waste for the village. Additionally, allowing untreated waste to enter the harbor would bring significant ecological harm to the area, and negatively impact the town’s economy which relies heavily on tourism and recreational activities. Potential Costs Because of the plant’s proximity to Mystic Harbor and due to the complexity of the equipment involved, strategies to mitigate flood impacts on the plant may be more expensive than for other assets identified. Specifically, high costs may be involved in developing the required mix of permanent flood barriers, equipment relocation, and alternative power sources. Electrical infrastructure, including substations, backup generators, solar panels or wind turbines that reduce dependency on the electrical grid will carry significant costs. However, the facility is critical to the functioning of the town, both on a daily basis and following a storm event. Implementation Upgrades to the wastewater treatment facility are the responsibility of the town and do not directly impact private landowners. The greatest obstacle to implementation is, therefore, the significant funding required to install the various mitigation strategies described above. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 22 of 28 Memorandum Solution #5: “Typical” Stonington Structures Mixed-Use Building Stonington has a variety of mixed-use and commercial buildings in the downtown areas of the boroughs and villages. Similar to the single-family property solutions listed above, there was a great deal of interest in understanding what resilience solutions are available to property owners for mixeduse and commercial structures throughout Stonington. A combination of building-specific strategies as well as green infrastructure and landscaping along the streetscapes can provide significant protection from coastal flooding. When implementing strategies in these commercial districts, it is important to understand how different strategies will change the character and feel of the streetscape. For example, elevation of all of the buildings would inhibit the fluid interaction between the pedestrians on the street and the businesses and thus, negatively impact the user experience. Therefore, a variety of strategies should be employed to reduce any negative impacts to the tourism experience and the general look and feel of the downtown corridors. Project Elements Strategies for protecting and adapting the building include elevation, where appropriate, as well as a mix of protection and adaptation strategies. In the example above, elevation may be difficult because of the size of the structure; however, there are some free-standing structures in some of these downtown locations, where elevation is a potential option. In lieu of elevating the entire building, property owners J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 23 of 28 Memorandum may consider elevation of mechanical and electrical systems, filling basements to prevent infiltration of flood waters, installing temporary floodproofing measures like floor shields and sandbags, and using materials that are flood-resistant. More expensive protection measures include retrofits of interior spaces to waterproof interior walls and install impermeable coatings for core areas (either structurally critical spaces, or areas used for protecting key equipment). Interior raised floors may also be introduced into ground floor retail spaces without negatively impacting internal uses, or changing the opening to the street. In addition, property owners should consider installing generators and other forms of backup power and investigate the potential of renewable energy, such as solar panels. Additional strategies should be employed along the streetscape. Some of those strategies may include flood barriers, such as flood walls, berms and levees along the coast that prevent floodwaters from reaching critical facilities. These permanent measures have proven to be highly effective elsewhere, but require greater financial investment than temporary alternatives, and may negatively impact the local streetscape. In order to maintain Stonington’s unique and historic character, green infrastructure may be a more appropriate solution along these downtown streetscapes, as they often enhance the aesthetic of the area and also provide stormwater management solutions. Some potential strategies include street trees, rain gardens, impermeable paving, bioswales and plantings. Community Benefits In addition to the intended flood mitigation benefits, these strategies can provide long-term economic benefits and cost savings. On an individual level, business owners that consider switching to renewable energy sources may see long-term cost savings. On a community level, small businesses and the character of these downtown, mixed-use corridors are essential to Stonington’s economy, both from the revenue generated by the businesses themselves and the tourism generated by the historic nature and character of the Stonington. Protecting these assets from flood vulnerability is important to protecting Stonington’s future economy. Potential Costs The financial costs ranged drastically depending on the solutions that the Town and the business owners choose to implement. Planting street trees and using sandbags as flood protection measures are fairly low cost. Some of the more permanent solutions, such as elevation of critical equipment and installing flood barriers would come at a greater cost. In addition to immediate financial costs associated with each of these measures, implementation should be careful to consider potential negative effects of such strategies on the local streetscape, as discussed above. Implementation Because decisions about mixed-use properties involve multiple landowners, tenants and users, implementation will require aligning the interests of a range of stakeholders and ensuring that the character of Stonington is not negatively impacted by these flood mitigation strategies. Choosing what strategies are best-suited for particular areas will necessitate a broad conversation about community priorities – what areas are most in need of public dollars, and what areas carry the largest benefit to the larger community. However, strategies in these locations may be phased – those solutions that can be implemented at the discretion of the business owner may be implemented in an earlier phase than those J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 24 of 28 Memorandum that require community buy-in. Stonington should review the suggested strategies and create a phased plan that accounts for budget, ease of implementation, and which strategies are most effective for the location. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 25 of 28 Memorandum Single-Family Home Stonington is a highly residential community and, as such, there is a lot of interest in understanding what individual homeowners can do to protect their own properties. This set of solutions is intended to provide a range of solutions that homeowners can consider implementing on their properties. Understanding the geography of the site, the character of the neighborhood, the expected intensity and frequency of flooding on the site, and the homeowner’s budget and appetite for risk will all be key considerations for determining which solutions are best suited for each property. Project Elements There are a variety of protection and adaptation strategies that homeowners can implement on their own properties. These strategies include landscaping and green infrastructure to capture stormwater runoff and protect the house from flood waters. Many homeowners likely already use sandbags to protect their property during a known flood event. Sand bags are a low cost protection solution. There are several alternative types of emergency barriers, such as floor shields, that can also be used as a flood protection mechanism. Additionally, elevation of the property or filling the basements to prevent entry of floodwaters are some of the more complex flood protection solutions. Some additional adaptation measures include installing a sump pump, ensuring that electric wiring is in either protected from floodwaters or installed in such a way that it can be easily replaced if damaged, and installing a generator to maintain power in the event of an emergency. Community Benefits J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 26 of 28 Memorandum Stonington is a largely residential community. As a result, if each individual property owner takes action to protect their property, those actions could have a large impact on the resilience of the community, as a whole. Additionally, if homeowners start taking action to protect and adapt their properties, other property owners are likely to take notice. These efforts might influence neighbors or nearby business owners to take steps to protect their own properties and also help educate the public on coastal flooding and resilience. Potential Costs For homeowners, costs can vary widely. Resilience measures such as landscaping and using sand bags, can often be implemented at relatively low cost to the homeowner. However, the most intensive resilience measures, such as elevation, often come at a high upfront cost to the homeowner and many homeowners may have difficulty implementing these measures without additional funds. Overall, there are strategies that can be implemented across all income levels and each homeowner will take a different approach to resilience. By combining a variety of different strategies, homeowners can tailor their resilience solutions to their own income levels and risk appetites. Implementation Overall, implementation of these strategies is typically dependent on the income of the homeowner and whether they have the funds to take action. However, if funds are readily available, many of these strategies are relatively easy to implement when compared to large-scale engineering solutions. Implementation of these strategies may require cooperation from the Town. Often homeowners will need to acquire building permits for implementing these strategies. In addition, some strategies may be in conflict with current zoning requirements or other town regulations. Therefore, the homeowners will need to work with the Town for the appropriate variances or waivers to those requirements. One common issue is that homeowners that want to elevate their homes often have difficulty because the elevation would cause their home to be raised above the height restrictions for the community. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 27 of 28 Memorandum Conclusion These strategies are intended to help the Town of Stonington think about resilience in a way that is more concrete, with actionable strategies that can be implemented. The Coastal Resilience Plan will include more detail on next steps for Stonington, including helping to identify priorities. However, some of the ways that the Town can start thinking about these resilience strategies include:  Changes to regulations, including zoning and building codes, to require more resilient development in areas prone to flooding;  Requiring certain resiliency standards as part of the building permit, and other permitting, requirements;  Advocating for the inclusion of resilience and coastal flood protection as an annual line item in the Town’s budget and capital improvement process;  Pursuing additional funding and financing options, through mechanisms such as grant funding or investigating the possibility of taking loans for implementing resilient solutions;  Leveraging current projects as a means for furthering the Town’s resilience goals by building resilience into existing projects that are already planned and/or underway. This is often an easier mechanism for making progress than proposing and funding an entirely new capital project geared at resilience;  Seeking out partnerships with private and non-profit entities that are also interested in advancing resilience in Stonington. Some potential partners include: Apple Rehab Mystic and other businesses in Stonington, Amtrak, and local energy providers; and  Leveraging this plan to continue to advance the climate change and resilience conversation by advocating for a regional climate coalition. Flooding is not limited to Town boundaries and efforts to minimize coastal flooding concerns will require regional solutions. This coalition could be limited to neighboring municipalities or it could be a broader coalition that includes local chambers of commerce and business leaders, neighborhood leaders, and other stakeholders in the region. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\PROPOSED RESILIENCE SOLUTIONS MEMO_DRAFT_20170601.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 28 of 28 Appendix D: Regulatory Audit Memo Memorandum To Mr. Keith Brynes, Town Planner Town of Stonington, CT Date Mr. Scot Deledda, Town Engineer Town of Stonington, CT Reference number From Katie Wholey, Arup Lisa Dickson, Arup Susan Silberberg, CivicMoxie File reference Subject Regulatory Audit of Zoning Code Copies July 7, 2017 251043.00 Overview As part of the coastal resilience planning process, the Town of Stonington requested a regulatory audit of its zoning code, with a focus on coastal flooding. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview of potential coastal resilience strategies that can be incorporated into the Town of Stonington’s zoning code. This is not a full audit of the Town’s regulations; if the town is considering implementing any of these suggestions, a complete audit of any legal or regulatory challenges should be completed. A complete audit is necessary to ensure that the Town has the legal authority to implement these zoning amendments and that the proposed amendments do not conflict with any preexisting codes or regulations, at the local, state, or national level. Current Status of Flood Resilience in Stonington’s Zoning Code Stonington’s current zoning regulations include various regulations related to flood hazards; however, most of these regulations are based on the current FEMA flood zones, which do not account for increased risk from sea level rise and storm surge. The regulations include a Coastal Area Management (CAM) Overlay District and a Flood Hazard Overlay District, both of which are under the jurisdiction of the Town of Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission. The CAM boundary includes: areas covered by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), areas within 1,000 feet of the mean high water mark of coastal waters, and areas within 1,000 feet of the State-designated tidal wetlands. Projects within the CAM are evaluated for any adverse impacts to land and water resources; proposed mitigating measures are required in the CAM application and the Commission may approve, deny, modify, or modify with conditions any project within the CAM boundary. The Flood Hazard Overlay District (FHOD) applies special regulations to all land in the floodplain of rivers, streams, and bodies of water. This district regulates all aspects of construction in the floodplain in order to (1) minimize loss of life, injury, and property damage; (2) protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people; and (3) help control and minimize the extent and depth of floods. In general, all new J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_REGULATORY AUDIT_FINAL_20170707.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 1 of 9 Memorandum construction in the flood zone must be elevated at least one foot above the base flood elevation and no new construction or alterations of buildings in the floodplain shall reduce the water holding capacity of the floodplain. Additional requirements include: (1) prohibition on new construction and substantial improvements within 100 feet of mean high tide in V-zones; and, (2) designation of a 100-foot noninfringement area within the RC-120 zone (Residential Coastal), which prohibits development or improvements within 100 feet of coastal features (with a few exceptions, such as boat access and greenways). Suggested Amendments The Town of Stonington has a strong foundation coastal regulatory authority. Through a few, small modifications to its zoning regulations, the town’s zoning code can be leveraged to improve resilience to coastal flooding. Specifically, the Town can make modifications to the CAM Overlay District and the Flood Hazard Overlay District that will encourage more resilient practices. However, certain challenges related to disaster recovery and rebuilding must be addressed. One of the biggest challenges that most communities face in the wake of a disaster is that rebuilding efforts often conflict with the municipality’s regulations and building code. By using some of the lessons learned from the communities that experienced these challenges in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, the Town of Stonington can encourage more resilient development and ensure that recovery efforts will not be unnecessarily impeded by Town regulations in subsequent disaster scenarios. The following provides an overview of the various strategies that Stonington should consider. These strategies seek to achieve two overarching goals: (1) removing barriers to building resiliently (and recovering in the wake of a flood event) and (2) encouraging smarter building and development practices. Extending the Boundaries of the CAM & Flood Hazard Overlay District The Town should consider ways to extend the boundaries of the CAM Overlay District and the Flood Hazard Overlay District, so that both districts account for areas that may not be in the current 100-year floodplain, but may be impacted by future storm events due to sea level rise and storm surge. In addition, if not already conducted, regular reviews based on modeling projections should inform these boundaries. Factors that influence projections and district boundaries may include land use changes (density changes, new development, unbuilding, erosion, etc.), coastal formulation changes (hard-tosoft and vice versa), new modeling projections based on updated sea level rise and storm surge assumptions, hydrologic and hydraulic changes resulting from updated precipitation assumptions or stormwater infrastructure changes. Evaluation Criteria and Exceptions to Review Process for the CAMOD The CAMOD regulations require that projects be evaluated for adverse impacts on a number of land and water resources. These areas of evaluation do not currently include an assessment of how new development, or changes to existing properties, affect the overall burden on the Town’s evacuation plan J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_REGULATORY AUDIT_FINAL_20170707.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 2 of 9 Memorandum and emergency plans nor to their contribution to the overall impact of using public resources for protection of lives in the CAMOD in the case of storm surges and sea level rise. The CAMOD regulations also exempt from the regulations the “construction of an individual conforming single family residential structure except in or within 100 feet of the following coastal areas: coastal wetlands, tidal bluffs, and escarpments, beaches and dunes.” It is recommended that there be consideration to review this exception. Section 2.6.3 Reconstruction This section of the zoning code exempts stuctures that were damaged during a natural disaster and reconstructed within one year of the date the damage occurred from the Planning and Zoning Commission approval process, provided that the structure is identical to the original structure in external appearance and location. This section also allows for the Commission to extend that deadline for reconstruction to a maximum of two additional years (3 years total). It is recommended that the Town review this provision to allow for flexibility in reconstruction as it applies to implementing flood resilience solutions without penalizing the resident by forcing them to obtain Commission approval for those resilience solutions. The added benefit of this flexibility is that it will allow the Town to recover more quickly post-disaster by reducing the quantity of reconstruction applications that require approval. Some examples of how the section could incorporate flexibility include allowing for elevation of the structure and construction that meets ADA accessibility requirements. The other regulatory suggestions outlined in this memorandum should also be taken into consideration in relation to this section of the code. Elevation Requirements Stonington already requires new construction in the flood zone to be elevated at least one foot about the base flood elevation (BFE), which is a great practice for encouraging smarter floodplain development. However, the Town should review that requirement to investigate whether the freeboard requirement should be increased. As a point of reference, in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, many communities required a minimum of BFE+2. In addition to the required height of elevation, there are many related considerations for elevated properties. Some of those considerations include:  Allowing for additional elevation of homes that must be raised between 6-8 feet to accommodate for parking and storage below the building.  Allowing for encroachments into the backyard to provide for outdoor stairs to access elevated structures.  Exempting enclosed entryways from floor area calculations to provide for indoor stairs to access elevated living space  Allowing for a waiver of requirements to provide parking spaces, or conversion of front or side yards to parking, where compliance with flood-resistant standards results in the loss of parking spaces. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_REGULATORY AUDIT_FINAL_20170707.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 3 of 9 Memorandum  Allowing for floodproofing of ground floor space and conversion to parking, commercial or community space where compliance with the flood-resistant standards results in loss of usable ground floor space. ADA Compliance In order to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Town should also consider access and egress on elevated properties, so that the property remains accessible to all potential inhabitants. In many cases, municipalities provide these accommodations by allowing for the installation of lifts on elevated residential properties. In order to do so, Stonington may need to allow for lifts as a permitted obstruction. Height Restrictions In the wake of Superstorm Sandy, many communities experienced challenges with elevating properties due to the limitations of the municipality’s height restrictions. Many properties were required to elevate in order to be eligible for federal Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBGDR) funds, but the elevation of their property was prohibited because the elevated property would exceed height restrictions. Acknowledging that height restrictions are often put in place to preserve neighborhood character, Stonington should engage community members and discuss potential future community-wide height restrictions and subsequently adjust height restrictions as needed. Design Considerations Property elevation can often have distinct impacts on the character of the neighborhood as elevation reduces the interaction between the property and the street, effecting the experience of pedestrians and passers-by. This is an especially important consideration for Stonington due to the historic character of the Town. It is important not to lose that character when implementing these flood resilience measures. Some design strategies that the town should consider include the allowance of streetscape enhancements, such as porches, plantings, raised yards, and sloped yards, to soften the visual transition of elevated homes; whether the Town will allow open or closed elevations – both provide the necessary elevation benefits, but create a distinctly different visual experience; and, the impact of elevation on setback regulations. Historic Preservation The economic health of the Town of Stonington is very closely tied to the Town’s historic resources and the resulting visitor economy. Many of these resources are located in the flood zone or in areas impacted by sea level rise and storm surges. The zoning regulations in special overlay districts should strike a balance between protecting historic significance and character and ensuring properties are protected in the long-term from rising seas and flooding due to storm surges. Currently, properties on the National Register are exempt from many of the regulations regarding minimum elevations and J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_REGULATORY AUDIT_FINAL_20170707.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 4 of 9 Memorandum other requirements. While in the short term that may protect historic significance, in the long-term, properties may be at greater risk from such practices. Clearly there are many challenges to elevating historic properties, as the elevation may significantly alter the historic nature of the building or historic district. Some important considerations for historic properties include materials and types of elevation allowed, height of allowable elevation, and the context of the surrounding neighborhood. There are several guidance documents for elevation design guidelines specifically geared at historic homes (two of which are included in the References section at the end of this Memo) that may be of value as the Town considers amending its zoning code to allow for more resilient building efforts. It would be wise for the Town to engage with the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation and/or other local historic preservation resources to figure out an approach that will satisfy both objectives: to protect properties from flood impacts and preserve the historic character of the building and the community. Alternatives to Elevation In some cases, it may not be feasible to elevate a property, either due to the size of the building, restrictions placed on historic properties, or other engineering, economic or environmental limitations. There are alternatives to elevation that the Town should make allowances for in its zoning code. These considerations include:  Allowing for alternative locations of mechanical and electrical systems, so they can be removed from below-grade spaces. This may also require permitting obstructions in the rear or side yards or on rooftops, as needed, based on the siting of the systems.  Permitting the use of temporary, deployable flood control measures in yards and open spaces.  Allowing yards to be raised and graded to assist with flood protection. Setbacks Increasing setbacks for waterfront properties can also be a useful tool in communities that are still experiencing waterfront development. Increasing the required setbacks from the water will help avoid the need for shoreline hardening while also helping to preserve coastal features and allow for the continuation of private property use. In some communities, instead of providing a distance requirement for these setbacks, the requirement is the maximum practicable setback for the property in question. Rolling Easements An alternate or complementary measure to setbacks are rolling easements. Rolling easements are regulations on land in which a property owner’s interest in preventing real estate from eroding or being inundated yields to the public or environmental interest in allowing natural features (wetlands, beaches, tidal marshes) to migrate freely. This regulation prohibits the property owner from building coastal defenses and shifts inward as the sea level rises. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_REGULATORY AUDIT_FINAL_20170707.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 5 of 9 Memorandum Rolling easements do not deprive land owners of the full economic use of the property, as they only apply to the interface between land and sea. In the near-term, landowners are not directly impacted. However, in the long-term, when sea level rise creates a scenario where nuisance flooding occurs regularly, the property owner would be encouraged to voluntarily vacate the property. Rolling easements can avoid constitutional takings because land owners maintain use of their property for a long time and have sufficient notification that the use of their property is timebound. In some cases, compensation for the easement is offered to further insure against takings litigation. Downzoning The Town may also consider downzoning in certain districts that are particularly vulnerable to flooding and sea level rise. This will help limit that amount of development in those areas and therefore, limit the overall vulnerability of the Town. Open Space Conservation Protection and preservation of open space in vulnerable areas can also be an effective tool, as it minimizes the development potential and also provides the Town with land area to install natural flood protection solutions, in addition to the multitude of other benefits that access to open space provides a community. Solar Access Access to solar power for cell phones and and computer use is an important consideration in the case of storm surges and loss of general power distribution. The Solar Access regulations should be reviewed to ensure that property owners have the options to place solar panels (ground, wall, roof) that best serve their ability to provide a secondary power source. Additional Considerations In addition to the zoning strategies listed above, there are a few other important considerations that the Town should take into account as it evaluates a potential amendment to its zoning regulations. These considerations include:  The interplay between the zoning code and the building code and ensuring that the two codes work together in an effective manner to promote coastal resilience. In addition, some strategies may be more applicable to one code than they are to the other code; the Town should be aware of this symbiotic relationship between the two regulatory devices.  Opportunities for coastal retreat. Often communities will modify regulations to phase out development in the most vulnerable areas and also encourage coastal retreat, either after a property is damage by a storm or in other applicable circumstances. In addition, similar consideration should be placed on how the Town can phase out nonconforming uses in its flood hazard areas over time. While this may appear to be a longer term strategy, uncertainty of future J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_REGULATORY AUDIT_FINAL_20170707.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 6 of 9 Memorandum climate change impacts require planning for possible scenarios now. A near-term solution could include exploring changes to taxation or budgetary processes than enable the Town to set aside funds for future buyout or acquisition programs.  Using the site plan review process to require applicants to demonstrate potential sea level rise impacts, and how the property owner or developer plans to mitigate and/or adapt to those impacts in the siting and design. Importantly, the methodology and assumptions used to demonstrate impacts should be defined by the Town to ensure analyses are as accurate and honest as possible. Community Rating System (CRS) One of the added benefits to making changes to the zoning regulations to incorporate flood protection and resilience strategies is that these strategies may assist the Town in its reapplication to the Community Rating System and help the Town reach a higher level than the level for which it had previously been eligible. Potential Challenges & Legal Considerations As the Town reviews these suggested amendments and decides which strategies to implement, it is important to take into consideration any potential challenges or barriers to implementation. Some of the most important considerations include:  Ensuring that the Town has the resources to enforce these standards. Updating codes and regulations to be more resilient is a great proactice, but if these regulations are not enforced appropriately, then the Town’s efforts towards increasing resilience will be undermined.  Making sure that Stonington has the legal authority to enact regulations to protect against sea level rise. This is unlikely to be an issue for Stonington, because Connecticut is a home rule state and therefore, the Town likely has the authority to amend its zoning code to protect against sea level rise.  If the Town is interested in using the sea level rise maps from this study to inform the boundaries of a potential overlay district, Town officials should do some additional research before enacting such measures. There may be legal issues with using these sea level rise maps for zoning purposes, since they are not officially adopted maps. However, some municipalities have found ways to increase the boundaries of their flood overlay districts beyond the boundaries of the FEMA maps and Stonington could employ similar measures. One example is the Town of Seabrook, NH, which developed an “extended coastal flood hazard overlay” to account for increased storm surge and sea levels. To do this, the town used the existing Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) published by FEMA, which established a base flood elevation of nine feet above mean sea level. The town then expanded this zone to include all land within fifteen feet of mean sea level to account for increased storm surge and rising sea levels. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_REGULATORY AUDIT_FINAL_20170707.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 7 of 9 Memorandum  When adopting new provisions, the Town will likely need to consider a grace period for certain permits and applications that were already underway at the time of the newly adopted provisions. In addition, many properties will inevitably be grandfathered in under the old zoning code; however, the Town should consider a way to bring all properties into compliance with these new regulations over time.  Changes to coastal regulation may diminish coastal land values overtime. This can result in financial impacts on both homeowners and the town. Easements and setbacks can decrease demand for and resale value of coastal homes, and potentially expose the town to takings litigation. Decreasing land values can also impact tax revenue for the town. Additionally, neighboring towns may offer less stringent regulations and further perpetuate these financial hardships. References & Resources Several communities have successfully implemented the flood resilience considerations into their zoning codes. Some communities that the Town of Stonington could use for reference include: New York City, NY New York City made several changes to its zoning code to better protect against future flood events and to remove barriers to post-disaster recovery, based on the lessons learned from Superstorm Sandy. Reference: NYC Flood Resilience Text Amendment can be found here: http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/plans/flood-resiliency/final_text.pdf Norfolk, VA Norfolk is currently undergoing a rewrite of its zoning ordinance; expanding flood resilience considerations is one of the main goals of this rewrite. Reference: The draft plan is currently available online and that draft as well as details of the zoning revision process and public meetings can be found here: http://www.zonenorfolk.com/ Boston, MA The City of Boston implemented a Climate Change Preparedness and Resiliency Checklist that must be submitted as part of the review process for all new development projects. The City is in the process of updating that checklist. Reference: More information on the checklist and proposed updates can be found here: http://www.bostonplans.org/planning/planning-initiatives/climate-change-checklist-update Additional helpful resources include:  The Nature Conservancy: Municipal Zoning Options for Adaptation to Sea Level Rise in Connecticut: http://www.scrcog.org/wp-content/uploads/hazardmitigation/background_material/TNC_CT_Municipal_Zoning_Options-for-SLR.pdf J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_REGULATORY AUDIT_FINAL_20170707.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 8 of 9 Memorandum  Georgetown Climate Center: A Model Sea-Level Rise Overlay Zone for Maryland Local Governments: http://dnr.maryland.gov/ccs/Publication/GCC_MD-SLROrdRpt_FINALv3_112011.pdf  Louisiana Office of Cultural Development, Elevation Design Guidelines for Historic Buildings in the Louisiana GO Zone: http://www.crt.state.la.us/Assets/OCD/hp/uniquely-louisianaeducation/Disaster-Recovery/Final%20Elevation%20Design%20Booklet%2012-07-15%20v2.pdf  Mississippi Development Authority, Elevation Design Guidelines for Historic Homes in the Mississippi Gulf Coast Region: http://www.nj.gov/dep/hpo/hrrcn_sandy_pdf%20files/mississippi.pdf  Adapting to the Rise: A Guide for Connecticut’s Coastal Communities: http://www.ct.gov/ctrecovers/lib/ctrecovers/TNC_Adapting_to_the_Rise.pdf J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_REGULATORY AUDIT_FINAL_20170707.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 9 of 9 Appendix E: Literature Review Memo Memorandum To Keith Brynes, Town Planner Town of Stonington Copies Date February 16, 2017 Reference number 251043.00 From Lisa Dickson, Arup Katie Wholey, Arup Subject Literature Review 1 File reference Overview The following plans and reports were reviewed as part of the coastal resilience planning process. Key points and areas of overlap between these plans and the coastal resilience plan are noted in this memo.           Stonington Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan: http://www.seccog.org/Hazmit2012/stonington_boro%20annex%20update.pdf Town of Stonington Hazard Mitigation Plan: http://www.seccog.org/Hazmit2012/stonington%20annex%20update.pdf 2015 Plan of Conservation and Development: http://www.stoningtonct.gov/sites/stoningtonct/files/file/file/2015_pocd_final_version.pdf The Nature Conservancy Salt Marsh Advancement Assessment: https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/Marine/crr/library/Documents/Sto nington%20Salt%20Marsh%20Advancement%20Zone%20Assessment_Small.pdf Stonington Harbor Management Plan & Mystic Harbor Management Plan: http://www.stonington-ct.gov/sites/stoningtonct/files/stonington_harbor_management_plan.pdf & http://www.stoningtonct.gov/sites/stoningtonct/files/file/file/mystic_harbor_management_plan_may_1995.pdf Zoning Regulations (Revised 2015): http://www.stoningtonct.gov/sites/stoningtonct/files/file/file/zr_e25_7_1_15_0.pdf Open Space Plan (Revised 2007): http://www.stoningtonct.gov/sites/stoningtonct/files/file/file/open_space_plan_7_17_07.pdf Rt. 1 Corridor Study (Adopted March 2008): http://www.stoningtonct.gov/sites/stoningtonct/files/file/file/r1cs_adopted_3_4_08.pdf Mystic Mobility Study (Feb 2011) NE Corridor Rail Plan: http://www.necfuture.com/alternatives/default.aspx J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_LITERATURE REVIEW_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 1 of 10 Memorandum 2 Stonington Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan The primary purpose of the Hazard Mitigation Plan is to reduce the loss of or damage to life, property, infrastructure, and natural, cultural, and economic resources. The borough is largely residential in nature and has seen very little new development since the 1980s. Thus, the coastal resilience concerns in the Borough of Stonington are likely more focused on protecting homeowners and private property, rather than commercial development. There is also an increasing trend towards seasonal housing in the Borough with approximately 25% of the current housing units being seasonal, recreational, vacation or rental homes. Most of the housing units predate 1970, so they likely do not meet current building codes and are more susceptible to damage from natural hazards, unless the units have undergone recent renovations. Inland flooding issues are largely a result of drainage issues in the Borough and nuisance basement flooding, resulting from heavy rainfall. Coastal flooding is a more significant concern throughout the Borough. There are several existing programs, policies and regulations in place to mitigate inland flood damage and coastal flooding, including:  Zoning regulations that restrict development in the 100-year floodplain and require elevation of new construction above base flood elevation (BFE).  Regular annual cleaning of catch basins and culverts  Participation in the Community Rating System  Outreach to residents on potential acquisition elevation programs (but they are more interested in hardening the coastline to protect against flooding)  Private seawalls and bulkheads, and larger breakwater structures and groins are located throughout the Borough Identified vulnerabilities include:  Nuisance flooding on private properties, from rainfall events  Coastal flood impacts to the Fire Station (100 Main Street), Borough Hall (26 Church Street), and the Water Pollution Control Facility (High Street)  62% of the Borough is located in the 100-year floodplain  East Grand Street/Salt Acres Road, all of the main roadways in the borough (and several other roads) could be exposed to wave action and/or inundated during a 1% annual chance flood  Amtrak railroad is vulnerable to overtopping  One repetitive loss property in the Borough. A repetitive loss property is any insurable building that has been paid for two or more $1,000+ claims by the National Flood Insurance Program J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_LITERATURE REVIEW_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 2 of 10 Memorandum (NFIP) in a 10-year period. In addition, there are many private properties (approximately 291) located in the 100-year floodplain There are many valuable recommendations listed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan that should be considered in concert with any resilience planning options in order to identify co-benefits and places where the two plans can leverage each other to make Stonington more resilient. Notably, this plan was updated in July 2012, a few months prior to Superstorm Sandy in October 2012. Therefore, the plan does not include an analysis of impacts resulting from Superstorm Sandy. 3 Town of Stonington Hazard Mitigation Plan The land use in the Town is comprised of approximately 25% residential (of which, approximately 32% of the housing units are multi-family, apartments, or mobile homes), 5% commercial and industrial, 7% agricultural, 9% institutional or transportation, 15% open space, and 40% vacant or underutilized. There is tremendous potential for development and 96% of the vacant land is zoned residential. The Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) identifies several critical facilities located in vulnerable locations, including several Fire Department stations and water treatment and pollution plants. The HMP also recognizes that the communication system is heavily reliant on the five cellular towers in town, one of which is located in the 100-year floodplain. The Masons Island Causeway is the only mode of egress from Masons Island and the bridge was submerged during Tropical Storm Irene; therefore, the bridge is a critical asset for the 400 people living on Masons Island year-round. As noted in the Borough HMP above, the Mystic Amtrak station is also highly vulnerable. The heaviest storms resulting in inland flooding occurred in July 2009 and March 2010. Approximately 50-60 cars were inundated during the 2009 storm and two dams were overtopped. The March 2010 nor’easter destroyed the Rt. 184 Bridge and submerged a large area of Old Mystic. Serious basement flooding occurred in many homes and also in Stonington Town Hall. Several roads were damaged by the storm and closed due to flooding. In addition, coastal flooding is a significant concern, particularly in the southern section of the Town, where structures and infrastructure are closer to sea level, and therefore, more vulnerable. There are several existing programs, policies and regulations in place to mitigate inland flood damage and coastal flooding, including:  Flood control structural projects, such as the USACE construction of the levee in Pawcatuck, and on-going maintenance and improvements  Potential grant funding for drainage upgrades to prevent basement flooding under FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)  Zoning regulations that place additional requirements on development in the 100-year floodplain and require elevation of new construction above base flood elevation (BFE).  Regular annual cleaning of catch basins and culverts  Participation in the Community Rating System J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_LITERATURE REVIEW_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 3 of 10 Memorandum  Outreach to residents on potential acquisition elevation programs (but they are more interested in hardening the coastline to protect against flooding)  Private seawalls and bulkheads, and larger breakwater structures and groins are located throughout the Town  The Town is also working with The Nature Conservancy on coastal resilience planning to address sea level rise and develop cost analyses for potential mitigation projects Identified vulnerabilities include:  Areas along Mystic River, Copps Brook, Stony Brook, Anguilla Brook, Pequotsepos Brook, Whitford Brook and the Pawcatuck River are vulnerable to flood impacts, largely as a result of insufficient culvert sizes  Stonington has been impacted by significant flooding due to poor drainage, largely resulting from undersized drainage systems  1,381 private properties are located in the 100-year floodplain  The 200+ homes in Lords Point have experience the most damage from coastal flooding, historically  There are four repetitive loss properties in the Town that have been impacted by inland flooding and five repetitive loss properties impacted by coastal flooding  Three fire stations, 2 wastewater treatment plants, a water treatment plant, and many roads are vulnerable to coastal flooding  Masons Island Causeway may be overtopped by even a moderate coastal event  In additional to the vulnerable residential areas, commercial and industrial areas in Mystic and along the Pawcatuck River  Deans Reservoir Dam, Long Pond Dam, Mystic Reservoir Dam, and Silvias Pond Lower Dam are particularly vulnerable to overtopping and failure during storm events There are many valuable recommendations listed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan that should be considered in concert with any resilience planning options in order to identify co-benefits and places where the two plans can leverage each other to make Stonington more resilient. Notably, this plan was updated in July 2012, a few months prior to Superstorm Sandy in October 2012. Therefore, the plan does not include an analysis of impacts resulting from Superstorm Sandy. 4 2015 Plan of Conservation and Development The 2015 Plan of Conservation and Development is intended to guide the future of Stonington with visionary goals and action-oriented recommendations. Therefore, the coastal resilience plan should be J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_LITERATURE REVIEW_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 4 of 10 Memorandum considered in concert with the Plan of Conservation and Development to make sure that the recommendations align and to ensure that solutions that could provide multiple co-benefits are identified and prioritized. The overarching principles of the plan include: providing for sustainable development, strengthening existing villages, and promoting low impact commercial and residential approaches. Some major trends in Stonington include: (1) Modest projected population growth; (2) Ageing population; (3) Continued growth in the number of housing units; (4) Less diverse housing stock (most new growth is single-family housing); (5) Decreasing housing affordability; (6) Significant growth potential in the Town; (7) Zoned for residential growth; (8) Overall average income is high and masking the need for services for lower income residents; (9) Major structural shifts in the regional economy (mostly away from manufacturing); and, (10) Changing fiscal conditions with the potential for increased reliance on property taxes. The plan specifically identifies the need to prepare and plan for climate change. Maintaining a balance between environmental preservation and increasing development is expected to become increasingly more difficult as the climate continues to change. One specific project to address sea level rise and storm surge is the restoration of the Old Stonington Wharf/Breakwater; however, there are many additional policy and task recommendations to help protect the Town against impacts from climate change. These recommendations include: protecting and restoring sensitive coastal resources; promoting the use of green infrastructure and “living shorelines”; ensuring better coordination amongst the various commissions that manage coastal activities and the various federal, state, and local regulatory agencies; adopting a Pawcatuck Harbor Management Plan and a plan for adaptation to sea level rise; discouraging new public infrastructure and development in flood prone areas; and modifying regulations to better account for flood vulnerabilities. In addition, the plan highlights the importance of agricultural resources, which are an important consideration in climate change planning, and the need to protect inland and coastal wetlands. Some of the tasks that are of specific relevance to the coastal resilience study, as identified in communication with the Town (during a meeting on January 3, 2017), include the following. The comments in red indicate how the coastal resilience plan is intended to advance these tasks.  Task 3.3.4 – Plan for tidal wetland “advancement zones,” in which such wetlands are expected to expand, by restricting densities and lot coverage in “V” flood zones. The scope of this study is not anticipated to include developing recommendations or regulations related to tidal wetlands. However, the Town is currently in the process of auditing its zoning regulations and that audit may result in recommendations for additional requirements in V-zones, similar to those suggested in this task.  Task 3.3.5 – Identify possible modifications to public infrastructure to account for increases in sea level rise. As part of this study, we anticipate developing 5 resilience/adaptation design recommendations for public facilities. Therefore, this task will be partially advanced by the coastal resilience plan.  Task 3.3.6 – Review regulations to assure that appropriate setbacks for residential uses from the Coastal Jurisdiction Line are provided. Discourage seawalls as a solution to protecting development when other options are feasible. A complete review of zoning regulations, beyond J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_LITERATURE REVIEW_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 5 of 10 Memorandum this memorandum, is not currently part of the scope of this study. However, some additional review of the zoning regulations could be provided as an add-on service to help advance this task.  Task 3.3.7 – Restrict assisted living facilities, hotels, elderly housing, and schools, which have the potential to increase exposure of vulnerable populations in coastal flood hazard areas. An assessment related to vulnerable populations may be included in this study, depending on the level of analysis needed to ensure compliance with HUD CDBG-DR funding requirements. In addition, the Town is currently in the process of auditing its zoning regulations and that audit may result in recommendations to limit development in coastal flood hazard areas that would increase the exposure of vulnerable populations.  Task 3.3.10 – Work with the Borough to identify climate-related vulnerability in Town and issue a Climate Change Impact Report with recommendations for mitigation measures. This task will be advanced by this study with the completion of a vulnerability and risk assessment of the Town’s critical assets. The community has identified maintaining the character of the Town and enhancing the villages as important priorities. While the plan does not specifically address how coastal flooding may impact historic resources and the village centers, it does identify the need for flexibility and creativity in addressing flood hazard requirements in historic zones. It is important to note that many of the Town’s historic resources are located in the three villages, which are all prone to impacts from coastal flooding. Therefore, any recommendations for the preservation of historic resources or the development of the villages should also include considerations of the impact of coastal flooding on those resources. This plan identifies important transportation consideration throughout the Town; however, there is little mention of the impacts of coastal flooding on these resources. Any proposals to increase bicycle and pedestrian mobility, improve public transit, and provide maintenance for roadways should also take into consideration the potential for flood impacts to those resources. All of the recommendations listed in the “Sustainability and Resiliency” section of the plan are important climate change considerations, both from an adaptation and mitigation standpoint. These recommendations include: promoting energy conservation, promoting water conservation, promoting waste reduction/recycling, promoting “green buildings”, educating residents about sustainability, and promoting resiliency. Overall, the 2015 Plan of Conservation and Development includes many recommendations for promoting a more resilient Stonington and this plan should be used to guide and focus the future resilience planning efforts. 5 Salt Marsh Advancement Assessment Sea level rise and flooding is altering the presence and abundance of natural resources throughout Connecticut and one of the most notable changes is the advancement of coastal salt marsh upslope into areas that are currently considered uplands. The Nature Conservancy completed an analysis of salt J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_LITERATURE REVIEW_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 6 of 10 Memorandum marsh advancement in Stonington in 2014. This advancement is of concern because it has the potential to extend into developed areas of the Town (i.e. areas with roads, buildings, parking lots, etc.). While the rate of change is relatively slow and will occur gradually over the next several decades, it is something that the Town should take into consideration during its resilience planning process. Two important concerns are: (1) a large amount of current development is in direct conflict with sea level rise and advancing marshes; and (2) the Town currently has a large amount of unprotected open space that will be vital to maintaining the Town’s wetland resources in the future. Approximately 2,000 acres of land are expected to experience salt marsh advancement through 2080. Of that, 268.2 acres are not suitable for such advancement because that land is already developed. This plan provides a basis for helping the Town develop regulations on future development and protect vital open space in order to prevent future property damage and promote resilience in Stonington. 6 Stonington Harbor Management Plan & Mystic Harbor Management Plan The Stonington and Mystic Harbor Management Plans mostly focus on the administrative management of the harbor, including provisions related to collecting fees for mooring permits, assigning mooring locations, and enforcing regulations related to wake, noise, speed, etc. The problems and recommendations specifically focus on moorings and anchor anchorages, commercial fishing, other water uses and safety, water quality and shoreside development. While the plans do not specifically address climate resilience or the impacts of flooding on the harbor infrastructure, the Stonington Harbor Plan mentions concerns related to the Town Dock in past flooding events. In addition, some of the identified goals and recommendations would provide co-benefits to the Town by assisting with the management of the harbors and making Stonington more resilient through minimizing damage to property and loss of life around the harbor during a coastal flood event. 7 Zoning Regulations The Zoning Regulations include a number of regulations related to flood hazards; however, most of these regulations are based on the current FEMA flood zones, which do not account for increased risk from sea level rise and storm surge. The regulations include a Coastal Area Management (CAM) Overlay District and a Flood Hazard Overlay District. The CAM boundary includes: areas covered by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), areas within 1,000 feet of the mean high water mark of coastal waters, and areas within 1,000 feet of the State-designated tidal wetlands. Projects within the CAM are evaluated for any adverse impacts to land and water resources; proposed mitigating measures are required in the CAM application and the Commission may approve, deny, modify, or modify with conditions any project within the CAM boundary. The Flood Hazard Overlay District (FHOD) applies special regulations to all land in the floodplain of rivers, streams, and bodies of water. This district regulates all aspects of construction in the floodplain in order to (1) minimize loss of life, injury, and property damage; (2) protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people; and (3) help control and minimize the extent and depth of floods. In general, all new construction in the flood zone must be elevated at least one foot above the base flood elevation and no new construction or alterations of J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_LITERATURE REVIEW_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 7 of 10 Memorandum buildings in the floodplain shall reduce the water holding capacity of the floodplain. Additional requirements include: (1) prohibition on new construction and substantial improvements within 100 feet of mean high tide in V-zones; and, (2) designation of a 100 foot non-infringement area within the RC-120 zone (Residential Coastal), which prohibits development or improvements within 100 feet of coastal features (with a few exceptions, such as boat access and greenways). 8 Open Space Plan Approximately 30% of the land in the Town of Stonington is perceived as open space; however, that land in not permanently protected open space and could be developed in the future. In fact, only about 9-10% of the land in Stonington is permanently protected open space. Through the Open Space Plan, the Town set an ambitious goal of preserving a minimum of 30% of its land as open space by 2020 and increasing connectivity between open space in order to create green belts and wildlife corridors. The Town currently has some regulations that require the preservation of open space: mandatory set-asides of 15% are required by subdivision regulations and the Open Space Development (OSD) alternative requires 50% of a parcel to be preserved as open space. The overall goals of this plan include: 1. Preserve town character and enhance economic sustainability 2. Protect natural resources to ensure public health and safety 3. Protect wildlife habitats and natural resources 4. Maintain and enhance recreational areas While the plan does not specifically address coastal resilience concerns, the recommendations in the Action Plan work in concert with effective coastal resilience strategies and provide co-benefits to the town. These recommendations include: increasing the amount of protected open space in Stonington, modifying regulations to protect environmentally sensitive areas from development, limiting the amount of impervious surface, proactively acquiring beach property for public use, increasing public awareness of the need for protecting open space and other environmental resources, and developing greenways and connected open spaces. 9 Rt. 1 Corridor Study U.S. Route 1 is a major transportation corridor extending the length of the east coast of the United States, from Maine to Key West, Florida. Route 1 serves as the principal connection between the villages of Mystic and Pawcatuck, the borough of Stonington, and the Wequetequock area. This plan sought to develop a vision for the corridor. The main focus of the study was to allow for increased economic development opportunities along the corridor while also maintaining community character, protecting of open space and environmental resources, minimizing traffic, and protecting village resources. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_LITERATURE REVIEW_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 8 of 10 Memorandum While the plan does not directly address coastal flooding or climate resilience, many of the recommended strategies are in line with resilience recommendations for addressing coastal flooding and other climate impacts. Those recommendations include:  Promoting bicycle and pedestrian connections;  Protecting natural resources and preserving open space;  Heavily scrutinizing environmental encroachments and impacts to natural resources from development;  Preventing excessive grading and limiting pavement widths, as appropriate;  Enhancing public access to the coast; and  Promoting and expanding bus and rail transit, where possible. 10 Mystic Mobility Study The Mystic Mobility Study does not address the impacts of climate change or flood events on the transportation system in Stonington; however, there are opportunities to incorporate coastal resilience into the planning and improvement efforts denoted in the mobility study. The three main focus areas presented in the study include the Mystic Trolley Shuttle Service, water taxis, and mobility hubs. All of these transit options would be subject to impacts from coastal flooding and further analysis of the route and operations should consider those impacts. The study also details improvement plans and costs for many transit services in the Mystic Area. There are opportunities to leverage these pre-existing improvement plans to incorporate coastal resilience design solutions into planned improvements as a way to leverage the existing funding and also provide co-benefits to improve the transit system and increase the resilience of the Mystic Area. 11 Northeast Corridor Rail Plan NEC FUTURE is the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) comprehensive effort to plan for future investment along the rail transportation spine that extends from Washington, D.C. to Boston, MA. This railway corridor is known as the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and runs through Stonington, CT, along the coastline. Several alternatives were developed to address the following needs of the NEC:  State of Good Repair: The current infrastructure is aging and has received insufficient investment in maintenance needs. This results in service delays.  Connectivity: There are currently gaps in connectivity between the railway and various transportation modes. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_LITERATURE REVIEW_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 9 of 10 Memorandum  Capacity: There are severe capacity constraints and critical chokepoints along the current railway that effect current ridership and limit growth in ridership.  Performance: Improvements in travel time, frequency and service hours are needed to make rail competitive with other modes of travel.  System-Wide Resiliency: The destruction caused by Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy raised awareness of the vulnerability of the NEC. There is a need for increased redundancy throughout the rail network and enhancements to improve the resiliency of the infrastructure.  Environmental Sustainability: Increasing ridership on passenger rail can help reduce energy use and emissions throughout the region.  Economic Growth: Convenient, reliable, and frequent rail service will allow for continued economic growth in the Northeast region, where the knowledge-based economy is especially reliant on rail service. The system-wide resiliency and environmental sustainability needs are particularly relevant to the Coastal Resilience Assessment. The Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement was completed in December 2016 and the Preferred Alternative includes a proposed new segment running through Stonington that would locate the new rail segment further from the coast, along the Rt. 95 corridor, reducing its vulnerability to coastal flooding. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_LITERATURE REVIEW_FINAL_20170216.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 10 of 10 Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Appendix F: Sea Level Rise Memo Memorandum To Mr. Keith Brynes, Town Planner Town of Stonington, CT Copies Date September 13, 2016 Reference number 251043.00 From Lisa Dickson, Arup Kirk Bosma, Woods Hole Group Subject Recommended Sea Level Rise Assumptions File reference Recommendation: Based on the information below, we would recommend that the Town of Stonington use the projected Highest SLR curve at 2070 as its long-term climate scenario (see table on page 2 for those values). Below is the sea level rise curve from the latest National Climate Assessment that is standardly used to determine appropriate SLR levels for different planning horizons and with respect to overall risk tolerance. It should be noted that these curves represent the average global sea level rise (SLR) and is not corrected for other geographic variability. Since sea level rise is happening three times faster on the East Coast than the global average, we generally recommend that clients with assets along the eastern seaboard adopt the highest sea level curve to more closely approximate those local conditions. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_RECOMMENDED SLR CURVE_20160913.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 1 of 3 Memorandum Below is a description of the data that was used to construct each of the curves shown in the figure above (from https://scenarios.globalchange.gov/sites/default/files/NOAA_SLR_r3_0.pdf).     Highest Scenario: derived from a combination of estimated ocean warming from IPCC AR4 global SLR projections and a calculation of the maximum possible glacier and ice sheet loss by the end of the century…should be considered in situations where there is little tolerance for risk. Intermediate-High Scenario: average of the high end of semi-empirical, global SLR projections; assess risk from limited ice sheet loss Intermediate-Low Scenario: based on the upper end of the IPCC 4th Assessment, B1 emission scenario; assess risk primarily from ocean warming Lowest Scenario: based on a liner extrapolation of the historic SLR rate derived from tide gauge records beginning in 1900; risen over 0.2 meters (8 inches) over this period of record; should be considered where there is greatest tolerance for risk When the National Climate Assessment report was published in 2012, the following statement was made: “We [the authors] have very high confidence (>9 in 10 chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 0.2 meters (8 inches) and no more than 2.0 (6.6. feet) by 2100.” However, more recent observations suggest that the current rates of global sea level rise are following an even steeper trajectory than what is shown here. This has led some to question whether the curves are too conservative and could perhaps be under-predicting those results. In determining which time horizon to use, the Town must decide both on the relevance of the projections to nearer-time considerations (e.g., 10-year planning projections; capital improvement programs), as well as adequately capturing the longer-term considerations associated with the life expectancy of assets such as buildings, bridges, roadways and other infrastructure. These types of assets often have life expectancies that span 30-75 plus years. The ability to bracket possible endmembers allows the town to interpolate potential intermediate risks - both temporally and geographically. The project team has already determined that the Highest SLR scenario for 2030 will be used as a planning horizon for the near-term; the Woods Hole Group is currently modelling those runs. The time horizon of 2030 shows a SLR of approximately ½ foot. The decision remains to be made as to the appropriate planning horizon for later scenarios. The different SLR values for the various scenarios are presented below. These vary somewhat in absolute numbers from those shown on the SLR graphic. The reason for this being that the SLR graphic from the NOAA report uses 1992 as a baseline whereas the SLR projections shown in the table below use 2016 (current conditions) as the baseline. Scenario 2030 2050 2070 Low 0.10 0.25 0.40 SLR Rate (feet) Int-Low Int-High 0.19 0.36 0.51 1.06 0.91 1.99 High 0.55 1.69 3.24 J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_RECOMMENDED SLR CURVE_20160913.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 2 of 3 Memorandum J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_RECOMMENDED SLR CURVE_20160913.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 3 of 3 Appendix G: Community Engagement E?o?s Memorandum To Mr. Keith Brynes, Town Planner Town of Stonington, CT Date Copies Mr. Scot Deledda, Town Engineer Town of Stonington, CT Reference number From Susan Silberberg, CivicMoxie Lisa Dickson, Arup Katie Wholey, Arup File reference Subject Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan - Public Engagement Efforts August 21, 2017 The following memo details the public engagement process for the Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan, which included an online survey for residents of Stonington as well as three public meetings throughout the course of the project. 1 Online Survey Results The survey was completed by 149 respondents. The following graphs and answer choices detail the questions asked as part of the survey and the responses received. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS_FINAL_20170821.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 1 of 15 Memorandum J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS_FINAL_20170821.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 2 of 15 Memorandum J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS_FINAL_20170821.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 3 of 15 Memorandum J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS_FINAL_20170821.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 4 of 15 Memorandum J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS_FINAL_20170821.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 5 of 15 Memorandum J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS_FINAL_20170821.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 6 of 15 Memorandum J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS_FINAL_20170821.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 7 of 15 Memorandum 2 Public Meeting #1 (October 20, 2016) The following comments were collected as part of a questionnaire that was passed out at the first public meeting, which was held at the Mystic Aquarium on October 20, 2016. Briefly tell us your thought about the 2030 and 2050 probability maps showing flooding in Stonington. Were they surprising? Do you believe the data? Is it what you expected? Any other comments you would like to make?  Surprised about potential flooding in upper Pawcatuck  Not surprising, but all hands must be on deck to adequately address this impending issue  I am new to area so don’t know geographic enough to take in impact. Thought it was going to be more severe given the experimental rise  Shocking  Seems reasonable- good to see that.  Is the effect of backing of water in hurry?  Is land grant being taken into account?  Not surprising and I do believe the data. The maps were hard to see but I will look on line  Not surprising- believe that depends upon one it and many other factors- mostly expected  Scary! I do not totally believe the data but believe the threat is near. There are too many immeasurable influences to make an accurate projection.  Not surprising I have been looking at firm maps online.  Facts surprised that there was a vulnerability in tow. Of seems very localized.  The maps did not show very much difference in the amount of water increase to me.  Flooding on the eastern side of Stonington Borough  Need to look at maps in more detail. Makes sense that there will be more flooding  Not surprising unfortunately  Not surprising. Believable but would like to better understand models  Concerned for the future regarding impact on real estate even for non-waterproof properties  I do believe the data= sorry about the data and am very glad to see people paying attention just need more  Interesting because different than FEMA  I question the accuracy of the data. We can’t accurately predict if it will rain tonight. What makes this something we can believe in?  Makes sense to me. Looks reasonable and realistic  Not surprising  No there’s no info from previous storms  It’s difficult to predict images of storms in 2030+2050 so that made it surprising Not enough info to judge  No surprise, I believe it  Can we protect our salt marshes?  No real surprises J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS_FINAL_20170821.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 8 of 15 Memorandum      Not surprising, believe the data Lots of assumptions used in forecasting- not any history used in hind casting. The truth lies somewhere in between maybe I suspect the outlook will worsen- that warming is in a feedback loop. Estimates have so far consistently been exceeded I think the data may be underestimating the risk. Not surprising. Yes, I believe. Yes expected. What other information do you want to know?  Ready for options! Will those be to fight the fight or to move with them? More meetings in aquarium! Thanks for that and food!  The CT deep permitting criteria have to change to call the property grades to be raised and shorelines protected  Can we identify undeveloped areas that are high risk and tag them in advance to not develop?  Attenuation of surges above the I-95 bridge on the mystic river  What can homeowners in high-risk zones do? When do we need to do? Will FEMA, EPA, Town be supportive?  How are you going to prepare the community for these events?  Most interested in how to preserve downtown areas and buildings given most of Stonington town centers like Mystic Stonington Boro, and Pawcatuck  Effect on PC&D roles  Economic impact to town or flooded properties  Planners need to know where the money will come from to help individuals at risk know how to plan and pay for preparations  Access to maps, fiscal motivation  Suggestions for addressing how to protect your home? What do you do about septic systems that are vulnerable to flooding?  Will there be suggestions for individual property owners- how to build beams. What is role of deep? Very difficult to get approval from deep for anything.  How ongoing will act up to climate change  Understand the issues, but would like to know how town plans to deal with it. Current regulations prevent home owners from taking preventative measures  How do you restore any shoreline that is receding? How much do we know about what will happen at Barn island?  How about a blog where people can ask questions and make comments?  I look for ways to specify renovations on what we can do to restore our homes?  What things can a waterfront home-owner do to mitigate the issues?  How sea level rise has affected our communities already  Look forward to staying in the 100s.  How information will be disseminated to pubic. How recommendations will be delivered to the town and how this information can affect public policy. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS_FINAL_20170821.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 9 of 15 Memorandum   If all the property in the flood zones that does not live near town level has to be severed. Does the town have adequate capacity to do this? Same questions relates to water. Got confusing with percentages and risk challenging terms between risk and resiliency and percent Tell us something about this resiliency planning initiative that excited you or worries you  Excited town is finally taking initiative publicly. Maybe it has happened, but haven’t seen it  I am afraid that the study will be undermined by pressure from state of CT rather than accurately documenting the needs end designs of property owners to protect their property not just infrastructure.  Concerned that people want to raise roads to provide access other than reduced development in at risk areas  I am president of Whitehall Landing condo assoc. on the Mystic River. WE are beginning to do some planning and look forward to your information.  Ruins coastal real estate/family legacy valuations  Climate change readiness  Worried about how lack of planning will affect ocean health  Sea level rise  It needs to coordinate with town zoning regulations. Zoning needs to be responsive to the resiliency plan and post-event responses  We need good date, we need a plan, plan should cover residential properties as well as public infrastructure  Convincing public then willingness to act  Flooding at Stonington housing authority or limited access for rescheduling evacuation due to storms.  Transportation- bicycles need to be included during sandy many trees and wires down. Travel over them was possible by bike. Police have bikes but then are not in working order  If it helps resolve development hurdles in flood prone areas with a planful approach, that would be good!  Concerned about additional costs for construction in and near the lower area. Limiting the opportunity for some to live in close proximity to the water due to lack of money.  Pleased to see planning taking place  Inaction by town after study completed  Glad people are thinking, hopefully planning. Fear there will be no funding and true guidance with doing the actual work.  Conflict between waterfront owners and public access when sea level rise is thrown in. Setting aside future salt wash  Finally taking pro-active steps to acknowledge rising water  Is the sea level rise prediction accurate?  I serve as an emergency operations team in Simsbury. This kind of planning is critical to safety and developing cost-effective measures  Stonington is acting- being proactive J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS_FINAL_20170821.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 10 of 15 Memorandum                Vulnerability of mystic seaport Worry about even more government regulations I am on P&Z in town and still wanted to get up to speed. Do not live in a flood area Those of us close to the shore want to see how sea level rise will play out. In particular were concerned about protecting the marsh that protects us. Impact on the Mason’s Island Yacht Club Planning and preparedness While I’m high and dry at 20 feet-- getting cut off is an issue I live on the water’s edge and I am concerned about sea level change Representing the board-Stonington landing condo association Would like to understand the impact of weather and the sea rise data. How is it included, hindered, predictions? Worried for my kids We need to better prepare our community- education is key How sea level rise may affect my house and property. Also, how this will affect and direct public policy and spending Seal Level rise. Storm surge. Property damage What will happen on my street/value? Historic structures how will we protect them? The following is a copy of the presentation made at this meeting. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS_FINAL_20170821.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 11 of 15 Community Coastal Resiliency Plan Town of Stonington, Connecticut Public Meeting October 20, 2016 Social Media: #StoningtonReady @StoningtonCTGov @ArupAmericas Agenda Introduction Project Approach Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge Modeling Vulnerability Assessment: Preliminary Results Brief Break Questions and Answers 2 Why we are here tonight… • We want to be wise, plan ahead, and protect people, places, and investments: • protect public infrastructure from coastal flooding and sea level rise • minimize potential for loss of life and destruction to property • identify ways to enhance coastal resources • continue to thrive despite these shocks and stressors 3 By the time we all leave… • You will understand why we are doing resiliency planning in Stonington • Our project approach will be clear • You will know the results of: - Sea level rise (SLR)/storm surge modeling - The vulnerability assessment • You will have a break to do a quick planning exercise with the person next to you • Everyone will have a chance to ask questions • Next steps will be clear We promise to get you out on time at 7:30 PM! 4 Project Approach ARUP Overview of Approach Step 1 Step 2 Establishing a climate baseline Ranking risk Step 3 Developing solutions Climate Baseline SLR storm surge Precipitation Temperature Determining the Sea Level Rise elevations 200 Highest - 2.0 Observed Scenarios 160 120 Intermediate-High - 1.2 Intermediate-Lew - 0.5 .5. Ci Lowest - 0.2 Global Mean Sea Level Rise (cm above 1992) I: 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 GCM projections may underestimate accelerated ice sheet melting Sea level rise is happening 3 x faster on the East Coast than the global average Nature Climate, 2012 Sandy-like events may become more like the 1 in 20 yr event vs. the 1 in 1000 yr event Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences, 2016 From: NASA: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rosenzweig_03/ 9 Prioritizing the Risk Vulnerability Risk Most. At. Risk Sensitivity Probability Adaptive Capacity Consequence Translating Risk into Resilient Solutions luzrallcn 5' Task 1 – Data Gathering Deliverables: Draft and Final Technical Memo on resilience information. GIS shape files of readily-available layers to form the basemap for subsequent analyses Task 2 – Public Input • • • • Promotional Flyers Information sheets Presentations Summary of meetings and public feedback • Participant data (demographics, interests, etc.) Clear summaries of outcomes and next steps – to keep the project moving Information sheets to educate public -- to generate constructive discussions Participant info and feedback surveys at every meeting – to provide data Task 3 – Risk Assessment 2015 2030 Deliverables -Draft and Final Technical Memoranda -Planning Horizon criteria -Methodology and sources used to develop inundation -GIS maps and shape files showing extent of flooding -Levels of inundation at up to 25 assets for each scenario 2050 Task 4 - Recommended Resilience Solutions above the design flood elevation Dry all walls above design ?uud elevation . L-hn . 1! - .. .. 51nd? Impacts Hem mm a -.. 2:5 --.. Replace and relocate mechanical a a I kip-X l=r equipment to abnve design ?end elevatiun .Relocate electrical equipment to a I a. 119' .- HI Install ?eadproof deer and ?uodproof windows to 2' above design flood elevation [refer to the toolbox in the Appendix in: more detail?) Recon?gure water and nat ural gas piping Install sump pump Fill in basament per FEMA guidelines BUFFDH- Cum 131-15: Hm IE. MEI: And-ambit Punnirq mun-1mm .ll nun-Jih- null: I: mmhh?r?mun?l [:Lmrruurhu l-wr-hHI-m-rhl. nnuu-uun- uhmh?w?m?hh?r?r?lh??-mhmd humdlin?ulrd?nd?d?lr- Ilm?v?n?lm?dmm? Huh-1 Br. 111:!th Ir!- ul'luhlluid??i??mn HnI-I?rnakh-i-Ima?ud-urduur-h huh-n ?mini-H1- mu. lip-ILA, mmhmIMImWWHumhl?hud-in mmh?-m?Hr? mmdurm Er- hh?- hh'n-Idbnuu. ?curl-Tl Imml?'dlillnuhn?hm- dhd'llrli In:- I Thu-Elihu lhI i-bem. General Dem'iJIiD-n Hi gh-level, ?minimum nqumw Ila-pm!" rum urn-hi1}- Hldin'mllr-nha-nh IhI??lh. IM: r?hn. mm mm i i i :iurl?ln: mm. 4.0 Ell Enid Lnl; 5mm?! 4 Hum "rumba-1rd Ln mama-I. . mull-?d 5m E-plL-l m: 5m ?demi m?"mm Inn-.31? ?m unmana? mu: 5mm mph-I tar. Luau can'. 1m mama?mm ?maid" ism?Ham: rm awe-um ?lm-I?ll smu I I Ear-Wrap imam-anew 11.0 lb": Ann-l Hahn-urn Wuwwuh . lum-l Win-minimum. Em plug. t? Ln?, Luann 51m ?Eur-dd 5 SEE-C mul?h?m?hhr?h?w? hull?i?-Im: meld Iii?Ir! :nhlJ-u-n 5m hid-?n WHpu?d-r? Elli-launch IHIIanI?-mdpm?' 1rd Eml; mullhudrrm?rt-Id Cull-Ilium: im?mdu??inhm ?mpl'm?ntll Ihuilhnuru'?ul'l'?nlrumn. nun-bud bulldr?fu-i?-md Wuhan-thud blHI?Fn-m-L?nd Eva-1nd.- pram-1 Erna-ll dullrtaunmr?imd nail-l Ell?ul'?ml?'?l lumL-rd munIr' mum "mm. r-num. lap-I'M hinmmw?mul?d dual-h. him- MU 1rd ul-Iunllumhlm?hlquhdfm E?mrhdunhlribn-dmilhlil HE Hill. I- Engineering solutions Task 5 - Draft and Final Coastal Resilience Plan • Draft plan presented to public • Input captured in the subsequent rewrite • High-level summary of comments • Public session will be held to present the final Coastal Resilience Plan Project Team Lisa Dickson Arup Kirk Bosma Woods Hole Group Susan Silberberg Civic Moxie Madeline Fraser Cook TDA Project Manager Coastal Engineer Stakeholder Engagement CDBG Compliance Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge Modeling ARUP Climate Change Flooding FEMA Maps • • • FEMA is only backward looking Only considers “100-year” storm Transect based analysis Bathtub Approach • • • Inundation maps do not reflect dynamic nature of coastal flooding Does not account for joint flooding conditions Does not account for tides Hurricane Evacuation Maps • • • • 20 Worst possible scenario for emergency planning (worst storm at MHW)…no associated risk planning Coarse modeling domain results in local inaccuracies Does not include impacts of waves Just hurricanes 1. 2. 3. What is the probability of flooding? What is vulnerable and what is the priority? What interventions are available and what is the plan? Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge Pv?1111111\111w Wat. 3.0 /8 (EV-5411393, 'r . . er'lthrop i - ?ig?f-B . #303? 100 21 ARUP Dynamic Modeling 5 Trap ital and Sea Level Rise -Tr-npical 5? Eleva?um: mm; Inunda?nn Pr-nb abilities DuFll'??'?Il Depth-5 Pathways V-nFllumes Determining the Sea Level Rise elevations 200 Highest - 2.0 Observed Scenarios 160 120 Intermediate-High - 1.2 Intermediate-Lew - 0.5 .5. Ci Lowest - 0.2 Global Mean Sea Level Rise (cm above 1992) I: 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 Probabilistic Mapping Legend II Ex 'r 21 hr21 I - s, casdanco 0 lg 00 niannadlaw :9 Extent 3?31 Section comm? Tunnei Structure Q5 rtARLINGTON MEDFORLLE) I .. - BELMONT \CAM BRIDGE (I a WATE RTOWN NEWTON BH-FRM Coastal Flood Exceedance Probabilities - - ?imw'" Chm? Adaptat'c'" PM Central Artery and Tunnel System ?a umnss Egg?zg?pg?m 02-Sep-2015 2070 High 2100 IntermediatevHigh Scenarios BOSTON 5m, wag 10:33.; mam mm. 3.2 feet 98 cm SLR relative to 2013 magmabag-gemmwaa?r?e Probabilistic Mapping Le-gend Flood Depths 1% CFEP 2070 High 2100 Intermediate High BH-FRM Extent Boat Section Complex Tunnel Structure I ARLINGTON . I . I BELMONT .WATERTOWN I umnss BOSTON Brighton University of New Hampshire ?7 BOSTON NEWTON ll 3' BRWE Roxbury ?1 .. .I I ?no. M. "In? v..u~.pm~un Highway South Bosto Til it Swim? MIHDOY ?bud! hale Climate Adaptation Pilot BH-FRM Coastal Flood Depths 1% CFEP Central Artery and Tunnel System 2070 High I 2100 Intermediate High Scenarios 3.2 feet (98 cm) SLR relative to 2013 02~SepA2015 eru Bush". MauGlS and ESRI ?Irma-19a new may ma teenage- Local Engineering Assessment 'w?a 2030 lnunda?on Risk Aw MA . . ?11 .- Dry 0.Clown-2% - . 'x . 5-3inch 293 foot Local Engineering Assessment Exceedance Probability Mill Street Pump Station H- in +2030 +20?0 H- DJ Water Surface Elevation Percent Exceedance a U1 Legend Annual Chance of Flooding 0.1 1 10 Legend Annual Chance of Flooding 0.1 1 10 Annual Chance of Flooding Legend 2050 Flooding Probability Mystic Area 2050 Flooding Probability Lower Pawcatuck Area 0 01250 07:4 :1 I, egend I .. i %Annual Chance Of Flooding 0.1 1 10 2050 Flooding Probability Upper Paweatuek Area 5.. ty/ 3, Legend Annual Chance of Flooding 0 25541 mandation Ffahahil?i?i ?1 I Harbor Probability . . . ,Stonington 3 WW. ARUP 34 35 ARUP 0.Vulnerability Assessment: Preliminary Results ARUP Public Infrastructure Legend % Annual Chance of Flooding Pump Station & Treatment Plant Town and Borough Hall Human Services Building Senior Center 37 Transportation Legend Annual Chance of Flooding 0.1 1 10 Road Railroad Cultural Resources Legend Annual Chance of Flooding . pkIiiNational Register Structures State Register Structures . Local Register Structures 100 Year Floodplain Ir 0 0.5 0-2 0.1 10 Annual Chance of Flooding Legend FEMA Current Flood Zones Major Land Uses Legend Annual Chance of Flooding 0.1 1 10 Residential Commercial IndICnmm Outfalls Legend Annual Chance of Flooding 0.1 1 10 Groundwater Protection Legend Annual Chance of Flooding 0.1 1 10 Groundwater Protection A Brief Time Out: Survey results a talk With the person next to you ARUP What people are thinking… • 143 people responded to the online survey • Respondents describe resiliency in equal measure as: • Bouncing back quickly after a catastrophic weather event • Having adequate capacity in infrastructure and services • Changing over the long run to respond to new situations and threats 45 HOW concerned are you about sea level rise and/0r severe weather events? Annular Ehnitea Reapnnaea Hut cancerned at all 7-7551: 11 Just a little bit cancerned 11.27% 15 Mnderatel'gr cancerned 31.32% 53 43.55% 52 Very cancerned Tutil 14E For those not concerned about sea level rise and climate change: Answered: 11 I am not concerned about sea level rise and climate change because… …I won't be around to see the effects of severe weather and sea level rise. 18.75% 18.75% I think the data is wrong and things aren't as bad as they are made out to be. I don't own property and won't be affected. I don't live or work on the coast and won't be affected. 62.50% I don't think there is anything I can do so why worry. I have other things that I'm concerned about and this isn't a priority. 47 For those only a little bit concerned about sea level rise and severe weather events: Answered: 16 48 Skipped: 127 For those moderately or very concerned: Answered: 130 I am most concerned about the following (choose only one): 20% 61.54% Worried about my house 3.85% 14.62% 49 Worried about my business property Worried about my and/or my family's saftey Worried for our town or planet generally HOW would you like to participate in this planning process? Answered: 134 Answer Eheiees Attend a public meeting Attend a feeus greup pr greup Partieipate in surveys like this ene Have the prejeet team er tewn staff attend an etrentrmeeting pf my erganizatien, ehureh, er ether greuptif ether, please list pelew} Head updates en the Tewn website Get prejeet news en the Tewn FaeepeeI-i page email updates Tetal Respendents: 134 Respenses 55.21% 33.55% 35.51% 5.12% 27.51% 255539-11 55.22% TE 45 52 You live Answered: 133 Answer Mystic Lerds Peirrt Paweetuek Masen's Island Steningten Bereugh Steningten Uplands Semeplaee else: Tutll 35.53% 3.13% 13.33% 12.73% 3.33% 13.54% 3-1 2? 22 133 Your relationship to the Answered: 133 Answer Inland Oh the I can see the water but am net directly en the meet er river Tutll 31.53% 42 27.07% 3E: 41.35% 55 133 Your living situation: Answered: 133 Answer ewn my ewn heme I rent my epertmentheme live with friendsi?femilyr live in senier heusing Crther (please specify) Tut?l 115.21% 11.27% 3.111% 11.75% 2.25% 11-'-1 11 133 Your Answered: 133 Answer Ehnitea 55+ years SCI-5E: 31 -4EI 21 under21 Tutll H?apnnaea 31.58% 28.51% 15.11% 4.51% 42 33 2? 133 Take 5 minutes to talk to the person next to you and complete your survey sheet ARUP Discussion, Questions Next Steps ARUP Next Steps 57 • • • Please make sure you signed in at the entry table You will be added to email list for project updates and meeting notices For additional information on the project, please contact: Keith Brynes kbrynes@stonington-ct.gov 860-535-5095 • OR follow us on social media! #StoningtonReady @StoningtonCTGov @ArupAmericas Memorandum 3 Public Meeting #2 (May 4, 2017) The following comments were collected as part of a facilitated exercise during the second public meeting, held at the Mystic Seaport on May 4, 2017. The Arup Team presented a major storm scenario to the public at the meeting and asked attendees to respond to questions based on that scenario. The Scenario: A future 100-year storm hits Stonington, resulting in major flooding along the coast and a week without electricity. The following questions were asked of meeting attendees: What are you most worried about during this storm event?  Emergency Transportation  Restoration of power and utilities  Getting gasoline for emergency house generators, for cars  Making sure friends and family are safe if communications are down, ability to charge cell phones  Being about to use medical devices  The drainage system from across the seaport do to School Street is extremely vulnerable to flooding.  Communication within town – cell phone towers and electricity. No one will have power so how will they be reached? So few people have land lines these days.  Sewer system and water supply – how to maintain this even in flooding?  Six fire departments with six independent districts. They don’t report to the town and chain of command isn’t clear. This is a major concern during emergency events.  Need to get young people involved. This planning will affect their lives the most.  Where does all of this intersect with flood insurance? FEMA community rating system can help bring down rates?  Worried if people own property on the water…if they are responsible for loss of value, will others feel like everyone can share in that loss as a community loss?  How long will it take to get back to normal and how much will it cost?  Politics. We need to make sure that department heads and people in charge are making the right decisions. Right now approvals happen that shouldn’t. contractors are filling with fill and paying the fine because it is cheaper. There isn’t trust that people will do the right thing. Could we give people fair payment to NOT build?  At this point in our country’s evolution we have reached a point where many don’t trust the government. Yet we will need to depend on them in an emergency. Worried about how that all plays out.  We have assets that are irreplaceable…historical buildings, the fabric of the town, the character. If a storm wipes this out, we can’t replace it and it is also the reason for tourism. If tourism dollars are lost this would be a major blow.  Arcane electrical distribution systems – how to provide vital utilities during flooding? J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS_FINAL_20170821.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 12 of 15 Memorandum Do you have any ideas for how Stonington can protect itself in this scenario?  Ideal is prevention by change is land uses.  Emergency resilience plan that offers real solutions  Town is building middle schools and these are on high ground. Make sure we plan to use these as emergency shelters. In fact, think about: o Using more central locations (firehouses, schools, community centers) for emergency shelters o Places where pets are welcome o Places to charge cell phones and other devices  Make at least one shelter pet friendly. Many people endanger their lives and don’t go to shelters because they won’t abandon their pets.  Get people to take evacuation seriously. Many people stay in their homes, making it difficult for everyone and endangering their lives and others.  Didn’t see entrance to Borough covered in the presentation. Bottom of Viaduct floods and essentially creates an island.  How to communicate to let people know what roads are open/closed, where charging stations are? Showers? Respite areas?  Develop list of residents at risk in own homes and see if local senior housing communities can take in extra residents for the short term.  During Sandy and Irene, Groton had large sand pile and fill bags. Stonington needs to plan to offer this. We need a coordinated effort like this to help everyone mount a defense. We also need greater public service support overall prior to a potential flood event.  A big thank you to the police and fire departments for the free checks they did after the storm of electrical and gas service to homes to ensure it was safe to go back. Do you have any additional comments or questions?  We need political will for implementation of solutions  Regional solutions!!!!  Show cell towers on the flood maps as an asset  The study needs to provide information on FEMA loans to raise homes and rebuild after storms. Needs to list resources for residents.  Focusing on an acute event is interesting and informative but also need to be aware of starting NOW on projects to address long-term sea level rise and resulting ground water.  Building in flood zone should be restricted going forward. Not even flood-adapted buildings should be allowed but land should be purchased or set aside for migration of wetlands as buffers.  Worried the “pinch in” solution at Pawcatuck River will restrict flow and normal tide flow that is needed and outflow that is needed due to heavy rain that often accompanies a hurricane.  Town/Borough/Arup should get out and address more young groups. Set up tables at farmer’s markets with brochures with details. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS_FINAL_20170821.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 13 of 15 Memorandum  Need active coordination with conservation groups – make presentations at meetings, organized lectures. Is there anything else you want to tell us?  Will there be proportioned food, water, and emergency supplies? Slide scale way too small!!!  Also already list of professionals- other than service master- object conservators, restorers, etc. for disaster event.  Great meeting! Nice to see a full house to learn more about a very important topic The following is a copy of the presentation made at this meeting. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS_FINAL_20170821.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 14 of 15 Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan Town of Stonington, Connecticut Public Meeting May 4, 2017 Social Media: #StoningtonReady @StoningtonCTGov @ArupAmericas Why this study… The impact of Superstorm Sandy could have been much worse. We want to learn from that experience and plan ahead to: • protect public infrastructure from coastal flooding and sea level rise • minimize potential for loss of life and destruction to property • identify ways to enhance coastal resources Source: The Westerly Sun Goals for this Meeting 1. Present Stonington’s most at-risk properties. 2. Discuss proposed resilience solutions. 3. Gather feedback from residents on their biggest concerns during a coastal flood event. Overview of Approach Step 1 Step 2 Establishing a climate baseline Ranking risk Step 3 Developing solutions Step 1: Climate Baseline 2030 100-year Storm . ri Stonington . - 2050 100-year Storm Change in Flood Extents I, 2030 to 2050 ?oodplain differences ARUP Step 2: Risk Assessment Risk = Hazard x Exposure x Vulnerability • Hazard = Storm Event (i.e. Present-day 100-year storm, 100-year storm in 2030, 1000-year storm in 2050) • Exposure = Depth of Flooding • Vulnerability = An Assessment of: • • • • Impact on community Critical Facilities Replacement Cost Economic impact to tourism (including historic resources) Step 3: Resilience Solutions Replace and relocate mechanical equipment to above design ?ood elevation Relocate electrical equipment to above the design ?ood elevation EE mm Dry ?oodproof all walls to 1? above design ?ood elevation Install ?oodproof door and ?oodproof windows to 2' above design ?ood elevation (refer to the toolbox in the Appendix for more details) Install sump pump a? Recon?gure water and natural gas piping 481T Fill in basement per FEMA guidelines ARUP Overview of Coastal Resilience Plan The plan will ultimately include: • High-level analysis of at-risk neighborhoods and proposed regional adaptations • Regional Adaptations will be discussed later in the presentation • Overview of Top 25 most at-risk assets with high-level resilience solutions • Detailed analysis of Top 5 most at-risk assets with proposed resilience solutions • Draft solutions will be presented tonight Risk Assessment (maps using 2050 lOO?year storm event) ARUP Transportation (with 2050 100-year storm event) Most Vulnerable: • Masons Island Causeway • State Highway 27 • State Highway 1 Utilities (with 2050 100-year storm event) Most Vulnerable: • Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility • Boulder Avenue Pump Station • River Road/Mary Hall Road Pump Station • Stonington Wastewater Treatment Facility • Greenmanville Ave Electrical Substation • Cutler Street Electrical Substation Historic Districts (with 2050 100-year storm event) Most Vulnerable: • Rossie Velvet Mill Historic District • Mystic Bridge Historic District • Stonington Borough Historic District • Mechanic Street Historic District Community Facilities (with 2050 100-year storm event) Unclear if this is a ranked list of importance unrelated to risk assessment…. Most Vulnerable: • Town Dock • Mystic Fire Department • Quiambaug Fire Department • Apple Rehab Mystic • Mystic Seaport • Donahue Park • Mystic Train Station • Barn Island Management Area • Stonington Community Center (COMO) • Mystic River Park (Cottrell Street) Proposed Resilience Solutions ARUP Q) COMMUNICATION CENTER (2) IMPERNIEASLE YYALLS FLOOR SHIELDS GD ENERGY SUPPLY PROYISIONS STORAGE Ca) EMERGENCY BARRIERS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Solutlon Apple Rehab ARUP Q) GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE (2) ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ENERGY SUPPLY GD SECURABLE REMCMARLE EQUIPMENT (5) BARRIERS Solution Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility ARUP Q) ELECTRICAL WIRING 5 .- (2) SHIELDS EMERGENCY BARRIERS Q4) LANDSCAPING /fl/ 1 1/ ll/l I Q5) IMPERMEAGLE WALLS BASEMENT Solution Typical Single? Family Home ARUP CD GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE CRITICAL EQUIPMENT INTERIOR PROTECTION GD BASEMENTS (5) FLOOR SHIELDS FLOOD BARRIERS Solution #3 Typical Mixed?Use Building ARUP . - SOlu?On MYStio Neighborhood Q) MYSTIC POST OFFICE APPLE REHAEI MYSTIC C3) FOURTH DISTRICT YOTINC. HALL GI) MYSTIC AMTRAK STATION 65> MYSTIC FIRE STATION MYSTIC RIYER PARK (7) MYSTIC RIYER PARK PLAYGROUND TREATMENT PLANT CED MAIN STREET BRIDGE ARUP . a Solution Mystic N?eighbo . - rhood 6/160 Commercial and mixed-use strategies Natural retentien and peeling areas Green infrastructure eerrider Protection for eritieal eemmunity asset Alternative travel reute greenspaee fer fleed retentlen area Residential mitigation strategies Fliverine ?eed barriers Ag repriate land uses eneeuraged far we er?adjaeent areas ARUP GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ROAD ELEVATION SHORELINE TREATMENT RISING GATE Solution #5: Masons Island Causeway Regional Adaptations ARUP Neighborhoods Most Vulnerable: Mystic Murphy?s Point Lords Point Downtown" Pawcatuck ?00/9 anqruao Masons 5 Lower .1 Pawcatuck Latimer Stonington I, I Point Island Borough ARUP Present Stonington lnundation Probability 0 500 1000 2000 Meters . . . . . Regional Adaptation Option ARUP Tide Gates Railway Elevation Living Shoreline Berm Tide Gates Stonington Borough Regional Adaptation Option Hurricane Barrier Hurricane Barrier - New Bedford, MA Pawcatuck River Regional Adaptation Option .H .On A a. km?nwv 22,8220cows . mevr? RogProbability Stonington lnundation s? ?3 a? 6? s? 2000 Meters 1000 500 1 ARUP Mystic Regional Adaptation Option Next Steps Final Plan June 2017 with public meeting launch Please make sure you signed in at the entry table. You will be added to email list for project updates. For additional information on the project, please contact: Keith Brynes kbrynes@stonington-ct.gov 860-535-5095 OR follow us on social media! #StoningtonReady @StoningtonCTGov @ArupAmericas Questions and Group Discussion Storm Scenario: A 100-year storm event hits Stonington, causing major coastal flooding and knocking out electricity in the town for one week. Group Discussion: 1. What are you most worried about during this event? (This can include concerns about particular assets or infrastructure in the community, concerns about the health and safety of you and your family, concerns about access to transportation in order to get to work, etc.) 2. Do you have any ideas on how the town can be better prepared and/or better protected against this type of event? Extra Slides (not to be presented) ARUP Mystic Vulnerable Assets: • Amtrak Rail Line • Greenmanville Ave/Denison • Stonington Rd • Main St • Greenmanville Ave Substation • Mystic Seaport • Mystic Post Office • Former Fourth District Voting Hall • Apple Rehab Mystic • Mystic Fire Department • Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility • Open Space Road Type 2050 100-year Primary (State Highway) Storm Secondary (Town Road) Dapth (ft) . Wastewater Pumpstations 0? - 3' . Post Office - 5' . Fire Station - 5-1' - 10' Open Space - <10? Old Mystic Vulnerable Assets: Main Street Pequot Trail Old Mystic Post Office Open Space .Groton ARUP Service Layer Credits: Esri, RE, DeLorme, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Road Type 2050 100-year Primary (State Highway) Storm Railroad Flood Depth (ft) Mason's Island Causeway 0? - 3' - . Fire Station 3.1' . 5' Open Space - 5.1' - 10' I <10 Masons Island Vulnerable Assets: Masons Island Causeway Open Space . ormo, OponStrootMap contributors, and the GIS user oommunlty Latimer Point Vulnerable Assets: • Amtrak Rail Line • Stonington Road • Open Space • Quiambaug Fire Department Road Type 2050 100-year Primary (State Highway) Railroad ?00? Depth ?0 . Wastewater Pumpstations 0' - 3' - 3.1- - 5? - 5.1' - 10' Lords Point Vulnerable Assets: Amtrak Rail Line Stonington Road Wastewater Pump Stations ARUP Stonington Borough Vulnerable Assets: • Amtrak Rail Line • Water St • Main St • Cutler St • Alpha Ave/Elm St • Cutler St Electrical Substation • Stonington Community Center • Stonington Wastewater Treatment Facility • Borough Fire Station • La Grua Center • Open Space Downtown Pawcatuck Vulnerable Assets: • Amtrak Rail Line • River Rd/Mechanic St • Broad St • Liberty Rd • Pump Station Lower Pawcatuck Vulnerable Assets: • Amtrak Rail Line • River Rd/Mechanic St • Wastewater Pump Station Present 100 200 400 Meters I Old Mystic Regional Adaptations 2070 Stonington lnundation Probability o\o ARUP 2070 2050 2030 ility Stonington lnundation Probab ,9 ?3 g) 400 Meters 200 100 I ARUP Mystic Flood Pathways 2070 2050 2030 Present 1000 Meters 500 250 ARUP IODS 1 Adaptat Regiona Jab/.29 . Ur.? lurv a? ..Q. .0 r. . ?fvil uni. . at"- A P. . 2070 2050 2030 Present Probability Ion Stonington lnundat es? 2000 Meters 1000 500 10113 ARUP Point Regional Adaptat Mystic Latimer 2070 2050 2030 Present lity Probabi ton lnundation Ing Ston 2000 Meters 1000 500 ARUP IODS 1 Adaptat Regiona ine 1L i Amtrak Ra oute 1 Regional Adaptations 1000 2030 2000 Meters 2050 2070 Stonington lnundation Probability (p cc\? oago\? ARUP Present 400 800 Meters I Stonington lnundation Probability ?skgs Downtown Pawcatuck Flood Pathways ARUP Memorandum 4 Public Meeting #3 (July 19, 2017) The final public meeting, held at the La Grua Center on July 19, 2017, presented the final results of the plan. Because this was the final meeting, there were no targeted questions for the public to answer; instead, the Arup Team held an open question and answer session to address any questions the public had in regards to the final plan. The following is a copy of the presentation made at the meeting. J:\BOS\250000\251043-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS & NARRATIVES\FINAL ISSUED MEMOS\MEMO_PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS_FINAL_20170821.DOCX Arup USA, Inc F0.3 Page 15 of 15 TOWN of StO?i?gtO? Coastal Resilie?ce PlaJu?y 2017 .Lr? - l' ?'lTET?llii' xie experts in place Coastal Flooding in Stonington • Since 1978, Stonington residents have received over $4.5 million in flood insurance payouts • Global mean sea levels have risen by 8-9 inches since 1880 (rate of 0.06-0.07 inches annually) • In the Northeast, sea levels have risen approximately 1 foot over the last century (50% faster than the global average) • Major flood events occurred July 2009 & March 2010 • Superstorm Sandy caused significant damage to the Town Dock and Mason’s Island Causeway • 4057 properties currently at-risk (worth $1.8 billion*) • 4246 properties at-risk by 2050 (worth $2 billion*) *Values taken from the 2016 Stonington Assessor’s Database Source: The Westerly Sun Stonington’s Current Flood Protection Actions Restrict development in the 100-year floodplain and require elevation of new construction above base flood elevation Past participation in the Community Rating System Construction, maintenance, and improvements to flood control structures. Goals for the Coastal Resilience Plan Identify Stonington’s vulnerability Educate the community on the coastal flood risks Develop resilience solutions and next steps Overview of Approach Step 1 Step 2 Establishing a climate baseline Ranking risk 2015 2030 Step 3 Developing solutions 2050 Step 1: Climate Baseline Mystic Projected SLR Increase: 0.55ft by 2030 1.69ft by 2050 Stonington Borough Downtown Pawcatuck 0.125 0.25 0 17, Road Type 2050 100 year Primary (State Highway) Storm A a . Secondary (Town Road) Depth (ft) Railroad 0' - 3' I Mystic Train Station - 31' - 5' Mystic Wastewater - 5.1' - 10' Treatment Facility <1 0' it . Eledrical Substation - .d . .a . Mystic Reservoir 5 1 a . Wastewater Pumpstations . Post Office 0 . Community Center - . . Fire Station t1 . Mystic Seaport . School . Nursing Center Buildings Open Space :bo?a?b?bbeub onrf'. ?an; nu anaemia .. .9 I 0" a Groton . .?55 4029 D. ma 0 5:CIVICMKXIG 0 5' 09 8 3 a experts In place :.12. and the GIS user oomranity HOLEGROUP a -. . A . Road Type 2050 100-year ?Iwmv- 3' Primary (State Highway) Storm It . a Railroad Flood Depth (ft) 3 a: Mystic Train Station 0' - 3' Mystic Wastewater - 3.1' - 5' 3. Treatment Facility . . . . - 5.1 -10 i . Post Of?ce 0 comm-Wm, i? a (5 DOWntown If AVMGIVGHQ ROGSEVELT CivicMcxi? experts in place i A $2263: ARU Step 2: Risk Assessment Risk = Hazard x Exposure x Vulnerability • Hazard = Storm Event (i.e. Present-day 100-year storm, 100-year storm in 2030, 1000-year storm in 2050) • Exposure = Depth of Flooding • Vulnerability = An Assessment of: • • • • Impact on community Critical Facilities Replacement Cost Economic impact to tourism (including historic resources) 25 Highest Risk Assets Mystic Bridge Historic District Masons Island Causeway Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility Rossie Velvet Mill Historic District State Highway 1 Cutler St. Electrical Substation Boulder Avenue Pump Station Stonington Borough Historic District Mystic Train Station & Rail Line River Road/Mary Hall Road Pump Station Stonington Wastewater Treatment Facility Town Dock Apple Rehab Mystic Barn Island Management Area Mystic Seaport Greenmanville Ave Electrical Substation Stonington Community Center (COMO) Mystic River Park, Cottrell Street Mystic Fire Dept. Quiambaug Fire Dept. Mechanic Street Historic District State Highway 27 Donahue Park Lords Point neighborhood Murphy's Point neighborhood Step 3: Resilience Solutions Hurricane Barrier Hurricane Barrier - New Bedford, MA Asset Solutions Regional Solutions Solution Apple Rehab Mystic .: Q) COMMUNICATION CENTER .. IMPERMEABLE WALLS FLOOR SHIELDS GD ENERGY SUPPLY PROVISIONS STORAGE EMERGENCY BARRIERS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ARUP experts in place Solution Mystic Wastewater Treatment Facility u?o u' 'o a Q) GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE (2) ELECTRICAL ECUIPMENT ENERGY SUPPLY GD SECURABLE REMCMARLE EQUIPMENT (5) BARRIERS ??g?igegp ARUP Solution Typical Single?Family Home 6) ELECTRICALWIHING (2) FLOOR SHIELDS EMERGENCY BARRIERS Q1) LANDSCAPING IMPERMEABLE WALLS BASEMENT .. 9 3'9 ITDA (Dwight/1%: ARUP Solution #3 Typical Mixed?Use Building 6) GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE C2) CRITICAL EQUIPMENT INTERIOR PROTECTION GD BASEMENTS FLOOR SHIELDS FLOOD BARRIERS ITDA ARUP Solution Mystic Neighbor Main Street Bridge Rail Bridge Small-Scale Interventions Small-scale interventions should led by private property owners but implemented in coordination with input and assistance from local and state government. These include a variety of generic operational and design strategies for commercial and residential properties, as well as specific strategies for priority community assets. Commercial strategies V71 Residential strategies Priority community assets Apple Rehab Mystic Amtrak Station Area Wastewater Treatment Living Shoreline Natural Retention Area Green Corridor Preserved Greenspace Preserved Greenspace Coastal Flood Barriers Natural Retention Area Natural Retention Area Living Shoreline Xle texi?imtrs Ill ?lam-.2 Neighborhood Interventions Large-scale, coordinated interventions should be led by public agencies, community groups, and civic associations working directly with local residents. These may include both green infra- structure (Iiving shorelines, green corridors, existing greenspace protection) and grey infra- structure (tlood barriers). A WOODS HOLEGROUP Solution #5: Masons Island Causeway GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ROAD ELEVATION SHORELINE TREATMENT RISING GATE 1?95 Regional Adaptation Option Herring River Restoration Project, Wellfleet, MA 73?" ..?mf?f?fi?fld?r?dx?rmfm Present 2030 2050 Stonington Inundation Probability 0 go at? 63?. (94? .56? ?96? CivioMoxi? woons ARUP experts in place HOLEGROUP Stonington Borough Regional Adaptation Option Tide Gates Railway Elevation Living Shoreline Berm Tide Gates Pawcatuck River Regional Adaptation Option Hurricane Barrier Hurricane Barrier - New Bedford, MA - v-l..95 5? Allyn H. 9m . paw?: .3, NewLondon fed - bah . ?Rb27 3'3 Cree 3 .- ?i.11' Present 0 i? R1 500 1000 Allyn St . 2000 Meters 2030 aptatl Allyn Sl onO ption Stonington lnundation Probability - m6? *9 3 32;! . ~Oh. Rd Raised Rail Civic \Xle ?\{Aurt WOODS HOLEGROUP ARUP Key Priorities Next Steps Cost/Benefit Analysis for Mystic Adaptation Property & Land Exposure Present-day to 2050 Total At-Risk Property Value (by 2050): $471 million Exposed Property Value Present-day to 2050 Disclaimer: These are very high level estimates and should only be used to understand the potential order of magnitude of these costs. They should be not be used for any detailed planning work or design and engineering studies. Cost/Benefit Analysis for Mystic Adaptation Adaptation Costs: > $100 million Acres of Land Protected from Inundation: • Present: 706 acres of inundation • 2030: 734 acres of inundation • 2050: 795 acres of inundation Railway Elevation and Tidal Control Measures Approximate Value of Property Protected: • Present: $461 million • 2030: $464 million • 2050: $471 million Disclaimer: These are very high level estimates and should only be used to understand the potential order of magnitude of these costs. They should be not be used for any detailed planning work or design and engineering studies. Raised Rail Cost of Inaction Original Source $1 invested in building resilience saves National Institute of Building Sciences $4 in disaster response and recovery FEMA $1 invested in resilience saves: • $4-7 in response • $5-10 in avoided economic losses The World Bank $1 invest in disaster preparedness saves $7-10 on response Catholic Relief Services $1 invested in preparedness is worth $15 in disaster relief efforts Stanford Business School Details of a Cost/Benefit Analysis Economic impacts: • • • • Direct, physical impacts Business continuity and cascading regional impacts Lost opportunities Could impact creditworthiness and insurability Social impacts: • • • • Costs associated with not being able to access critical services Job loss, public health impacts, decrease in quality of life Recurrent challenges borne by those most vulnerable Public safety concerns Environmental considerations: • Degradation of the natural environment and associated ecosystems Funding Opportunities 1. Town Budget • Incorporate a line item for resilience into the annual budget • Tax Increment Financing Districts (TIFs) can help fund infrastructure and resilience improvements. 2. Loans & Bonds • Pursue low interest loans to finance large-scale resilient infrastructure strategies • Shore Up CT offers up to $300,000 for property owners in flood zones to retrofit their properties • Resilience Bonds are an emerging resource that modify traditional catastrophe bonds to provide insurance savings that can be captured as rebates to invest in resilient infrastructure 3. Grants • Many public, private and non-profit entities offer grants to encourage coastal flood adaptation efforts. • CT Institute of Resiliency & Climate Adaptation (CIRCA) provides funding to municipalities for resilience 4. Private Funding • Public-Private Partnerships (P3) allow for cost-sharing between the Town and private entities that also need to protect their assets from flood impacts • DC Water Century Green Bond is an example of one type of partnership between a public and private entity Current Trends in Resilient Financing Past: • Major source of resilience funding came from federal agencies, such as FEMA, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Coastal Zone Management (CZM), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Future Trends: • • Push for cities and states to take on more responsibility for resilience • FEMA’s Disaster Deductible • Insurance Growing interest from private equity to invest in resilience • This will require investment-grade performance metrics for resilience in order to capture the benefits of investing in resilience projects Short-Term Priorities (1-2 years) 1. Continue to hold community events and educate the public on coastal flood risks • Ensuring that the community understands the risks and the ways to mitigate flood risk on their properties is essential for a community to be resilient • Neighborhoods with strong community ties are more resilient in the event of a disaster because they have a support system in place 2. Propose resilience amendments to Stonington’s zoning and building codes • Amendments to the zoning and building codes will ensure that any future development or major property renovations are required to build resiliently 3. Incorporate resilience as a line item in the town budget 4. Leverage current projects to implement resilience solutions 5. Renew participation in the Community Rating System (CRS) and upgrade status • FEMA’s CRS program allows for communities to reduce flood insurance rates by implementing resilience solutions 6. Pursue grants and match funding for implementing resilient solutions Long-Term Priorities (5 years) 1. 2. 3. 4. Continue to educate the public and pursue funding opportunities (these should be on-going efforts) Form partnerships with: • Neighboring communities and like-minded communities • Key stakeholders in Stonington, including business owners • Historic commissions • Important local, state, and federal government entities Conduct a feasibility analysis for regional adaptation solutions, starting with the Mystic Regional Adaptation Perform a stormwater modeling analysis to get a complete understanding of the Town’s flood risk What You Can Do 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Stay engaged! Understand your flood risk and the adaptation strategies that you can implement on your own property Educate your neighbors Invite the Town to speak about coastal resilience Recognize opportunities to collaborate with stakeholders on resilience solutions TOWN of 810an 910?] Coastal Resilience Plam The Town of Stonington Coastal Resilience Plan will be available in August 2017. - - A TDA "gagge?p ARUP