[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
CONNECTICUT COASTAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA STUDY Submitted to STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COASTAL AREA. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Hartford, Connecticut Prepared by RALPH M. FIELD ASSOCIATES, INC. Westport, Connecticut ONE COAST AL Z INFOR-j@IATION CENTER TC 4 24 2 "C8 C66 1992 February 1982 L C-66 IXY2,- CONNECT1(-'.*UT COASTAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA STUDY Submitted to STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Hartford., Connecticut Prepared by RALPH M. FIELD ASSOCIATES, INC. Westport, Connecticut February 1982 This report was financed in part by a grant through the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and was prepared in cooperation with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's Coastal Area Management Program. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by Ralph M. Field Associates, Inc. under the direction of the staff of the Coastal Area Management Program. Assistance was provided throughout the study by staff from the Water Resources Unit, Property Management Unit, and Natural Resources Center of -the Department of Environmental Protection. Many individuals in each of the coastal towns and Regional Planning Agencies provided valuable assistance through ii,-iterviews,providing maps and documents, and locating other information used in the study. CONTENTS Page List of Tablos v Litt bf Illustrations vi Executive Summary viii PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of the Study 2 Phases of the Study 4 Coastal Flood Hazards in Connecticut 5 Opportunities for Post-flood Hazard Mitigation Through 16 Public Acquisition of Flood Damaged Properties Section 1362 of the National Flood Insurance Act 17 Summary of Phase I Results 22 Initial Selection of Areas of Detailed Study 22 Selection of Areas for Study in Phase 11 25 PART II: EVALUATION OF SELECTED STUDY AREAS 30 Phase II Methodology. 31 Criteria Affecting Individual Properties 32 Criteria Affecting Communities 35 Evaluation 35 Norwalk: Harborview 37 Norwalk Islands 40 Fairfield: Pine Creek Beach 45 Stratford: Long Beach 50 Milford: Milford Point 55 Cedar Beach 56- Silver Beach 57 Bayview Beach 59 Guilford: Grass Island 67 Madison: Circle Beach 71 Clinton: Cedar Island 73 Harbor View 74 Clinton Beach 76 Westbrook: Grove Beach 82 West Beach 83 Old Saybrook: Chalker Beach 89 Great Hummock Beach 91 Plum Bank Beach 92 Page Old Lyme: Hawks Next 99 Sound View 100 PART III: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 106 Summary of Section 13@2 Eligibility for Selected Areas 107 Improving Opportunities for Obtaining Section 1362 Funds 110 Actions to Take Before a Flood Disaster Occurs lib A. State of Connecticut 110 B. Municipalities 113 Actions Immediately Following a Flood Disaster 114 Post-Flood Recovery and Hazard Mitigation 125 Need for a Post-Flood Recovery and Hazard Mitigation Plan 125 Considerations in Developing a Post-Flood Recovery and Hazard Mitigation Plan 127 APPENDIX A: SELECTED REFERENCES A-1 APPENDIX B: FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY: SECTION 1362 PROGRAM B-1 Interim Rule: Acquisition of Flood Damaged Structures Guidelines on Property Acquisition Under Section 1362 Diagram of @ri.ncipal Steps iP.Section 1362 Program APPENDIX C: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING POTENTIAL PROPERTY DAMAGE C-1 iv LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1: Estimated Potential Flood Damages Along the Connecticut Coast 14 Table 2: Summary of Section 1362 Projects 20 Table 3: Areas Initially Selected for Detailed Study 23 Table 4: Areas Selected for Further Study in Phase 11 28 Table 5: Areas with High Potential Suitability for Section 1362 Acquisition 109 v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1: Tidal Flood Profile for Connecticut 7 Figure 2: Generalized Coastal Profile Indicating Estimated Water Levels During a One Percent Flood 11 Figure 3: FEMA Guidelines for Community Eligibility 19 Figure 4: Areas Initially Selected for Detailed Study 24 Figure 5: Areas Selected for Further Investigation in Phase 11 29 Figure 6: Location of Harborview and the Norwalk Islands in Norwalk 42 Figure 7: Town of Norwalk; Harborview Area 43 Figure 8: Town of Norwalk; Norwalk Islands 44 Figure 9: Location of Pine Creek Beach Area in Fairfield 48 Figure 10: Town of Fairfield; Pine Creek Beach Area 49 Figure 11: Location of Long Beach Area in Stratford 53 Figure 12: Town of Stratford; Long 'Beach Area 54 Figure 13: Location of Milford Point, Cedar Beach, and Silver Beach Areas in Milford 62 Figure 14: Town of Milford; Milford Point and Cedar Beach Areas 63 Figure 15: Town of'Milford; Silver 'Beach Area 64 Figure 16: Location of Bayview Beach Area in Milford 65 Figure 17: Town of Milford; Bayview Beach Area 66 Figure 18: Location of Grass Island in Guilford and Circle Beach in Madison 69 Figure 19: Towns of Guilford and Madison; Grass Island and Circle Beach Areas 70 Figure 20: Location of Cedar Island, Harbor view, and Clinton Beach Areas in Clinton 78 Figure 21: Town of Clinton; Cedar Island 79 Figure 22: Town of Clinton; Harbor 'View Area 80 Figure 23: Town of Clinton; Clinton Beach Area 81 Figure 24: Location of Grove Beach and West Beach Areas in Westbrook 86 Figure 25: Town of Westbrook; Grove Beach Area 87 Figure 26: Town of Westbrook; West Beach Area 88 Figure 27: Location of Chalker Beach,.Great Hammock Beach, and Plum Bank Beach Areas in old Saybrook 95 vi Page Figure 28: Town of old Saybrook; Chalker Beach Area 96 Figure 29: Town of Old Saybrook; Great Hammock Beach Area 97 Figure 30: Town of Old Saybrook; Plum Bank Beach Area 98 Figure 31: Location of Hawks Nest and Sound View Area in Old Lyme 103 Figure 32: Town of Old Lyme; Hawks Nest Area 104 Figure 33: Town of Old Lyme; Sound View Area 105 Figure 34: Section 1362 Potential Project Form 118 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Much of Connecticut's coastline has been developed for marinas and other water- dependent activities, for business and industry, and especially for residences, both year-round and seasonal. Some of this development has occured in hazard prone areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion. Government and individual property owners have attempted to reduce the frequency and extent of flood re- lated damage through structural means, such as seawalls, as well as through nonstructural measures including floodplain regulations, floodproofing, mapping of flood hazard areas, and flood insurance. Another approach to reducing future flood damages is through the acquisition of floodprone properties by public agencies. Section 1362 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, specifically provides for the acqui- sition of flood damaged properties and conversion of the properties to a public open space or recreational use. This; study identifies specific locations along the Connecticut coast where this technique has high potential for being appli- cable follo,@iing.a future major flood., Acquisition of flood damaged properties pursuant to Section 1362 is possible only in very limited circumstances. Under the terms of the legislation and implementing regulations, all the following requirements must be satisfied 1 before acquisition may take place (1) developed property must be severely damaged by flooding; (2) the damaged property must be insured under the National Flood Insurance Program; (3) the owner must be willing to sell the property voluntarily; (4) the state or local government must be willing to accept title to the property following acquisition and use it for open space or other public purposes compatible with the flood risk; For a more precise description of -these requirements, see page 17 of the report. viii (5) federal funds sufficient to finance the acquisition must be available. These requirements shaped the methodology of this study. The study was conducted in two phases. Phase I was a preliminary screening designed to identify areas meeting three criteria: - vulnerability to damage from coastal flooding; - good potential to serve public purposes if acquired following damage from coastal floods; and - acceptability of acquisition to property owners and state or local governments. In Phase II, the twenty areas identified in Phase,I were examined more thoroughly.1 All but one of the twenty areas proved to contain at least some properties with high potential for meeting the flood damage criteria estab- lished for 1362 eligibility. Areas were not judged to have high potential for future eligibility, however, unless they also satisfied other program criteria. Two of these additional criteria proved particularly important: suitability for future public use (thus excluding, for example, some areas in which properties having high potential for future eligibility were widely scattered) and community interest in acquisition Of the areas. The areas judged to have high potential for future eligibility for acquisition under the Section 1362 program are smmarized in Table A. Even if Section 1362 funding is made available for an acquisition project, the unity or state agency undertaking the project may need to supplement it with additional funding. The amount of supplementary funding needed would de- Comm pend on the extent of damage incurred during a future flood, the amount of Section 1362 funding available, and other factors. It is important to note that the results of this study depend upon the specific methodology used and the assumptions and limitations built into the methodology. 1For a description of the Phase II methodology, see page 31. ix For example, all estimates of property-damage were based on the occurrence of a one percent flood and,,on estimates of wa ter level and wave crest elevations during that flood. The next major flood that occurs along the Connecticut coast may, of course, be greater or less than the one percent flood. The actual water levels and wave crest elevations may be greater or less than the estimates. Local conditions may also change. In sum, the pattern of flooding and damages can only be approximated by the methodology. In addition to the identification of areas with a high potential suitability for Section 1362 acquisition, the report suggests a number of specific actions that both the state and municipalities may take. Many of these suggestions involve ways of strengthening their overall floodplain management programs -- thereby also improving their opportunities for obtaining Section 1362 funds. Other suggestions are offered for those communities that may wish to develop a post-flood recovery and hazard mitigation plan. By developing this type of plan, a municipality may be able to respond to a future disaster in ways that bring positive community changes. X TABLE A: AREAS WITH HIGH POTENTIAL SUITABILITY FOR SECTION 1362 ACQUISITION Properties Having High Community or State Potential for Future Town/Areas Interest in Public Reuse Section 1362 Eligibility_ Norwalk Harborview Community boat launch as Group of 5 structures at recommended in town recrea- south end of Beach Road Fairfield tion plan Pine Creek Beach Provide parking and expand Group of about 15 contiguous existing town beach at end structures east of South of South Pine Creek Road Pine Creek Road Milford Cedar Beach Additional beach recrea- Two small groups of structures tion area for Milford at eastern and western ends of Cedar Beach Guilford Grass Island Develop state.recreation Small groups and scattered and area adjacent to existing properties in both the Madison state 6oat launch Grass Island and Circle Circle Beach Beach areas Clinton Cedar Island Town recreation or expan- More than one-half of the sion of Hammonassett State structures on the island Park Harbor View Expand existing town beach Contiguous group of and marsh holdings and structures in northern develop as public beach section Westbrook West Beach Expansion to existing town Small group of structures beach adjacent to existing town beach Old Saybrook Chalker Beach Additional public beach Essentially all structures Great Hammock Expansion of state holding All structures Beach for wildlife protection or additional public, beach for town Plum Bank Beach Expand existing town beach; Structures on both sides of additional town beach existing town beach; group of structures south of existing town beach Old Lyme Sound View Expand existing town beach Group of structures on both and provide parking sides of existing town beach . .1, I I I PART I. I I . INTRODUCTION I'l 'I I I I 'I I I i I 11, I I 2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This coastal flood hazard area study is designed to contribute to the state's ongoing coastal area management and floodplain management programs. The study began with the state's recognition of the following: -coastal development in many places is vulnerable to severe damage from hurricanes and other coastal storms - the period following severe damage from coastal storms provides special opportunities for taking actions to reduce future damages -advance planning for actions to take after storms greatly increases the chances of taking advantages of these special opportunities -planning now for post-disaster acquisition of damaged structures and associated land could increase the chances of Connecticut communi- ties obtaining a portion of Limited federal funds available for such projects underSection 1362 of the National Flood insurance Act.. Three outputs to guide pre-disaster planning and lay the groundwork for obtain- ing post-disaster funding were expected to result from the study: (1) Identification of about 20 developed areas subject to severe flood and wave damage and an inventory of structures in these areas. (2) Evaluation of the identifi ed areas' potential for local or state management serving needed recreation, open space, or other public purposes. (3) Guidance to municipalities on selected aspects of floodplain manage- ment planning. It is important to note that this study is not intended to identify the most hazardous coastal areas in Connecticut. Instead, i t seeks to identify already developed coastal flood hazard areas that may be suitable for conversion to pub- lic recreational or other open space uses following a major flood disaster. 3 Accordingly, the study focuses on, but is not limited to, the possible future acquisition by coastal municipalities or the State of Connecticut of coastal properties that may be severely damaged by flooding. The Flooded Property Acquisition Program (Section 1362 program) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)l is the principal program th at may provide funding for any future acquisition of flood damaged properties. Consequently, the methodology for con- ducting this study, and the results of the study, are largely dependent upon the FEMA eligibility criteria for the Section 1362 program. 1See page 17 for a discussion of the Section 1362 program. 4 PHASES OF THE STUDY The coastal flood hazard area study was conducted in two phases, The first phase was designed to identify areas meeting three criteria: (1) Located in a flood risk area within the Connecticut coastal zone; (2) Good potential to serve public purposes if acquired following damage from coastal floods, and (3) Acquisition desirable from a local or state perspective. The identification of these areas proceeded in a series of steps involving a successive screening of candidate areas as progressively more detailed infor- mation was gathered. Twenty areas in ten towns were selected for further in- vestigation during Phase II. The detailed findings of Phase I are described in Final Phase I Report; Flood Hazard Area Study, August 12, 1981. A summary of Phase I findings is included in this report. The second phase included a more detailed investigation of the twenty areas selected in Phase I to determine which properties have high potential for future eligibility to meet the flood damage and other criteria required for acquisition under Section 1362 of the National Flood Insurance Act. In addition, recommenda- tions to the state and to coastal communities regarding pre- and post-disaster actions to reduce the adverse impacts of coastal storms were developed. 5 COASTAL FLOOD HAZARDS IN CONNECTICUT Connecticut has a diverse and attractive coastline. Natural features include bluffs and escarpments, rocky shorefronts, beaches and dunes, extensive areas of tidal and inland wetlands, and islands. The entire shoreline is subject to flooding. In many coastal areas, flooding results from the overflow of rivers as well as the onshore movement. of water from Long Island Sound. Along the bluffs and in some rocky areas, only a very small portion of the shore is subjected to flooding, but in some beach and wetland areas, flooding can extend i nland for one mile or more. These coastal flood'hazard areas are affected by flooding in three ways: (1) tidal flooding from Long Island Sound, which is a function of the astronomical tides and storm surge; (2) impact from waves generated by winds over a long stretch of open water and by the nearshore topography; and (3) flooding from inland sources, such as river and stream overflows and inadequate drainage sys- tems. Becaus -e Long Island Sound acts as a funnel, the daily tidal fluctuation varies considerably from east to west along the Connecticut coast. At Stonington in the east, mean high water is only about one foot above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) 1 and the normal difference between mean high water and mean low water is about 2.5 feet. On the western edge, at Greenwich, mean high water is about four feet above NGVD and the difference between mean high and mean low water is about 7.5 feet. During storms the normal high tide may increase significantly. For a flood with 2 a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year , the tidal 1The National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) is a fixed reference adopted as a standard geodetic datum for elevations in the United States. NGVD was formerly referred to as Mean Sea Level (MSL) Datum. This reference datum should not be confused with local mean sea level. 2A flood with a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year is commonly referred to as a "100-year flood" or "one percent flood". FEMA also uses the term "base flood" in its flood insurance program, including flood insurance maps. 6 level at Stonington is about 10.5 feet and at Greenwich about 12 feet. Tidal levels at Stonington for a flood with a two percent chance of occurring each year (50-year flood or two percent flood) are 9.25 feet, and 6.75 feet for a flood with a 10 percent chance of occurrence 110-year or 10 percent flood); at Greenwich, 11.5 feet for the two percent flood, and 9.5 feet for the 10 per- cent flood. Tidal levels as determined by the Corps of Engineers in January 1980 are shown for the entire Connecticut coast in Figure 1. 1 These tidal flood elevations reflect only an off-shore "still-water" elevation. They do not take into account the effect of waves formed by high winds acting on the water surface over a long stretch of open water (fetch), the formation of breakers in shallow water near the shore, and the "run-up" of these waves as they encounter obstructions at the shore. Flood levels ban be considerably in- creased in the areas reached by waves. 2 For exampl e, using the methodology for wave height calculation developed by the National Academy of Sciences and ap- proved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, an 11-foot tidal flood ele- vation would have a wave crest of about 17 feet; a 9-foot tidal flood elevation 3 would have a 14-foot wave crest elevation. Figure 2 illustrates some of the relationships among different tidal and wave levels. Waves are the most destructive element of coastal storms. They can completely devastate improperly constructed or located buildings and cause extensive erosion to natural shoreline features such as bluffs and beaches. Although sand dunes along beaches often protect landward areas from the effects of these waves, the dunes may be breached during especially large storms. 1Taken from New England Coastline Tidal Flood Survey. Department of the Army, New England Division, Corps of Engineers, Waltham, Mass. January 1980. 2Areas affected by wave impact are referred to in this report as coastal high hazards areas or V-zones. These areas are shown on maps (Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as V-zones, and represent those coastal areas where high ve- locity waters are expected because of wave action. 3The procedure used in this study for estimating wave heights and wave crests is described in the FEMA Field Manual for Estimating wave Heights in Coastal High Hazard Areas in-Atlantic and Gulf Coast Regions, March 1981. 60 00 we 4m m mo, 00 40 ve XRPS OF ENGINEERS U. S. ARM' NEW YORK CONNECT I C UT FAIRFIELD GREEN-C- STANFORD I DARIEN NORWALK WESTPORT 0 if 5 ;7H 4, JOP/00 YEAR rRrou"Cr TIDAL ILOOD .3 of se, -rit, .954 dz. rIO YEAR PIPE r TIDAL n 2 trarm mAr,0Y4L jEvpjrIc i,, *r, A, 0.,. 1... ...... ... L Z NEW ENGLAND COASTLINE TIDAL FLOOD SURVEY TIDAL FLOOD PROFILE NO. I -3 WILLETS POINT, N.V, TO IN STPORT, CONN. 30 ...... ........ STATUTE MILES LONG ISLAND SOUND PLATE C-3 FIGURE 1: TIDAL FLOOD PROFILE FOR CONNECTICUT :ORPS OF ENGINEERS U S ARM' C ONNE CT ICU T WESTPORT. LIS BRIDGE FORT ATRATTORD INILFORD WEST "AVKN @w WAIT HAVEN 4- PRANFORO It -Ho eANPARv r muRm A#r @WAL novol' -T- 1 /00 MAR AfirgyrWr 71101" n OF SEPrV4XF 7 f lom" nwome-fic?, TIDAL FLOW.. 0 > CAffa -AaAsr 7 OD z 0 YEAR FREQUENC r TIDAL 20 1@ Nm -1" W.I.Stio 1". SSG *s. ..Its C, GUSHY S.. .9s. N.C. ..,I* ...alp WIGWAG N.C. -VCR NAGA I I I I I JFT 'El N4 rIONAL 6 frIC VERFICAL 04? 1 fel ..... I. + .1 .. 0, L-11 to- 1AIllf I NEW ENGLAND CO STLINE TIDAL FLOOD SURVEY n- TIDAL FLOOD PROFILE NO. 2 STATUTE MILES LONG ISLAWD SOUND FAIRFIELD. CONN E C6M TO AST HAVEN. N FIGURE 1"(CONTINUED): TIDAL FLOOD PROFILE FOR CONNECTICUT PLATE c-5 low 00 @F EftrINCERS U S, ARM, EAST HAVEN BRANFORD I GUILFORD C 0 N E C T I C U T MADISON ACLINTON WESTBROOK -1-OLD BRYON K OLD LYME v WE d oil NAN PR SAME 1 13 L.. om '3 Is 0 - 10 Flo," n -CA, U#(/s 341954 rIVAL YEAR FREWENCY r/DAL FLOOD 7-' %.v a AuGUST of�4 N100 ATCRER Z ... w WATgo VA.. ... ................. J- 0 . ... .... 70 is SO 05 STATUTE MILES LONG ISLAND SOUND NEW ENGLAND COASTLINE TIDAL FLOOD SURVET 71DAL FLOOD PROFILE NO. 3 BRANFORD,CONN, To OLD SAYBROOK, Co NN PLATE C-7 d-7 FIGURE I (CONTINUED): TIDAL FLOOD PROFILE FOR CONNECTICUT Aw am an 4w UA. COPS Of ENGINItElkli EW LONOOII CONNECT ICUT RHODEISLAND OLD SAYBROOK OLD LYME EAST LYME AlERFORO STONINGTON SS 'is If ag z Kit "Is P, 0 -M V_ It M rwL FI,tIIM? IS 1- 4- - _t Iff 2 L 00 stonus A &,.*so AuGusT W.GER '"W"Its .14. _19R "'A 111"j o It I.. ........... ... . It. STATUTE MILES -LONG ISLAND SOUND AND @LOCK ISLAND SOUND NEW ENGLAND CO ASTLtftE '10 AL FLOOD SUR@Ey TIDAL FLOOD PROFILE NO. 4 OLD LYME. CON". TO STONINGTON, CON" .0 PLATE C-9 F! ql, He I CUT FIGURE 1 (CONTINUED): TIDAL FLOOD PROFILE FOR CONNECT COA57AL A-ZO)VE . .. ....... .... ........ SMORELANDS-) TIDAL WETLANDS Coastal Hazard Areas The land areas inun- dated during coastal storm events or subject to erosion induced by such events, including flood hazard areas as defined and determined by the National Flood insurance Act, and all erosion hazard areas as determined by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection. ShorelandsI - Those land areas within the coastal boundary exclusive of coastal hazard areas, which are not subject todynamic coastal processes and which are comprised of typical upland features such as bedrock hills, till hills, and drumlins. 1 Tidal Wetlands - Those areas which border or lie beneath tidal waters, such as but not limited to banks, bogs, salt marsh, swamps, meadows, flats, or other low lands subject to tidal action, including those areas now or formerly connected to tidal waters, and whose surface is at or below an elevation of one foot above local extrem high water, and upon which may grow or be-capable of growing, some brut not necessarily all of specified plants listed in the general statutes. Beaches and Dunes I - Beach systems including barrier beach spits and tombolos, barrier beaches, pocket beaches, land contact beaches and related dunes and sandflats. Intertidal Flats1 - Very gently sloping or flat areas located between high and low tides com- posed of muddy, silty and fine sandy sediments and generally devoid of vegetation. 12 Largely as a result of wave action, much of the Connecticut coast is subject to erosion. The Corps of Engineers has determined that erosion is critical on 26 milesl of Connecticut's 583-mile2 shoreline. In these areas an average of I to 1.5 feet of land is lost per year 1. Most of the erosion takes place during storms, and the severe erosion occurs mostly on beaches. Because the coast is attractive, much of it has been developed -- for marinas and other water-dependent activities, for some business and industry, and es- pecially for residences, both year-round and seasonal. Where this development has occurred in coastal flood hazard areas, it may be adversely affected by :' flooding depending upon its particular location, elevation and method of con- struction. Some development has occurred that is subject to flooding from tides only slightly above normal, while other development is unaffected by moderate flooding, but subject to severe damage from waves during major storms. Still other development has occurred in areas subject to rapid erosion. In the past 100 years, 15 hurricanes, as well as numerous tropical storms and Northeasters, have affected the Connecticut coastline. The amount of flood dam- age from these storms has varied greatly, but three severe storms can be identi- fied as causing the most harm. The storm of record is the September 21, 1938 hurricane that hit most of the Connecticut coastline with winds up to 100 mph and tides of up to 12 feet above NGVD (see Figure 1). A less severe storm hit Connecticut on September 14 and 15, 19,44 with winds up to 70 mph. The most recent severe storm was Hurricane Carol which entered southern New England on August 31, 1954. The eye of this storm moved up the Connecticut-Rhode Island border, and affected mostly eastern Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. Hurricane 1People and the Sound, Erosion and Sedimentation. Prepared fo r the New England River Basins Commission by the U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, January 1975. The report gives Connecticut shoreline as 250 miles, including estuarine areas; a measurement made for the National Shoreline Study. 2State of Connecticut Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, 1980. The estimated shoreline is longer because it includes the estuarines and riverine shorelines of all the Connecticut municipalities in- cluded within the Connecticut Coastal. Management Program. - 13 Carol had sustained winds of up to 90 mph and gusts up to 100 mph. The Corps of Engineers has estimated that the economic cost (in terms of 1975 dollars) of flood damage from a recurrence of the 1938 hurricane would be over $100 million and for the 1954 hurricane the resultant cost would be $72 million1 (see Table 1). Smaller storms also cause damages, often quite localized. Damage esti mates for smaller storms are not well recorded. In response to coastal flooding and damages that have occurred over the years, some actions have been taken in an attempt to reduce the frequency and extent of coastal flooding and erosion. The federal government, through the Corps of Engineers, has undertaken a few large flood control projects; most notably the construction of a hurricane barrier in Stamford Harbor. Federal, state and local governments have also undertaken a number of smaller erosion control pro- jects such as beach widening and groin construction at several locations along the coast. The largest response, however, has been the construction, by indi- vidual property owners, of seawalls, groins, jetties and the placement of rip- rap in front of individual Properties in an effort to prevent flooding and re- duce erosion. These small individual projects can be quite effective against moderate flooding, but are usually relatively ineffective against major flooding such as would occur in a one percent flood. In addition, they may have undesir- able side effects on neighboring properties. Nonstructural measures to minimze the impacts of flooding and erosion (such as regulations, floodproofing, warning and evacuation, and mapping of flood hazard areas) have also been undertaken.. The most prominent actions have been those related to passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. As part of the National Flood Insurance Program, the federal government has mapped the flood hazard areas in all coastal communities. In order to make federally subsidized flood insurance available to property owners in their communities, all Connec- ticut coastal towns have now passed at least minimum floodplain management 1Connecticut Coastline Study, Effects of Coastal Storms. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waltham, Mass. July 1976. These estimates represent only damages to property present at the time of the 1938 and 1954 hurricanes and do not include estimates of damages to new development that has since occurred (tele- phone communication with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waltham, Mass). 14 TABLE I ESTIMATED POTENTIAL FLOOD DAMAGES ALONG THE CONNECTICUT COAST Estimated Damages (Thousands of Dollars 1975 Price Levels) Recurring Recurring Location 1954 Hurricane 1938 Hurricane Greenwich $ 1 500.0 $ 2,000.0 Stamford -),200.0 13,500.0 Darien 1,100.0 1,300.0 Norwalk '12,600.0 4,600.0 Westport 2,400.0 3,000.0 Fairfield 1,500.0 3,300.0 Bridgeport 2,000.0 4,300.0 Stratford 3,300-0 3,300.0 Milford 1,100.0 1,100.0 West Haven 4oo.o 400.0 New Haven 2,200.0 2,200.0 East Haven 1,500.0 1,500.0 Branford 3,000.0 2,800.0 Guilford 4oo.o 400.0 Madison 1,500.0 1,500.0 Clinton 4oo.o 700.0 Westbrook 1,500.0 2,000.0 Old Saybrook 2,6oo.o 3,000.0 Old Lyme 3,700-0 4,300.0 East Lyme 200.0 2,400.0 Waterford 700.0 900.0 New London 9,300-0 11,900.0 Montville 1,500.0 2,000.0 Norwich @,,6oo.o 11,300.0 Preston minor minor Ledyard minor minor Groton 5'),6oo.o 11,100.0 Stonington io,6oo.o 16,700.0 TOTALS $72,4oo.o $111,500.0 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. Connecticut Coastline Study: Effects of Coastal Storms. Waltham, Mass., 1976. I-These estimates represent only damages to property present at the time of the 1938 and 1954 hurricanes and do not include estimates of damages to new development that has since occurred (telephone communication with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waltham, Mass.). 15 regulations. These regulations basically require that all new and substantially improved structures be elevated or fl(:)odpro(bfed to or above the level of the one percent flood. Many property owners in coastal towns now have flood insur- ance to help defray the costs of flood damages (as of August 1981, over 9,300 policies with a value of over $439 million were in force).1 More recently the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Area Management office has established policies and guidelines which communities must consider when reviewing applications for construction in coastal flood hazard areas.2 Data supplied by State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Center, and compiled from National Flood Insurance Program Report for the month ending August 3.1, 1981. 2Coastal Policies and Use Guidelines. Planning Report No. 30. State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Area Management Program, December 1979. 16 OPPORTUNITIES FOR POST-FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION THROUGH PUBLIC ACQUISITION OF FLOOD DAMAGED PROPERTIES The responses to coastal flooding outlined in the previous section are primarily of two types: (1) structural measures to protect developed areas.subject to coastal flooding and erosion; and (2) regulatory measures to limit the amount and type of new development in undeveloped areas. The regulatory measures may also act in a limited way -- usually over a long time period -- to modify existing development so that it is less su sceptible to flooding and to remove development subject to an unacceptable flood risk. Other opportunities for post-flood hazard mitigation include the elevation or floodproofing of rebuilt structures, the in- stallation of flood warning systems, and the preparation of evacuation plans. Another approach for dealing with existing development subject to flood hazards one that is often considered but less freq@iently,used- is the acquisition Qf floodprone properties by public agencies. Following acquisition, the property is usually converted to some form of open space orpublic recreation use less sus- ceptible to damages from flooding. In areas that have been frequently flooded and in areas that are clearly subject to severe flooding, communities have in some cases acted to acquire areas at risk before additional flooding occurs. psually this action has been taken when the community found it possible to meet some additional public objective -- e.g., provision of public recreation area or open space, waterfront revitalization, or removal of substandard housing -- in addition to alleviating a flood risk. In other cases, communities have acted to acquire floodprone areas only after a devastating flood has caused substantial property damage and sometimes injury and loss of life. Although many communities throughout the country have acted to-reduce their flood risk through acquisition and relocation, most have not. Some which have not acted, have not done so.because they lacked the financial resources, or because they were unprepared to take the necessary actions following a flood (as well, perhaps, as being financially unable). 17 SECTION 1362 OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ACT In 1979 the federal government decided to implement Section 1362 of the National Flood Insurance Act. This program of financial and technical assistance is de- voted specifically to acquisition of flood-damaged properties. The most promi- nent reasons for the decision to implement the program were: to assist communities that wished to reduce future flood damages; to assist property owners who found themselves financially unable to leave their floodprone resi- dences; and to reduce federal costs of disaster aid by breaking the cycle of flood damage, followed by federal aid to assist rebuilding, followed by a recurrence of flood damage. Federal funds, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), can be provided under Section 1362 for the purchase, from willing sellers, of properties located in flood risk areas and covered by federal flood insurance where one of the following property damage criteria is met: damaged "substantially beyond repair" 1by flood while covered under the NFIP; - incurred significant flood damage on not less than three previous occasions within a five-year period while covered under the NFIP; and on each occasion the cost of repair, on the average, was at least 25 percent of the value of -the structure; or - while covered under the NFIP, property has sustained.damage from a 11single casualty of any nature" so that a statute, ordinance, or regulation precludes its repair or restoration or permits repair or restoration only at significantly increased cost. Under the Section 1362 program, FEMA purchases qualified properties from willing sellers (eminent domain is not available -- this is strictly a voluntary program) and subsequently turns the property over to a unit of local or state government for an appropriate, low-flood-risk, public use. Because funds for the program 1Damaged substantially beyond repair has been defined by FEMA regulations to mean "(a) damages to the improved real property are such that as a condition of repair as imposed by a state or local government,.the structure must be elevated or floodproofed to or above the the 100-year flood elevation, or (b) damages to the improved real property equals or exceeds 50 percent of the structure's fair market or actual cash value, whichever is less, or (c) where damages to the improved real property are such that repair is physically im- possible or infeasible." Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 146, page 50282. 18 are quite limited ($5.4 million allocated in FY 80 and 81, and $1.5 million allocated for FY 82), FEMA established several community eligibility criteria (see Figure 3) as part of its program regulations 1 in an effort to ensure that the projects undertaken are effective. These criteria emphasize the manner in which a Section 1362 acquisition project would mesh with other ongoing or planned floodplain management, recreation, or community development programs. Because funds for Section 1362 are so limited, the ability of a state of commu- nity to rank high on the community eligibility criteria is likely to affect its ability to obtain a share of Section 3-362 funding. The list of Section 1362 projects funded during FY 1980 and FY 1981 gives some indication of the wide range of situations FEMA has chosen to fund in the program's first two years (see Table 2). Some of these projects were conceived immediately after a major flood without benefit of any advance planning -- Gulf Shores, Alabama and Phoenix, Arizona, for example. In other cases, extensive planning between floods enabled the integration of section 1362 with a host of related programs -- the Clay County, Minnesota project, for instance. The potential benefits of a Section 1362 program in Connecticut could be large. over a period of time, use of the Section 1362 program in combination with other acquisition programs and effectively applied regulatory measures could help to remove much of the most vulnerable development from threat of damaging floods. At the same time, the state and communities could carry out existing recommenda- tions for expanded open space and recreation lands along the coast and for new and expanded wildlife protection areas. In some areas, substandard housing could also be removed. Connecticut.already meets some of the community eligibility criteria incorporated into the Section 1362 regulations. The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), for example, identifies acquisition of flood damaged and floodprone properties as a high priority. It also recommends the acquisition of areas sub- ject to severe erosion, the provision of beach access, and the public acquisition 1FEMA Interim Rule for Acquisition of Flood Damaged Structures, and Guidelines on Property Acquisition Under Section 1362 are published in the Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 146, pages 50282-50293, and provided in Appendix B to this report. 19 FIGURE 3: FEMA GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY a. Existing, On-going Program for Permanent Evacuation of Floodplains The permanent removal of flood ed buildings in a community will contribute to the achievement of existing, on-going programs for the permanent evacuation of floodplains (provided that the Section 1362 program ful- fills a unique need not addressed in the on-going program nor not duplicative of existing funding). b. Multiple Goals Acquisition will contribute to the achievement of multiple goals of community development in addition to hazard mitigation, including but not limited to, environmental enhancement, open space, recreation, urban renewal, or some other public purpose. c. Economic Benefit The acquisition and removal of floodprone structures will have an eco- nomic benefit, in terms of elimination of future flood insurance claims, avoidance of future damage and reduction of future local., state and federal disaster relief costs, avoidance of business interruption and reduction in exposure to loss of life. This criterion will favor structures located in floodways, velocity zones and other flood risk zones of high flood loss potential. d. Favorable Property Distribution The distribution of properties elig ible for acquisition under Section 1362, or the distribution of these eligible properties combined with those properties that can be acquired and removed through programs that are readily available from sources other than FIA, will result in a pattern of properties which lends itself to a logical and desirable reuse function. e. Other Alternatives Less Effective Alternatives to acquisition under Section 1362 have been investigated and found to be less effective than Section 1362 acquisition in meeting jloodplain management and hazard mitigation goals. These alternatives could include, but are not lim'ited to, acquisition programs and perma- nent relocation programs of local, state, or other federal agencies; floodproofing; or structural flood protection. f. Planning Process Communities have undergone a planning process and found acquisition and relocation of structures to be the most desirable in terms of cost, de- gree of flood protection achieved, environmental enhancement and other factors. g. Good Floodplain Management Program Communities have demonstrated or agree to pursue an active program of sound floodplain management which exceeds the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. h. Community Resources Available The communities can actively participate in the planning and implementa- tion phases of the Section 1362 program through the provision of either financial or staff resources. Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Guidelines on Property Acqui- sition under Section 1362, Section 11 5, Selection of Eligible Com- munities. Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 146. P. 50287. 20 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF SECTION 1362 PROJECTS Number of Project Source of Flooding Properties Total Costs FY 180 Projects Clay County, MN Platte River 6 $ 556,000 Gulf Shores, AL Gulf of Mexico 5 1,068,400 Arnold, MO Meramec River 34 831,333 San Bernardino, CA Harrison Canyon 20 1,497,754 (mudflow) Phoenix, AZ Salt & Gila Rivers 4 186,664 (3 locations) North Stratford, NH Connecticut River 1 58,000 (ice jams) Scituate, MA Atlantic Ocean 8 395,200 Cowlitz County, WA Toutle River 16 914,800 (Mt. St. Helens) FY 181 Projects FY 180 TOTAL 94 $5,508,151 Hull, MA Atlantic Ocean 3 $ 130,900 Scituate, MAI Atlantic Ocean 2 87,335 lost Creek, WV West Fork 7 78,340 Hamilton, WA Skagit River 8 185,963 Lake Elsinore, CA Lake Elsinore 36 2,231,886 Lodi, NJ Saddle River 6 394,900 Peoria, IL Illinois River 7 364,500 Phoenix, AZl Salt & Gila Rivers 6 150,157 Belmont County, OH Ohio River 2 38,182 San Bernardino, CA Harrison Canyon 2 141,610 FY '81 TOTAL 79 $3,804,049 2 Anticipated FY '82 Projects Mobile, AL Gulf of Mexico 22 $1,100,000 ILand deeded to State agency 2Additional costs which did not involve acquisition of additional properties in- cluded $79 in Cowlitz County, WA and $197 in Jackson, MS. Source: FY '80 data from Federal Insurance Administration Section 1362 Fiscal Year 1980 Summary; FY '81 and FY '82 data provided by FEMA staff. 21 - of certain recreation and critical habitat areas. The CAM program, in its Shoreline Erosion Analysis and Coastal Recreation planning reports, set forth the general need for land acquisition and identified some specific areas to be acquired, and the state's Coastal Management Program has established policies and guidelines that communities must consider when evaluating proposals for development in coastal flood hazard areas. Most recently, new requirements for building in all flood hazard areas were added to the state building code, in- cluding standards for development in coastal high hazard areas. Thus, a number of important policies and regulations are already in place at the state level. Additional efforts can be taken, however, to strengthen and clarify these existing state positions, to identify high priority candidate areas for acquisition, and to encourage municipalities to take appropriate steps to re- duce coastal flood hazards, including increasing their chances of qualifying for the Section 1362 program. Recommendations in each of these areas are pro- vided in Part III of this report. 22 SUMMARY OF PHASE I RESULTS INITIAL SELECTION OF AREAS FOR DETAILED STUDY Phase I was designed to identify approximately 20 developed coastal hazard areas for detailed study in Phase II. Three criteria were used to select these areas: - vuZnerabiZity to dconage from coastaZ fZooding - potentiaZ for fuZfiNing any of a variety of pubLic needs - acceptabiZity of acquisition to property owners and state or ZocaZ governments. Information relevant to these criteria was gathered from a number of published sources and from interviews with officials of state and regional agencies. Based on the published data and interviews, a list of 54 potential areas was developed. These areas were ranked by the contractor as high, medium, or low priority based on their potential for public use and -the likelihood that acquisition would be acceptable. Areas were ranked low priority if potential for public use was minimal or if interviews indicated that opposition to an acquisition project was likely. Medium priority areas were those whose acceptability was unknown and whose potential for public use seemed moderate. Areas with multiple public uses or areas whose acquisition was considered especially desirable by local govern- ments were classified as high priority. This initial list of 54 areas was reduced'to 30 following discussions with staff from CAM, Water Resources Unit, Natural Resources Center, and the Property Manage- ment Unit of DEP. The selected areas are listed in Table 3; Figure 4 shows their location. These 30 areas -- the areas with potential for acquisition initially identified are concentrated in three regions in the center of the state, stretching from Norwalk to Old Lvme. The southwestern and southeastern portions of the coast had fewer areas. The southwestern part of the state yielded few areas because the coast there is rocky and because residents are largely uninterested in moving from the coast. The southeastern portion of the state's coast yielded few areas because it is rocky and relatively sparsely developed. 23 - TABLE 3: AREAS INITIALLY SELECTED FOR DETAILED STUDY Norwalk Madison 1. Norwalk Islands 17. Circle Beach 2. Harborview Clinton Fairfield 18. Cedar Island 3. Pine Creek Beach 19. Harbor View 4. Fairfield Beach 20. Clinton Beach 5. Ash Creek (Riverside Drive) Stratford Westbrook 21. Grove Beach 6. Long Beach 22. West Beach 7. Point No Point (Lordship) 8. Short Beach Old Saybrook Milford 23. Chalker Beach 24. Great Hammock Beach and 9. Milford Point Plum Bank Beach 10. Cedar Beach 11. Silver Beach Old Lyme 12. Welches Point to Pond Point/ 25. White Sands Beach Bayview Beach 26. Hawks Nest East Haven 27. Sound View 13. Momauguin East Lyme 14. Silver Sands Beach 28. Oak Grove Beach 15. West Silver Sands Beach 29. Pond Point to Black Point Guilford Stonington 16. Grass Island 30. Lords Point Ask A MIDDLEFkLD H D MON4@LLE 0 RHAM I), 12 J LEDYARD L Y M E CHE5 EF@ T LYME TE RFOR% EAST /GUILFORD ADISON KILLINGWORTH tj G TOM < k- /.NE cR R DEIP IV[ LOND ESSXX 0 YME WESTBROOK (U-0 SAYBR C 0 Oak Grove Beach \@Sound View Pond Point to Black Point 1W Beach Hawks Nest Circle Beach Greal Hammock Beach Ole and Plum Bank Beach 01 7Gross Island Chalker Beach to Cedar 1'.Slond-J e Isey Point to Indiontown Harbor -white Sands 141each Harborview - Clinton Beach \,Grove Beach to Grove Beach Point @RIIAI ED FOR DETAILED STUDY. OUTH8 RY OR OKFIELD (A Q'@NSURy NEWTOWN X 00. r, % MO ROE GEF ELD EDDING EL'iON u LL ASTON TO WILTO OR P T FAIR ONE NAAN W TPO R T 0 WALK ST MF RD Long Sea EE CHJ DA 1E Ash. Creek An Hor borview Fairfield Beach Pine, Creek Beach Norwalk Islands FIG.U., 25 SELECTION OF AREAS FOR STUDY IN PHASE II once the initial 30 areas were selected, additional information was collected for each area and meetings were scheduled with local officials in order to de- termine which of these areas were most likely to qualify for Section 1362 acquisition. Local officials, suggested by CAM, were contacted in each of the 13 communities to explain the natureofthe study and the Section 1362 program. These officials were asked to provide the contractor with information on any land use plans and maps, floodplain regulations, and other information that might be helpful for the study. A letter was sent to each of these officials describing what was expected to be accomplished at the meeting, and providing a brief description of the Flood Hazard Area Study and the Section 1362 program. Meetings were held with all but one of the officials contacted. Additional town representatives were also present at some meetings. Those interviewed included first selectmen, town planners, town engineers, planning and zoning officials, and conservation commission officials. Site visits were made to most of the areas either before or after the meetings with local officials. During the meetings, discussions focused on: o community interest in acquiring -- through the 1362 program or other means all or part of the identified areas in th6 community o other areas in the town that might be suitable for acquisition under the Section 1362 program o likely interest on the part of residents in selling after flood damage o any existing plans for acquisition or use of the selected areas o potential reuse of the areas if acquired o floodplain regulations and other flood loss reduction measures undertaken by the community o history of flood damage in the selected areas 26 Following the meetings with local officials, descriptions of each area were pre- pared based largely on the meetings, but also including relevant information from aerial photographs, and any land use maps or plans, floodplain regulations and other information available on the town and selected areas. These descrip- tions consisted of a summary description of the area, information on how acqui- sition might meet the Section 1362 Community Eligibility Criteria, the type of interest expressed by the community in acquisition, and a recommendation as to whether further investigation of the area should be pursued in Phase II. Using these descriptions and maps of the areas as a basis for discussion, the areas to be investigated further in Phase II were selected in consultation with staff from CAM and other DEP units. The amount of information available concerning the 30 areas varied considerably as did interest on the part of the communities in acquiring areas through the Section 1362 program. Most communities have given little or no consideration to acquiring areas that are already developed; they have focused any existing acqui- sition plans on undeveloped lands. Although flooding and erosion are recognized problems in all of the areas, and some have experienced moderate flooding in the past several years, none have sustained catast rophic damage in recent years -- in some areas not since the 1938 hurricane. Because of the lack of major damage in recent years, it is difficult to determine property owner and community interest in acquisition following such a major storm. According to officials interviewed, some owners do appear to be interested in selling following damage, while many others do not. owners typically find the coast of Connecticut an attractive place to live, in- cluding sites directly on the beach fully exposed to flooding and erosion. They rely on warnings before a major storm to reduce risk of injury and loss of life. They appear to consider minor property damage an acceptable price for living in such an attractive environment. Further, all of the communities are in the flood insurance program, and, for individuals choos -ing to purchase it, flood insurance will cover much of the cost of any flood damages sustained. Coastal property owners do not appear to have problems selling homes because of their vulnerability to flood damage. Property values are increasing in all of 27 - the selected areas, keeping pace with or exceeding increases in property values at other locations in the towns. Despite all this, a number of coastal areas were identified by CAM and the con- tractor as potentially qualifying for acquisition under the Section 1362 program following a major flood. These areas are largely ones in which communities have a definite need for additional public beaches, beach access, parking areas or boat launching areas; in which there is a history of flood damages; and in which local officials speculate that area residents may well consider reloca- tion following a major coastal storm. The remaining areas selected for further investigation in Phase II are ones whose acquisition would serve state needs for recreational land or critical habitat protection. Of the 30 areas investigated, 20 were selected for more detailed study in Phase II because they may offer good potential for eventual acquisition under the Section 1362 program. Table 4 lists these areas, and their location is shown in Figure 5. 28 TABLE 4: AREAS SELECTED FOR FURTHER STUDY IN PHASE 11 1. Harborview, Norwalk 2. Norwalk Islands, Norwalk 3. Pine Creek Beach, Fairfield 4. Long Beach, Stratford 5. Milford Point, Milford 6. Cedar Beach, Milford 7. Silver Beach, Kilford Bayview Beach, Milford Grass Island, Guilford 10. Circle Beach, Madison 11. Cedar Island, Clinton 12. Harbor View, Clinton 13. Clinton Beach, Clinton 14. Grove Beach, Westbrook 15. West Beach, Westbrook 16. Chalker Beach to Oyster River, Old Saybrook 17. Great Hammock Beach, Old Saybrook 18. Plum Bank Beach, Old Saybrook 19. Hawks Nest, Old-Lyme 20. Sound View, Old Lyme -7) OUTHO RY F .N., 13R K IELD NEWTOWN 0,AUSURY",> mo ROE I tA ELT EDDING X TRU IN ASTON ON W.LTOi OR FAIRF1 qw W TPORT NI'A 0 WALK ST MF@D Long EE C"4j Pine Crook Beach' DA 1E 0.0 Harboryiew p @@Norwalk Islands ;t IFIGURE MWLEFIJ@LD OA- -j -j MONT VYLLE %RNAM LEDYARD -7 L Y M E CHEfjTER@ iI'EAST LYME S GWFORO @=ISON KILLINGWORTM "TERF006 G TON < 'DEiP R1V R '.NE !/'LO ESSfx 0 0 YME WESTBROOK (MLO SAYOR C 0 Sound View Hawks Nest Great Hammock Beach and - Plum Bank Beacb Circle Beach Chalker Beach linton Beach Grass Island Harborview West Beach Cedar lslandJ Grove Beach THER; INVESTIGATION IN PHASE 11 MON T'11 I I I PART 11 I I I EVALUATION OF SELECTIED I I STUDY AREAS I I .I I I I I I I .I I I 31 PHASE II METHODOLOGY Each of the 20 areas selected in Phase I were investigated in detail during Phase II. More specific information concerning each of the areas and the towns in which they are located was obtained from several sources: review of relevant documents, such as town plans of development, zoning maps, zoning regulations, floodplain ordinances, town annual reports, topographic maps, FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, CAM Coastal Resource maps, etc. interviews with town officials and staff, such as First Selectmen, town engineers, planning directors, conservation commission members and staff, town clerks, draftsmen, engineer's aides, assessors, etc. conversations with town residents, principally individuals who approach- ed members of the project staff during field visits, but including a few meetings and telephone conversations with representatives of beach asso- ciations. review of tax assessors' records to obtain information about the approxi- mate value of properties in the study.areas and the size and type of con- struction of buildings on the properties (e.g., one or two story, with or without basement, etc.) field visits to each area to: make observations concerning the general area, individual structures, presence of flood and erosion protection measures, such as seawalls, groins, etc.; make measurements and estimates of ground elevations and elevations of the first floor of structures above ground level, etc. estimates of still water elevations and wave crest elevations in each of the areas using the FEMA Field Manual for Estimating Wave Heights in Coastal High Hazard Areas in Atlantic and Gulf Coast Regions, March 1981. Information from these sources formed the basis for evaluating the potential eli- gibility of each of the 20 areas for possible future public acquisition under the 32 - FEMA Section 1362 program. The following criteria for eligibility in the Section 1362 program were considered2 CRITERIA AFFECTING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES To be eligible for acquisition under Section 1362, properties must satisfy all of the following criteria as set forth in FEMA Guidelines. I A. Flood Risk Area. "The property must be located in a flood risk area as determined by" ... (FEMA). All of the areas under investigation are located in a flood risk, area as designated on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps and CAM Coastal Resource Maps. B. Flood Insurance Coverage. "The property must have been covered by a flood insurance policy under the National Flood Insurance Program at the time damage took place." This study is making estimates of properties that may be damaged dur- ing some future one percent (100-year) flood, and there is no way to know which properties will be insured at the time of any such future flood. Moreover, information on current flood insurance coverage of individual properties was not available for the study because of Privacy Act restrictions on the release of this information. For purposes of this study it has been assumed that all of the properties within the study areas would be covered by flood insurance at the time of the one percent flood. C. Voluntary Program. "Improved real property will only be acquired through voluntary sale and not through any, eminent domain or condemnation proceed- ing. Thus, no property owners will be required to sell their properties under Section 1362." Unless otherwise specified in the evaluation of individual areas, it has been assumed that owners of property meeting other eligibility criteria would be willing to sell. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Guidelines on Property Acquisition Under Section 1362. Federal Register, Vol.. 45, No. 146, p. 50285-50293. 33 D. Damage to Structures. "The property must meet any one of the following damage criteria:" 1. Damage criterion a: "Property that has incurred significant flood damage on not less than three previous occasions while covered under the NFIP under a five-year period; and on each occasion the cost of repair, on the average, was at least 25 percent of the value of the structure." This criterion -- 25 percent damage three times in five years -- is extremely strict, with the result that very few properties through- out the country have qualified under it. This study did not attempt to identify any properties that would sustain 25 percent damage three times within five years. 2. Damage criterion b: "Property, while covered under the NFIP, that has sustained damaged from a 'single casualty of any nature' so that a statute, ordinance or regulation precludes its repair or restoration of permits repair or restoration only at significantly increased cost." This criterion is dependent upon local floodplain management regula- tions and building codes and on the extent to which these regulations and codes are strictly enforced. Most local floodplain regulations and building codes use 50 percent of the fair market value to trigger any requirements for more stringent rebuilding or to prevent rebuild- ing. Therefore, for flood-caused damages, this criterion becomes nearly equivalent to the "damaged substantially beyond repair" criterion, as discussed below. No attempt was made to estimate how many or which properties might be damaged at. some future date by casualties other than floods, such as fire, tornadoes, etc. 3. Damage criterion c. "Property that has been damaged 'substantially beyond repair' by flood while covered under the NFIP." This study focused on this damage criterion, which provides for property that has been damaged "substantially beyond repair". As defined by FEMA regulations, "damaged substantially beyond repair" means that 34 W "damages to the improved real property are such that as a condi- tion of repair as imposed by a state or local government, the structure must be elevabid or f loodproof ed to or above the 100- year flood elevation, or" (ii) "damages to the improved real property equals or exceeds 50 per- cent of the structure's fair market or actual cash value, which- ever is less, or" (iii) "where damages to the improved real property are such that repair is physically impossible or infeasible." Of these three criteria (i) and (ii) are essentially equivalent where, as is typically the case, local regulations and building codes-are keyed to 50 percent of fair market value. Criterion.(iii) is impossible to estimate before flood damage occurs. Therefore, the study was concerned with estimating which structures had a high potential for sustaining 50 percent damage. Damage estimation methodology. Estimates of potential for sustaining 50 percent damage were made using a specific methodology. That methodology is explained in detail in Appendix C; the general procedures and assumptions involved in the methodology are outlined below: o All damage estimates were based on the occurrence of a one percent (100- year) flood. o In order to include properties very close to the cutoff point, 40 percent damage was used as the qualifying limit rather than 50 percent. o Damage estimates were derived by applying Depth of Water/Percent Damage tables developed by FEMA and modified by the contractor for this study. o These tables do not distinguish different types and quality of construction, and no estimates of these were made for individual structures. o Estimates of depth of water were derived by comparing estimated flood ele- vations with estimated first floor elevations. o Flood elevations: estimates of still water elevations were determined from FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps and estimates of wave crest elevations were prepared using the FEMA Field Manual for Estimating Wave Heights in Coastal High Hazard Areas in Atlantic and Gulf Coast Regions, March 1981. 35 o Structure elevations: estimates of ground elevations and first floor ele- vations of structures were sometimes based on the average elevation of groups of properties. CRITERIA AFFECTING COMMUNITIES In addition to the property eligibility criteria, FEMA regulations and guide- lines require that "A community must be willing to accept title to the acquired real property for land management and restrict its use to open space use or simi- lar purposes." In order to ensure that the most worthwhile projects are selected for funding under the Section 1362 program, FEMA has established several specific criteria that it takes into consideration when evaluating a possible Section 1362 project. These guidelines, described in Figure 3 above, are also outlined below: 1. Community has an existing on-going program for permanent evacuation of floodplains. 2. Acquisition will contribute to the achievement of multiple goals. 3. Acquisition will have an economic benefit. 4. There is a favorable property distribution. 5. Other alternatives are less effective. 6. A planning process has found acquisition desirable. 7. Community has a good flood plain management program. 8. Community can provide resources to assist with the program. EVALUATION Using the property damage estimation methodology out lined above (detailed in Appen- dix C), properties were identified that had a high potential for meeting the Sec- tion 1362 property eligibility criteria. Based on a review of documents, inter- views with town officials, conversations with residents, and site visits, the com- munity eligibility criteria were also taken into consideration. The results of these evaluations are the identification of areas that are potentially suitable for future acquisition under the Section 1362 program. Depending on the actual extent of damage during a future flood, the availability of funding, and other factors, funding in addition to that available under Section 1362 may be needed to 36 carry out an acquisition project. The results of these evaluations are des- cribed for each of the 20 areas and displayed on maps in the following sections. It is important to note that the results of this study depend upon the specific methodology used and the assumptions and limitations built into the methodology. For example, all estimates of property damage were based on the occurrence of a one percent flood and estimates of water level and wave crest elevations that would occur during that flood. The next major flood that occurs along the Connecticut coast and causes significant damage may be greater or less than the one percent flood. The actual water levels and wave crest elevations may be greater or less than the estimates. Local conditions may also change. In sum, the pattern of flooding and damages can only be approximated by the methodology- 37 NORWALK Two areas were identified in Norwalk; Harborview and the Norwalk Islands (see Figure 6). HARBORVIEW General Description Harborview is a private year-round residential area located on a peninsula (essentially an island) at the mouth of the Norwalk Harbor. The area is bounded on the west by an inlet and by marshland, on the south by marshland, and on the north and east by Norwalk Harbor/Long Island Sound. Harborview contains 102 dwellings (plus a Community Beach House) that are, for the most part, well- kept structures on concrete foundations. All of the homes in the area are served by sewers. (See Figure 7.) Concrete seawalls extend almost completely around the area providing protection against moderate flooding and erosion. Nonetheless, residents reported that flooding is a common occurence and that shoreline erosion is extensive on-the eastern shore (fronting the Sound). Some homes.fronting the Sound have received wave damage (most recently in October 1980) and some of the affected homeowners have used SBA loans to repair this damage. Wave impact on the shorefront properties is affected by the configura- tion of the surrounding shoreline and by the presence of the Norwalk Islands. The extent of wave impact on the shorefront homes is therefore largely depen- dent on the direction as well as the intensity of storm winds. As determined from the City's topographic maps, ground'elevations are predomi- nantly in the range of 6 to 10 feet with some higher points in the central and northern parts of the area. The average ground elevation of the structures fronting the Sound is in the range of 8 to 10 feet. Several homeowners have elected to floodproof their homes by elevating them on concrete foundations. The city now requires such elevation to be to 13 feet above mean sea level. Some residents with basement garages have attempted to prevent water from entering their basements by constructing low asphalt or con- crete walls in front of driveways leading to their basements. 38 Evacuation in the event of a major storm could pose a problem as there is only one access road -- Longshore Avenue --- connecting the area to the mainland. on the average, individual lots are approximately .1 acre in size and in several cases adjacent lots are combined to form a single parcel of property. Assessed values of individual struc tures range from about 16,000 to $19,000 with $12,000 an approximate average. Total individual assessments (land plus buildings) range from about $11,000 to $30,000 with $19,000 about average. The last city-wide real estate evaluation was completed in 1972. Present assess- ments represent 65 percent of the 1972 market values. The mill rate for property owners in Harborview is 64. Potential Damage Assessment As determined from the Flood Insurance Rate Map, the base flood elevation in the area is 11 feet above NGVD and five structures are located within the FEMA- designated V-zone. There are 26 dwellings and the Community Beach House fronting Long Island Sound that are not included in the FEMA-designated V-zone. Of these 27 structures, roughly half, or those north of Oliver Street, are effectively sheltered from wave action by Peach Island and Calf Pasture Point. The remaining shorefront properties are most vulnerable to waves generated by winds blowing directly out of the east (as evidenced by the October 1980 storm). The three largest Norwalk Islandsto the southeast protect Harborview from storm waves out of that direc- tion. Since homes fronting the Sound have received wave damage in th e past, the 27 structures on the eastern shorefront were, for the purposes of the potential damage assessment, evaluated both as r.Lon-V-zone and V-zone properties. As a result of the initial screening, none of the structures outside the V-zone and not fronting the.Sound were estimated to have high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility. The 27 structures fronting the Sound but not. included in the FEMA-designated V-zone and the five structures located in the V-zone were all evaluated as if they were in the V-zone. A concrete seawall is the only barrier between these 39 shorefront structures and the Sound, and there is only a very narrow and eroding forebeach area in front of.the seawall.. A maximum wave crest elevation of 13 feet was used to estimate potential V--zone damage; sill elevations-Iwere used to approximate first floor elevation, Even though several of the shorefront homes south of Oliver Street have experi- enced wave damage, the Phase II methodology estimated that only one of the structures in the area would have high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility even if the area were to be included in the V-zone. North of Oliver Street, shorefront homes are well-sheltered from storm waves and even if this area were to be included in the V-zone, the methodology estimated only one property with high potential. Two of the five structures in the designated V-zone (south of Beach Street) were estimated to have high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility. Conclusions The general location south of Beach Street and within the V-zone,where two properties were estimated to have high potential, has been designated on the 1977 City Parks and Recreation Plan as the site for a boat launch ramp or boat basin. Acquisition of this small group of properties with Section 1362 and other funds would allow the city to carry out the plan recommendations. This location would also pose little interference with residents since users of a boat launch could arrive and exit without entering the rest of the.Harborview area. A driveway currently exists to Lot 16 from Longshore Avenue. Consequently, the group of properties south of Beach Street appear suitable for possible future acquisition under Section 1362 and other programs. The five parcels included in this area total about 1.4 acres. The total assessed value is $128,000 (land - $52,080 and buildings - $75,920), and the existing annual real estate tax revenue to the city is $8,128. 1 Metcalf & Eddy, Engineers, Woodward Avenue Area, Norwalk, CT, Lateral Sewers and Appurtenant Work, Contract 77-3. - 40 NORWALK ISLANDS General Description The Norwalk Islands, located from one to two miles offshore from Norwalk (see Figure 8), create a buffer zone that provides protection for Norwalk's harbor and coastline. Three main islands, Chimmons, Shea (Ram) , and Sheffield, and sixteen smaller islands were formed by glacial deposition. Today these islands present several land forms and support large numbers of birds, many intertidal species of grasses and aquatic life. The 60-acre Chimmons Island holds one of the largest avian nesting sites in Long Island Sound. Gulls, herons, egrets, ibis, ducks and assorted songbirds inhabit Chimmons Island during the warmer mon-ths. It is also noted for its heron rookery a feature that makes it unique in Long Island Sound. The northern shore of Chimmons has two areas of steeply sloping cliffs composed of boulders. The remaining shore is a gravel to cobble-sized rocky beach with exposed intertidal flats at low -tide. Two seasonal, one-story structures are located on Chimmons Island. The Nature Conservancy is negotiating to pur- chase this island. Sheffield Island is lined with a seawall along its western exposure where remains of a deteriorated house and adjacent pier stand. The remaining shoreline of Shef- field Island is composed of gravelly to.cobbly beaches with intertidal flats exposed at low tides. Two areas of brackish wetlands occur inland in the higher elevations, both on the northwestern portions of the island. A lighthouse is also located on the island. Shea Island-has no permanent structures. Of the smaller islands, Pilot Island has four. structures; El Hammock Island three structures; Great Hammock Island one; Copps Island two; Betts Island one; and Calf Pasture Island one. The remainder of the island s do not have permanent ;structures. Both the City of Norwalk and the State have identified these islands as important naturAl features that should be protected, possibly through acquisition. The City already owns Shea, the Plains, Little Ram, and Grass Islands, and has estab- lished a special account to accumulate funds for the eventual purchase of Chimmons 41 or Sheffield and possibly other islands. The islands are presently designated an Island Conservation Zone, a two-acre residential zone. Potential Damage Assessment The Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Norwalk do not include the Norwalk Islands, but the base flood elevation is assumed to be 11 feet. Topographic information isnot available for all of the islands, but where it is available, the structures are elevated well above the base flood elevation and do not have high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility. Estimates of potential damage assessment could not be made for structures with- out elevation data, INo site visit was made to the Norwalk Islands,1 Conclusions Even though officials of both the state and the City of Norwalk have expressed interest in acquiring some or all of the Norwalk Islands, Section 1362 applica- tion does not appear suit able. Some structures do not have high potential for Section 1362 eligibility. For most others, the potential for eligibility is unknown, but the assessed values of the structures are relatively low compared to the total assessed value of the property, resulting in little potential for financial savings in disaster assistance and reduced flood insurance subsidies if the entire property were to be acquired with Section 1362 funds. 42 FIGURE 15r: LOCATION OF HARBORVIE.W AND THE NORWALK ISLANDS IN NORWALK V, SAE Seavew Par k K' 41 s L lu <3 jitdh*@Plt % L hor V Ha'7,; bo i" %4 J x @@i- lei ... ........... Iregpry, G o i n t.4 P F- 0 i6 17 AN Peach U i t yr k 3 Wand Calf Pas U S Coast Guard-, lsl=. ly S@& DIDrV iew 14 sture BM 7 "'v vq,@i -t Light (D Beach Grassy Ha j6 /V @- /4, 7 . ....... Cl) Raymond k s ..... .. B . .... . ....... ... Betts ..T 4 Keyser V Point 5 e Light . ... ..... C6dar Hammock aRogers te Whi Reef . . ..... Rock 0 Tree H a mmock Sandy,@': ',@'Litt 0 Tavem/ Hammock island row I Ram avern CJ island -tstaod to Dog Isla r )fie.ld I'sland Wc@d Scale 1:24,000 C Harnmoc 2 Harbor 23 Study Area M i 14 4 Plairri 0 ellow Rocks 3 rn V NEPTUNE AVENUE OL 04 V, rio lzqj 5.0 4S 41 4 45 4 43 42 0 0NEPTUNE AVEN jet ASSWSSOe!S Lor AjvA4,eoA ASSMSSOR-13 SLo" AM. 139 140 m A35RSSMXMr DATA 1 9 1" e 0 134 PRHs4ffAorLY vmAvAlj-AAL&- 13 158 16 OJVLr SrOeY *WCLL1Af61NoaAsrjw" r owr srocy1*Assmsvr 141 z -rwo srvo-Y vwzAjjAr4&1,vo a4srmoNr rwo &rvjtv1aAsjrAfwmT- 142 157 M w 0 OAK lu 136 is No-mg SYMISOLS Foa COWIE"Imr-s Alto W-W IMMAT!!L AwD T"VS Do PL- 143 0z T Nor Wilow-A-MALf 51XM. SNAPS- or- UoC 59 0 144 0 -J 155 170 31: - APPROXIAlAr-w I.AAeDWARD zxrjwr ox v-zoms 0 143 A54 oil ES - AVIT'IAIL 6&LRWMNIJVS AS NCor JYA VWCv 46 Ir 0 PROPSerl- ESTWA7'50 MF 0 62 133 172 cc H1dr,M P07AWrlAA- P04 FUrOAtZ M62 -ELJ&181LjrY -j 114 112 17 iL 0 w W fix Z 132 73 ir El ^ZDP--A-rJff9F E57@WAYZW SY P%#645H R, "SYMCDC-1-4av"As -- 148, q 64 151 174 X VZ4 -MAV-I-JV(w-- 14-IGM P07AFM77AL )roe FUrUAQM 1-46Z e,,Crj8iLf7-y 65 ! I POrXVr/ALLy FO-e PVTUeE A64211151ricAl 0 0 t 173 AR 66 OLiVER TRE 0T 20 99 98 t"o 95 14 93 92 - a? 0 19 w 1 103 1 89 1 03 106 10 00 as 83 G C'Ely 0 OOD 084 /a 0 log PL. ea 110 14 13 so 79 0 W 11 4foRAIIA(GSIDIE pL, 91 a 69 fir :. ... ..... 101, OWN* ...... maw man MM gamin M East Norwalk W 0: Sougal am SIN 0 0 0- 0' Z 0 '00 fto X f14 CA 14 Norwalk Shorehaven *4 Tq H a r b a r UISSP, a n M 61 x r CO to 0 tA %A "A rp W 4 r - j V TA > K to X-1 ',4 x 0 > M % 0 tz Peoch lb 31 r4 x z FA %h 11111 Island Call Posture 7b "I ;; P r, Q@ @ 0 calf Posture Island IR Horborview Point > V4 N % -* 10 K= 13 @t4 x CA CA > I L, Z 0 ?4 0 Monresa V 0,Ho, I Island C1 Z Y and r 14 Betts It Island Cal Keyser Grassy Point Island C h i mmon6 0 Island C 0 Little Tavern Wilson Pt 41? Island Form Rom Crow I Island Island Tavern 0 PPS Bell Co@o 21 Island Island Sheffield I s I d n d ID Wood I Noroton Harbor C Harnmock,, Li+fle Point CJ Hammock Island J Sheffield Island CD Cj 0 0 z z 6 A 0 Mr 0 0 -4 0 .A, 0 > C, 0 0 0 M > > C ca , > 0) -4 CD cc -4 > CO C r- 0 r cr 0 K 0 03 )@ a ce Ro m Isla nd d GI @O > (A N > 45 FAIRFIELD Only one area in Fairfield was selected for detailed study: Pine Creek Beach (see Figure 9). PINE CREEK BEACH General DescriRtion The Pine Creek Beach area (see Figure 10) contains a predominantly year-round residential neighborhood extending from South Pine Creek Road eastward to the end of Pine Creek Avenue. The area includes the homes on French Street and is bounded on the north by the Pine Creek salt marsh and a town-owned recreation area, on the east by Pine Creek and on the south by Long Island Sound and Pine Creek Point. An.attractive town-owned beach is located at the end of South Pine Creek Road, but there is practically no off-street parking space. This section of shoreline is oriented towards the southwest and there are no islands or adja- cent shoreline features providing a sheltering effect from storm waves originating from that direction. The area contains a mix of.small summer homes, coverted summer homes, larger year-round homes, and substantial new homes recently completed or still under construction. In additioni several of the older dwellings are being remodelled. There are a total of 82 generally well-kept dwellings (plus the Swedish Athletic Club). None of these homes are presently serviced by sewers although the home- owners association, the South Pine Creek Area Association, has been arguing for sewer service for the past 5 years. Plans are presently being prepared to in'stall sewers in the western part of the study area, from French Street to Long Island Sound, in conjunction with a proposed condominium project at the corner of South Pine Creek Road and Pine Creek Avenue. In the past the Town Sewer Commission has seen no viable need to extend sewers, which could encourage added development, to the end of South Pine Creek Avenue. The Pine Creek dike, constructed by the town in 1969, protects homes fronting Long Island Sound and Pine Creek from flooding and wave damage. The top of the dike is approximately 10@ feet above NGVD. Due to the presence of the dike, residents did not seem particularly concerned about flooding and mentioned that the adjacent Fairfield Beach.area was much more susceptible to flood damage. 46 Some residents did express concern about flooding from the marsh side. As determined from the town's topographic maps, ground elevations are all within the 4 to 10 foot range. Homes fronting the Sound have been built on the highest terrain in the area (approximately 8 to 10 feet). Ground elevation slopes down- ward on the marsh side of Pine Creek Avenue and towards the eastern end of Pine Creek Avenue. Most of the dwellings have been elevated at least 2 feet above grade on concrete foundations in response to the major floods of 1938, 1950, and 1954. Individual lots range in size from about .1 acre to .35 acre, and several lots contain more than one dwelling. There is a wide range in the assessed values of individual structures with some of the smaller summer dwellings assessed as low as $2,000 and more substantial structures assessed as high as $30,000. $11,000 is an approximate average. Total in dividual assessments (land plus buildings) range from about $6,000 to $50,000 with $22,00 0 about average. The last real estate evaluation in Fairfield was completed in 1973, and present assessments represent 70 percent of that.year's market value. The mill rate is 43.2. Potential Damage Assessment The base flood elevation is 11 feet above NGVD. The landward limit of the V-zone roughly follows Pine %Creek Avenue from the intersection of South Pine Creek Road eastward approximately 1,800 feet, or until the barrier beach that is Pine Creek Point protects shorefront properties from wave damage. Thirty-six dwellings seaward of Pine Creek Avenue are considered to be in the FEMA-designated V-zone. As a result of the initial screening, all but ten non-V zone structures adjacent to the town-owned marshland were eliminated from further estimates of high damage potential, and these ten were eliminated during the second screening. The shorefront properties within the V--zone are protected from the Sound by the dike. In addition, some of the V-zone structures are protected by individual. seawalls (of lower elevation than the dike), and there is a forebeach area ap- proximately 100 feet wide in the western half of the sborefront. A'maximum wave crest elevation of 13 feet was used to estimate potential V-zone damage; an, average first floor elevation of 2 to 3 feet above grade was used for each struc- ture. Although the Pine Creek dike would appear to offer considerable protection 47 from wave damage, the Phase II methodology estimates that several dwellings in the western portion of the V-zone have high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility. Conclusions Town officials of Fairfield have expressed considerable interest in acquiring properties in this area. The town has been interested since the 1960's in ac- quiring property adjacent to the Pine Creek marsh for the purpose of restoring the natural tidal marsh system. Community Development Block Grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development have been used for restoration of portions of the marsh and for the development of recreation areas. This study, however, did not identify any properties adjacent to the marsh as having high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility. The primary interest expressed by the town during this study was to expand the parking facilities serving the public beach at the end of South Pine Creek Road. Land costs in this area are reportedly escalating rapidly. Several properties in this same area are estimated by the methodology to have high potential; therefore, this area appears suitable for future application of Section 1362. Fifteen dwelling lots totalling approximately 2.7 acres make up the potential acquisition area shown in Figure 10. The total assessed value of these proper- ties is $352,020 (land, $217,130; buildings, $150,300), and the current annual real estate tax revenue to the town is $15,207. 1 Total does not include value of one dwelling presently under construction. M" go-low "WMAN M-Imp I" an *Now (n rt Ln c 0 (D a) Ila C) q, R I, W-4-W, er Mill 2\@Mo Jen B SKI V, S 0 % NtES C ou HAY ,S:oi@ d Sand' ............. 7' R s MILI All io MM' RES San @d Sand, 2 Lighto 1,R I L, A-4/1 ? 6 Kensie Pi and Vo, ok. Pine Creek Poi 6 270 a q&95 84 03 182 1810 180 j"M 70 77 ?6 1 z a0 cl n n 259 Ix 266 256 A 237 z5a FRENCH STREET 114@63@@ w 0 66 261 260 a 235 w A j. Ime EV-0,001C FFK..'ft.@-.,-AVENUE . ...... ....... ........ V 0 ..... 2 ck ka, a 4A ........... .... .............. .......... ....... 50 241 3 22 2 242 246 243 240 245 244 2 V-20NIE: ASSZISSOet Lor ivvmsA@a ASSESSOAL'S -8,Loe-4e Am. P rA)c AssESSME-air OATA PkssaNrj-Y LIMAVALLA84,0 C] oA(-- sroey ow--,LL/jvr,/,vo aAsamrw r oNx sroxr/aAs--,wF-,vr Two sroav PwxAj-iA(&1NvsAsrAfamr rwo 6roey/BAS&.4fK)V7- Nola$ SYMBOLS FO& DWM&Ajllj6f? AltK SC14 StAA-rW- AND TOWS 00 Nof SHOW ACTUAL- Sizu, 514Arr. - or- LocATiom oN L-or APPROXIMAT'JEE LAJvDWAeD zxrKmr op v-xoma 4b P`de0P-=,erl-=S ZSr/AfArZ0 8'eAVMlAL 64,tVKAIfJV6 ASNor 14Avl"CW 14ICoN Po'rff"rlAi- FOR. FaTaRta' /.362 PR.OP-0^710 S JESTIMATEO BY PHASE IX marHoool-06@r .43 PAVIJV4rw 01grIO PCrrAgAITIAL. Xoe F(IrfljeE /AGZ ZwalAltlry AR.-EA fe0r.9"TIAL.&Y S&ITABLE F:Oe FUTURrm Acd?J:115171o" 0lj .I @.4 50 STRATFORD Only one area in Stratford was selected for detailed study; Long Beach.(see Figure 11). LONG BEACH AREA General Description The Long Beach area is.part of an almost two-mile long barrier island that extends westward from Point No Point in Stratford to Pleasure Beach in the city of Bridge- port. The developed portion of Long Beach is bounded on the west by Pleasure Beach and on the east by a mile-long stretch of narrow, sandy beach that is managed by the town as an important nesting area for terns. During critical periods access to this nesting area on Long Beach is restricted. The town is also actively planting dune grass and salt spray rose here to help stabilize the dunes and to create well defined pathways to control walking on the dunes. The state is interested in seeing this area protected because of the tern nesting site. To the nor th, Lewis Gut separates Long Beach from the Great Meadows wet- lands, another imporant wildlife habitat area. To the south is Long Island Sound. The shorefront has an unobstructed orientation towards the southwest. (See Figure 12.) There is only one access road, and that is from the Bridgeport site across the narrow drawbridge that connects Pleasure Beach with the mainland. Pleasure Beach itself, the site of an old amusement park, is currently undeveloped and has been nominated for inclusion in the proposed Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System. Forty-five structures are located in the developed portion of Long Beach. Fifteen are on the Lewis Gut side of the roadway and 30 front Long Island Sound. Almost all of these structures are seasonal cottages elevated on piers. Many were built in the period 1910 to 1920. Most are we 11 -maintained. The area is not serviced by sewers and does not have year-round water. Residents mentioned that the 1938 hurricane destroyed approximately 15 cottages, but that more recent storms have not caused substantial damage. A forebeach area between the dwellings and Lo ng Island Sound was built up about 16 years ago with sand dredged from the Bridgeport harbor. The Corps of Engineers built the existing groin at the same time. Dunes were created on the western 51 part of the area and planted with beach grass. These dunes protect about half of the dwellings fronting the sound from storm waves. The dwellings on the Lewis Gut side of the roadway are very close to the inlet. The town has no detailed topographic information for the Long Beach area. The elevation of the landward ends of the stone groins were used as elevation refer- ence points. Grade elevation between the shoreline and the dwellings fronting the sound were found to be relatively high -- in the range of 11 to 14 feet. Although the terrain drops off on the Lewis Gut side of the shorefront dwellings, the houses themselves are on high ground -- approximately 11 feet. The cottages on the northern side of the roadway next to the Gut are slightly lower but are still at an elevation of 10 feet or above. Between these cottages and the Sound is a narrow dune line of approximately 13 feet elevation. Relative to this study, the developed portion of Long Beach is unique in that all of the developed land is owned by the -town of Stratford. Residents of the area own their dwellings but lease the land from the town. Starting in 1981 the leases are for 16-year periods with 5 percent yearly increases in rent. Each lot was rented for $605 a year in 1981. The last real estate valuation in Stratford was completed in 1974. Present assessments represent 70 percent of the 1974 market value. Assessed values of individual structures in the Long Beach area range from about $3,500 to $11,000 with most assessments in the $5, 000 to $7 p 000 range. The mill rate is 36. Potential Damage Assessment The Flood Insurance Rate Maps shows that the entire Long Beach area is within the FEMA-designated V-zone. The base flood elevation is 11 feet above NGVD. Due to the unobstructed southwest orientation of the shoreline, the area is most vulnerable to storm generated waves approaching from the southerly direction. The forebeach and dune areas provide some protection from storm waves, -The combination of high ground elevations and the roughly 2 to 4 feet elevation of- individual structures above grade results in none of the dwellings in this area having high potential for future Section 1362 eilibility according to the Phase II methodology. 52 Conclusions Town officials have indicated that they are not interested in acquiring the ex- isting structures through the Section IL362 program. Since the town owns the land, it could convert the area to public open space simply by deciding not to renew the leases of the cottage owners. The current town beach -- Short Beach -- was created in just this fashion in the 60's, even though the structures on town land were large colonials rather than small beach cottages. For the above reasons and because none of the structures were found to have high potential, no part of the Long Beach area appears suitable for future Section 1362 application. If the state were interested in eventually acquiring the area, it could perhaps establish an agreement with the town of Stratford whereby leases to owners of the structures would not be renewed. Based on a total assessed value of $301,770, real estate tax revenues to the town totalled $10,863 in the past year. Revenue from rent of the land totalled $27,225 in 1981. cl 0 its sp Fr"h I.AJ ad Pond Pt cor 40 -Sewaae v sposal a; -*44N CIPALSRPORT + "", q@l T R ddo S 'IV tv 4 4 n (0) 0 4 -via 10 _4 0 -114 14 IA '0 110 Or k 91 4 x r, M 7- 'A _ '3 17114 0 10" t Q P .w c IINE 10 eft1t)c m t ST 04-ff;ORD 01 01 El- West iz T4 -IA prcp t I' N T 'To ;"t m m w u > Eli f4 h N 1::3. RATFORD r CA m @ 0 (A tA #A cl r Eli U) Ip Eli 7- 11:3 . - . - cl EIL 0 c z oil Elt C) 0 z z m 04 Iq C) Eli: c 4 m 0 > > 11; co (A (a -4 0 . 1 > 2 r CL 0 0 tj N > 55 MILFORD Four areas in Milford were selected for detailed study: Milford Point, Cedar Beach, Silver Beach, and Bayview Beach (see Figures 13 and 16). MILFORD POINT General Description Milford Point is a private, year-round residential area made up of 12 homes located on a mile long sand spit. The entire spit is made up primarily of beach and dunes and is called Milford Point. It is bounded on the north by the large expanse of tidal wetlands that forms the Charles E, Wheeler Wildlife Management Area and on the west by the mouth of the Housatonic River. The shoreline front- ing Long Island Sound is oriented to the southeast. (See Figure 14.) The private developed area is located between the undeveloped westernmost portion of Milford Point (which has been nominated for inclusion in the proposed Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System) and an open space area to the east owned by the state but presently leased and managed by the New Haven Bird Club (a residential structure is also located on the state-owned property). The city denied an ap- plication to construct condominiums on the undeveloped property at the western end of Milford Point. The property owner who was denied the permit may be a willing seller. The city may foreclose on the property, as about $50,000 in city taxes are owed. Several of the structures are newly rertovated,,and most are assessed in the $20,000.-.$30,000 range. Lots are approximately 2/10 of an acre in size, and the.tbtal individual assessment Cland and.buildings) averages about $57,000. Potential Damage Assessment The base flood elevation is 11 feet, and all dwellings are in the V-zone. A sandy beach 100 to 300 feet wide lies between the dwellings and the Sound, but there are no seawalls or other barriers. Waves generated by storm winds directly out of the south would probably strike the shoreline in this area with less velocity than waves out of the southeast due to the protection afforded by Stratford Point and an offshore breakwater. As determined from the city's topographic maps, the 56 average ground elevation of the dwellings in this area is in the range of 8 to 10 feet. All of the houses are raised approximately 2 to 3 feet above grade. Because of the relatively high grade elevation and the height of the individual structures above grade, the Phase II methodology identified only one structure having high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility. Given the inherent instability of this barrier beach formation, however, it is possible that a major storm could cause significant erosion of this narrow sand spit and that some or all of the structures would subsequently be damaged significantly. Conclusions Milford city officials expressed interest in the entire privately-owned portions of Milford Point as a potential site for a public beach. However, because the Phase II methodology identified only one property as having high potential, the area does not appear suitable for application of Section 1362. CEDAR BEACH General Description Cedar Beach is located to the east of the private Milford Point residential area, on the same southeast facing coastline, and is part of the same barrier beach formation. The area includes all of the shorefront homes on Milford Point Road between the New Haven Bird Club property on the west and the beginning of Sea- view Avenue on the east, as well as the structures on the marsh side of Milford Point Road. There are 52 shorefront structures and 53 dwellings on the marsh side, most of which are old buildings 'built in the period 1910-1920. Most are seasonal, rental properties. (See Figure 14.) The 52 shorefront structures have an average assessment of $22,000; most are assessed in the $15,000 to $25,000 range. Most lots range in size from .1 to 2 acres, and the average total assessment is $50,000. Several lots contain, more than one dwelling. Potential Damage Assessment As determined from the Flood Insurance Rate Maps the base flood elevation in the area is 11 feet, and all of the structures between Milford Point Road and Long Island Sound are located in the V-zone. There is an approximate 100-foot wide 5 7 sandy beach between these structures and the Sound, and there are no seawalls or other barriers providing protection from waves. There are also no offshore obstructions to modify the effects of storm waves approaching the shoreline from the southwest and from the east. The city's topographic maps show that the shorefront dwelli ngs are on the high- est ground in this study area -- roughly 8 to 10 feet above N,3VD. The structures on the marsh side of Milford Point Road are built on lower grade elevations ranging from 4 to 6 feet. The lowest areas are flooded at ordinary high tide. Even though many structures are at a low grade elevation, the Phase II metho- dology indicates that none of the non-V zone structures have high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility. Scattered structures throughout the V-zone area and 2 small groups of continguous structures at the east and west side of the area do have high potential according to the methodology (see Figure 14). Conclusions Milford city officials expressed interest in acquiring property in Cedar Beach for use as a public beach. The two small groups of structures identified could help meet these needs and appear suitable for possible future acquisition under Section 1362. Total assessed value of the five lots in the eastern section (lots 39-43, Figure 14) is $233 490. The maximum 1annual real estate tax revenue to the city from these lots is $10,595. Total assessed value of the 12 lots in the western section is $458,680, and the maximum tax revenue is $20,814. 1 SILVER BEACH General Description Silver Beach is a barrier beach backed by marshland, southeast of Milford Harbor and within the small gulf that protects the mouth of the Harbor. The study area stretches from Samuel Smith Land and Silver Sands State Park on the west to Surf Avenue on the east and also includes the shorefront dwellings on Shell Avenue between Surf Avenue and Seaside Avenue. The marshland backing much of the area 1Property owners are not presently taxed on their total assessment. Taxes are paid on a net assessment representing a 20% yearly increase in the difference between the pre-1980 assessment and 1980 assessment. 58 is also included in Silver Sands State Park, The coastline in this area is oriented to the southeast. (See Figure 15.) The study area is zoned urban low density residential and contains 330 struc- tures, 103 of which are on the shorefront side of East Broadway and Shell Avenue,' There is great variation in the condition of these structures; the shorefront properties are generally better maintained than properties on the marsh side of East Broadway. Of the 85 structures on the shorefront side of East Broadway, most are assessed in the range of $20,000 - $35,000, with $29,000 about average. The average total assessment (land and buildings) is about $55,000. Most structures were built around 1910 or earlier, and there is a scattering of new and remodelled structures. Most are seasonal. Lots range in size from less than 1/10 acre to about 2/10 acre. Ground elevations along the shorefront are generally in the 8 to 10 foot range. In the northern part of the area, most of the 18 structures shoreside of Shell Avenue are assessed at $35,000 and over, with $44,000 about average (including an apartment house and condominium project). The.average total assessment (land and buildings) is about $50,000. Ground elevations are substantially higher than in the rest of the study area, ranging from 10 to 18 feet. Most of the structures inland of East Broadway were built around 1920 or earlier. Many are in a severely deteriorated state, and several appear to be abandoned, Although some are occupied year round, most are seasonal. Ground elevations are lower in this part of the study area, with the structures built on grade elevations of 4 to 8 feet. Most of the structures in this area are assessed in the range of $10,000 to $20,000, with some under $10,000; $16,000 is about average. The average total assessment is about $23,000. Potential Damage Assessment The base flood elevation is 11 feet above NGVD and all of the dwellings between East Broadway and Shell Avenue and the Sound are in the V-zone. The V-zone properties appear to be most vulnerable to storm waves approaching from the southeast and east. There is a sandy forebeach area ranging in width from 50 to 200 feet between these properties and the Sound. Some of the structures 59 are protected by concrete seawalls. 11 combination of relatively high ground elevation and the approximate 3 feet average elevation of individual structures above grade keep all but a small group of V-zone properties from having high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility. Conclusions Milford city officials expressed no interest in a cquiring properties in the Silver Beach area. The primary acquisition interest in the Silver Beach Area was expressed by state officials for the purpose of expanding the adjacent, but presently undeveloped, Silver Sands State Park. State acquisition of this park area a number of years ago involved the acquisition of a number of structures. The area has never been developed, however, and current plans are uncertain. In the absence of a definite plan and commitment by the state to acquire the entire Silver Beach area, the area does not appear suitable for application of Section 1362. If the state adopted a definite plan to expand and develop the Silver Sands State Park, then Section 1362 acquisition might contribute to the overall acquisition plan. BAYVIEW BEACH General Description Bayview Beach is located to the east of Milford Harbor in the shallow gulf between Welches Point and Pond Point. The study area is bounded on the west by higher ground and the more expensive Point Lookout homes, on the east by the mouth of the Calf Pen Meadow Creek, The area contains a 200-foot wide by 600-foot long expanse of privat e beach. The northern boundary of the study area corresponds to the approximate inland extent of the V-zone along Lawrence Court, Fold Court and Bayshore Drive. The shoreline has an unobstructed orientation to the southeast. (See Figure 17.) Almost all of the 38 dwellings in the study area have been built close to the shoreline on what is essentially the primary dune line, Ground elevations are roughly in the range of 10 to 12 feet west of the private beach and slightly lower east of the beach. These dwellings are mostly summer cottages that have been converted to year-round use, although a few seasonal dwellings remain. 610 - Assessed values of indiv idual structures are mostly in the $25,000 to $35,000 range, and the average total assessment (land and buildings) is about $62,000. Lots west of the beach area are generally slightly less than 1/10 of an acre. East of the beach, lot sizes are about.15 acre. Many of these houses are partially protected from wave impact by concrete seawalls. Individual homes west of the private beach are raised 2 to 3 feet on the average. The smaller group of houses east of the beach are raised approximately 3 to 4 feet. The Bayview Beach area is flooded often and is also subject to significant erosion. Potential Damage Assessment The base flood elevation is 11 feet. All dwellings in the study area are in the V-zone. As mentioned above, there is only a very narrow forebeach area (less than 50 feet) between most of these dwellings and the Sound. Some individual seawalls in the area show signs of significant damage, apparently caused by waves. Homes are apparently most vulnerable to storm waves out of the south and south- east while Pond Point to the east shelters the area from waves generated by northeasterly and easterly winds. Individual homes west of the private beach are raised 2 to 3 feet on the average. The smaller group of structures east of the beach are raised approximately 3 to 4 feet. These elevations combined with the relatively high ground on which most of these structures are built result in only a few dwellings having high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility. Conclusions Milford city officials expressed interest in acquiring properties in the Bayview Beach area for the purpose of creating a new public beach. The only public beach on this side of the city (Gulf Bleach, see Figure 16) does not adequately meet existing demand. Officials indicated, however, that acquisition in the Bayview Beach area is of lower priority than at Cedar Beach. Because of the lower priority, and because the Phase II methodology identifies only three 61 structures with high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility, the area does not appear suitable for application of the Section 1362 program. 62 - FIGURE 13: LOCATION OF MILFORD POINT, CEDAR BEACH, AND SILVER BEACH AREAS IN MILFORD q 11 - 7-@ 14 it a VY Scale 1:24,000 Study Area 63 RI VER 22 12 Q7 21 13 oio 81 14 0 20 1 . 9 T tq LLJ0 1., U) a 6 0 8 )a ar dev Is -w Q7 4k* 0 9 .0 ui to 3 5 6 %VJ-ZDN IL 00 to 0 cf) cl) 13 Ir A LL- W cc . ............... ....... .......... ROAD@ ....... T .......... Z 0 00 -10 0000 0 0 0 0 J. 0 18 -22 23 24 15 16 ry ?A 12 13 26 BEACH 33 q cr N@p A P. EPAP L ONG ISL4ND ASsrmssoat's &&-ocic AM. TA)c A55,ESSME"r z>ATA pewsEivrLY VA1AVAl"01-W ONO Sr0)tY18A$HAolF-JY r 0,Vr ,,,er pw&-L.L1A.,C-1,VaBA5EMA"r ' . . -rW0 5rogy pt-,jowA-"Af6r1NV BASEAdAMr rWv 6rvjZY18AS&MKWr; SrWr.MATW- A14D TM-PS DO lopi ON L-or NOT 614OW ^-[,,Ai- SIZE -rr- -OF- WCAT APPROW"AriE g.AAiPWAMD amrAwr oF v-z-OAIw Pe0p-,erl-5 gSrjjjATXV qVAVrr/WL 6CACRNINS A5jvvrHAvlAf& ql&M Po-rAVVrIAA- POAL FUr0JMW lJGA EZJ&1491J-lry p,_0p0A-rjA%s Es-rimATaD sy PmAsAr jr marmoocti-cro-As 141rro PaTS14TIAL FVP- FUruAg /"z cLicrislAary AXZA Pcrxi4dr'/ALL.Y.. @wITASLE PoeFUTURK ACQUISINDAI RIVER )40,VsA'rON'C iL 0 ........ ANNA'S ON. 4,0 ISLAND OZ 0% F4 r -4 )b k -11, MATCH LINE low th I SURF AVENUE S44, '1 0 uz-.4 04 "A" 4. 14 E r p 13 r% k .1 ? CID CO G r @o )b 14 rn > co lb qz Ir-:7, ;v jb 0 IT! 94 fA > #A lb d, r dP ff c) 06 tr 4-e, 6 14 04 C) lk TP, cl a < 06 z rn 44, to 0 z 0 z a m 0 :r c 0 -1 > 0 M 0 rL m > > CO > CO) -4 > C pr o > N > 65 FIGURE 16- LOCATION OF BAYVIEW BEACH AREA IN MILFORD ;'0 Y4 rd,.4 ;.Highwa Cem tfli fit 20 k 191, ingside 7 23 2 Point Bewh: Pond 0 12 es,,- 32 p 01 t Study Area smomEm IN VN Scale 1:24,000 66--- 0 ob ;o BAYSHORE R I V E lose rO 0 '579 i@ r- 4 01- 0 ASS&-SS*Jtlg L@or mvA4aAm ASSESSOX% BLOCJC AOD. I Me ASSeCSMFJJr DATA PPERSatorme 11MAYAl"ALC ONE SrOA Y. OWL-L LIAICPIA(* sAs&mKN rQ Omm 5rocf1sAssmsvr -rwo smar PwzA-"Af&1Nv mAssAeAwr rwep 4srop-y1&AsrmaAi7-, Wo-ml SYP450LS FD& DWMLAJ AOCK !5fWKIIAATW- A04D T"US 00 NOT SHOW ^&T L. . 6"Ara. Olt LocATIom oF4 L-or APPROXIMATE tANDWAND ZmrffMr 00 W-ZoAfff PeopojeriES h-SrWAMD AV AVITML r 6" NMWZJVC AS JV*r HA VIJV4G 0 Hi&Af P07ff"'r1Aj-' PDJL ct$rQALC tJ62 rL1&1SiLtrv 0 7. P.COPKX7'la s zo-rhwArso sy pmAss jr mAmmoo*&oc.,r As 0 MAVIAVCw - MICrO P07AFAMIAL Abit - FUMAE IASM W491alfdry -4 AXZ4 PorA"rlALAV SolrASLO Me FV7U" AC OV15 I NO" @67 GU I LIPORD Only the Circle Beach area in Guilford was selected for detailed study (see Figure 18). GRASS ISLAND General Description The Grass Island study area is located just east of Guilford Harbor and extends along Neck Road to the Madison border (see Figure 19). It is part of a barrier beach formation backed by extensive tidal wetlands along the East River and Neck River. A very narrow beach area, subject to erosion, is present. The coastline is oriented to the south. A single narrow road through neighboring Madison provides the only access to the 12 residences located on Grass Island in Guilford. Most of these dwellings are used year-round; some are relatively new. Several are built on piles and the structures on the marsh side of the road are built on fill. Assessed values of the structures range from about $7,000 to $38,000. Average total assessment is about $32,500. Present real estate tax assessments represent 70 percent of the 1975 market value. The current mill rate is 38.75. The area is flooded frequently, and at high tide Neck Road used to be flooded. The road was raised about one foot in October 1980 by the Town of Madison in re- sponse to requests from residents. The area is also subject to severe erosion, and in October 1980, significant erosion occurred. In the 1938 hurricane, houses were washed off their foundation and Neck Road (then located adjacent to Neck River) was washed out. Other storms have caused some structural damage, but most past flooding problems have been related to access. Guilford is actively seeking additional public open space and beach areas, for the present town beach is not large enough and it is unsatisfactory at low tide. The town already owns some land on Grass Island and would be interested in the entire area for public beach or a marina or boat launch. The state already has a small boat launch on the East River with access from Neck Road. 158 Potential Damage Assessment The entire study area'is located in the FEMA-designated V-zone. Although the base flood elevation shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map is 12 feet, an elevation of 11 feet was used in this study to be consistent with the base flood elevation shown for adjacent Madison and with the one percent flood elevation shown on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's tidal flood profile for this area. on the shorefront side of Neck Road, ground elevat ions were estimated to range between five and seven feet. On the marsh side of the road, elevation ranged from six to seven feet and was higher in some areas where fill had been used. Neck Road was estimated to be between five and six feet, The first floors of structures ranged from about two to seven feet above grade. Five of the struc- tures in the area were estimated by the Phase II methodology to have high poten- tial for future Section 1362 eligibility. Conclusions Since access to the area is through Madison, acquisition and development of the area for a marina by Guilford could cause difficulties with the Town of Madison. If the two towns were to agree on development of the Grass Island -- or both Grass Island and Circle Beach in Madison -- area for recreation purposes and to acquire by other means properties ineligible for Section 1362, then acquisition with Section 1362 assistance might be appropriate. However, Madison officials are apparently not interested in accepting any federal funding for development of recreation areas. Therefore, the area does not appear suitable for Section 1362 application by the towns. However, if the state were to-acquire the area and expand its present boat launch in-to a larger recreation area, Section 1362 would be suitable for application if combined with other funding sources to acquire properties that do not meet the Section 1362 eligibility criteria. Apparently, neither town would have major objections to state acquisition of the area, although Madison expressed reservations about access through narrow residential streets and about the adequacy of state maintenance. 69 FIGURE 18: LOCATION OF GRASS ISLAND IN GUILFORD AND CIRCLE BEACH IN MADISON g, q; WM rl@ /00- @j 7 0- L-J ap FCI- E an V21 hasvnive, 10 -7 Ejj. LO X@T 7@ LJ4 -N, 4 I Ifo LLJ-Q IY op Scale 1:24,000 @D i7w!! Study Area IMEN Point 1.3 Beach 6 st ad," 6 01 i to 16 70 RIVER EAST ASSACSSOP-15 I-or NvA48AM ASSESSORL'S SLO" AM@ 7-AX ASSASSMEWr PAYA pp-OSEAor.LY O"AVAI"01-9' ovr sroey ow-muAta-Mo sAs--mrw r Cl Ojv_- sroxr1sAs--AfF-,vr P, T-wo srave PwEL-",vcjmO BAsg*h(zmr r" 6rOMY1AAS&,4fKA1T-- No-rirs 14�DLS FOIL OWS"IM AME JAATtC AND TffVS 00 'Sy 65 A&IM Mr. .54 . OF- L.OCAT1014 ON LOT. ZOT st4oW ACTUAL- 5 r. App2oximArJE: LANDWARD ExrN"r ox@ V-XOAIS pRoP-=,e7i-=S ES7'/P4ArEV 9V'PV17'1A& 64,erriAtINS ASNor JYAWIAO'Cv H1614 Po-rAWr1Aj- PO& PdraPtc /362 EJ-1*181A.IrY ptOPff^TIr- 6 ESTIMATAD BY PMASE xr MaTHOPOL-0cv- AS 0 0 MAVIJVrw W4rwM PCTMAMAL F;7,Q FU7-UAff JJ62- CAjCrl&1L1rY 0 Ag--A Por.C)l4r1Al-sv 50.1TABLE FOR FUTURE jUt?lllSlrlOJV G, AN 0 .......... ............. .............. .............. lo ................ 0 . . . . . . . . . . ........... ..mm ..... . .. . ...- ....... ....... ....... .. .. ......... .......... .......... ............... 71 MADISON Circle Beach is the only area in Madison selected for detailed study (see Figure CIRCLE BEACH General Description The Circle Beach study area is part of the same barrier beach as the Grass Is land study area. Nineteen mostly seasonal residences are located in the area. Eigh- teen of these front the Sound and one located on the marsh side of Circle Beach Road. The shorefront homes are built directly on the beach, At high tide some are almost completely surrounded by water. Almost all of the structures are ele- vated on wooden piers. A townwide property revaluation was completed in October 1980, and assessed values represent 70 percent of the 1980 market value. The mill rate is 22.7 _5* Most structures are assessed in the range of $10,000 to $20,000; the average is about $17,500. Lots range in size from less than one-tenth acre to over an acre. Aver- age total assessed value is $49,000. The Town of Madison expressed no interest in acquiring any property for expanding public recreation areas. They were particularly not interested in receiving any federal financial assistance. Potential Damage Assessment. All of the structures are located within the FEMA-designated V-zone. The base flood elevation is 11 feet. Ground elevations on the shorefront side of Circle Beach Road were found to be mostly between five and six feet, just slightly higher than the elevation of the road surface. The first floors of houses were raised above grade level anywhere from about two to seven feet. The Phase II methodology estimated that six of the houses in the area have high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility. Conclusions Since the Madison officials are not interested in expanding the town's public beaches or in accepting federal financial assistance, the area does not appear 72 suitable for application of the Section, 1362 program by the Town of Madison. However, application of Section 1362 by, the state appears suitable if, as dis- cussed under Grass Island in Guilford, the state were to complement Section 1362 funds with other sources for expansion of its existing boat launch area. 73 CLINTON Three areas in Clinton were identified for detailed study; Cedar Island, Harbor View, and Clinton Beach.(see Figure 20). CEDAR ISLAND General Description Cedar Island, located in Clinton Harb or, is a barrier island that has been arti- cially joined by a timber bulkhead (built by the Corps of Engineers) to Hammonassett State Park to the west (see Figure 21). The Corps of Engineers fi recently selected a nearby area in Clinton Harbor as the site of a demonstra- tion project for artifical containment of dredged spoils. Cedar Island contains 52, mostly one-story, summer residences. Residents have gradually been elevating their structures, and most are elevated on piers anywhere from 1 to 6 feet above ground. Most of the lots are 1/10 of an acre.. A few lots remain undeveloped. The only access to Cedar Island is by 'boat or by foot across the marshes and the beach area that connects the island with Hammonasett State Park to the west. There is no electrical power to the island (although many residents have elec- tric generators),but the town does supply potable water. A 75 to 100 foot wide beach area is located on the south and eastern side of the island, owned by Cedar Island Improvement Association. Ground elevation on the island ranges from about 6 to 9 feet. Elevation is highest on the south side of the island and decreases towards the north side. The developed portion of Cedar Island, including empty lots and the beach area, is approximately 11.5 acres. Total assessed value of developed lots is $1,263,100. Present property taxes on these properties paid to the town is $27,282.96. Most'structures are assessed at between $10,000 and $15,000, with $13,000 about average. The average total assessment. (land and buildings) is about $24,300. Potential Damage Assessment The entire island is within the FEMA designated V-zone, and the base flood ele- vation is 11 feet. The Phase II methodology estimated that more than half of 74 - the structures on the island have high potential for future Section 1362 eligi- bility. Conclusions Town officials are very interested in the possibility of acquiring all or a sub- stantial part of Cedar Island for use as a town recreation area. Cedar Island would also appear to provide a logical expansion of the Hammonassett State Park. Because of the public recreation reuse potential and the large number of pro- perties with high potential for Section 1362 eligibility, the island appears suitable for application of the Section 1362 program by either the Town of Clinton or the State. Total assessed value of all developed lots is $1,263,100. Present property taxes paid to the town on these properties are $27,283. HARBOR VIEW General Description The Harbor View study area is a residential community containing a mix of summer and year-round residences on the east bank of Clinton Harbor, southeast of Cedar Island. The entire area is located between Long Island Sound on the west and Beach Park Road on the east. It is bounded on both the north and south by marsh- land. The coastline is oriented to the west. Only the first three rows of dwellings fronting the Sound were examined during this study (see Figure 22). This area includes 44 dwellings. Eighteen struc- tures are located seaward of West Road within the V-zone. Most of the homes were built in the 1940's and 1950's. The area is not sewered. Practically no beach area exists between the houses and the Sound. A small beach area, about 1.4 acre, is owned by the Harbor View Association which has been unsuccessful in past efforts to purchase an additional shorefront lot to expand the beach area. Some larger, more expensive year-round homes are located on high ground in the private section of West Road. In this area assessed values range from about $13,000 to $60,000, with $29,000 about average. Average total assessment is about $63,000 in this area. The remainder of the study area is on lower ground. Assessments are less, with most in the $15,000 to $20,000 range; average total assessment is about $46,000. 75 Potential Damage Assessment The V-zone extends inland to West Road,, and includes 18 homes seaward of West Road, Ground elevations at the shorefront homes in the non-private section of West Road are between six and seven feet, and the houses are elevated only about one foot above grade. A series of groins in the area has built up a very narrow beach area between the houses and the Sound. Most of the structures in this part of the V-zone were.estimated by the Phase II methodology to have high potential for Section 1362 eligibility. Ground elevations are slightly less for the first row of houses east of West Road. These dwellings are raised approximately two feet above grade. Ground elevation then gradually increases away from the shore. Ground elevation of the V-zone properties in the private section of West Road is higher; approximately nine feet and greater. There is also a rock seawall between these structures and the Sound. None of the non-V-zone structures or the V-zone structures in the private section of West Road were esti mated to have high potential. Conclusions The Town of Clinton already owns marshland and a beach just to the north of Har- bor View. It has proposed, and has partially developed plans, to acquire some properties at the northern end of Harbor View adjacent to the existing town pro- perty and to develop the area as a public recreation area. Because most of the shorefront properties in this area were estimated to have high potential for Section 1362 eligibility, the area appears potentially suitable for application of the Section 1362 program. Total assessed value of the lots in the potential acquisition area is $612,360. Current real estate tax revenues to the town from these properties is $13,227. CLINTON BEACH General Description Clinton Beach is located east of Kelsey Point. The study area (see Figure 23) is the lower portion of Clinton Beach and. is bounded by higher ground on both the east and west. Marshland lies to the north and Long Island Sound to the south. The coastline has an unobstructed orientation to the southeast. There is a sandy 76 beach throughout the area, averaging about 100 feet wide between shorefront properties and the Sound. A total of 203 dwellings are located within the study area: 107 shorefront structures and 96 landward of Shore Road and Groveway. About one-half of the structures located landward of Shore Road and Groveway are assessed at less than $10,000. Most others are assessed at less than $20,000. The average as- sessment is about $13,000. Most structures are seasonal cottages and many are rentals. Lots range in size from one-tenth to two-tenths of an acre. Average total assessed value is about $33,000. Shorefront structures in the western portion of the study area are mostly sea- sonal, rental, beach cottages. Many lots contain more than one dwelling. Most structures are assessed at less than $20,000 with an average of about $18,000. Average total assessment is about $53,000. Shorefront structures in the east-, ern portion of the study area are generally year-round dwellings-and assessed over $20,000. Public access to the beach in the western portion of the study area is currently provided from Shore Road at about 100 feet intervals. However, no public park- ing is available. The Town of Clinton expressed only a modest interest in ac- quiring properties in this area. It felt that 400 to 500 feet of beach frontage would be needed in order to develop a public beach area. Potential Damage Assessment The FEMA-designated V-zone extends along Shore Road in the western part of the study area, but does not include any of the shorefront properties along Groveway. The base flood elevation is 11 feet. Ground elevation of the shorefront properties seaward of Shore Road and Groveway range from about 6.5 feet to 9 feet with the higher elevations found at the middle of the study area. Most dwellings were raised an average of one to two feet above grade. Scattered structures and small groupings of structures throughout the V-zone were estimated by the Phase II methodology to have high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility. 7 7 on the marsh side of Shore Road and Groveway, ground elevations range from a low* of about four feet near the intersection of Causeway and Shore Road/Groveway, to a high of approximately 10 feet in the middle of the study area. Two structures at the low point were estimated to have high potential for Section 1362 eligi- bility because they were elevated only slightly above grade. Conclusions Although a number of properties throughout the V-zone were estimated to have high potential for Section 1362 eligibility, their scattered location does not meet town desires for a 400 to 500 feet contiguous beachfront area. Because of this scatter and the relatively low interest. by the town in this area, it does not appear suitable for future Section 1362 application. 78 FIGURE 20: LOCATION OF CEDAR ISLAND, HARBOR VIEW, AND CLINTON BEACH AREAS IN CLINTON ( 4 LO a7 L 7-t- -@& - - - : "- 1 ,, - 5 JJ ..... . -,7 A 21 < 41* qrs 00 to Of eat -6 er `4 C., 5- r .......... P@ 6 ee/' r Pockl'i@. arr'r"Oc N '6i5 P! vvest,?Ock'_ eis., ISLANI Study Area Scale 1:24,000 79 ................ ............. ......... .. . ....... I-E 6A@N D 8 ASSCSS0R-'S LOr NVA48,CR- ASSEssoo-'s sLocx Am. TAv ASS--C5A-IEJ%JT PATA PkESENMY LWAVAII-ABL.R' ONE sTOXY1,tAs--mr-t4r 1014 C] ONE STIORY DW--LL1.-161A(O SASEMEMr- -rWo SrOP-Ir J>LVZL.LJAlCv1,VO,8AS--A4'ON1- rwo 6roR.Y1BAscr,,fam7-, NOTE, SYMOOLS FO& DWE"IWC-5 AME Sr-WF-FAATtC A14D T#"JS DO NOT SWOVV ACTVAL- 5 IXM. SHArr., opt wcATiow ON Lor APPZOXIMArr= i.Ajvz>WAeo Zx7wAIr Op v-zovK PROP@=RTIRES ESTMYATED BY IMI-rZA& 6CeUJFAINV6 AS NOr NAVIAfc* Nlroli P07'EW'rlAi- FORL, FillUR-Z /J62 r4f-1&181l-jrY FR-DP--X7-1X 9F ESTimA7-" BY PHASE lr Ha-rjqapo4Lo4&w *s MAVIIJ& jWlCrM POTOP477AL JCOR FUrUR-E* /"Z CLjoGhS/L/r-Y ARa'A POTAV-rmi-i-Y 50/7,481-E FOR FVTvzF- A CQUISIrloAl Ar fp 0( V-ZO1649 0 lk 64 C3 63 KE F Ro AD C3 89 59 ROAD u N C A 5 zzzzzz C3 z PARKWAY HAMMOCK z 0 PARKWAY m: m 54 SOUTvi 253 25? cl 256 EJ El 251 259 0230 ASSrssoels i-or Nt 260 'rA)e ASSESSMEX/r PR-c$&lvrA.Y LIAIAVA ONE srczey DWA-44L 249 T-wo srop-y PVVE" No"T9, Syt4L&OLS Vp a 249 !t!or-st4ow 262 247 APPJevx/mAr0 CA EI p-gopoarl'Es Zcsrhl HiGH P07JZ4/r/Al- PXOPEXT106 EST 213 ,MAVI#4rw 1414;w POT AX---A *-OrX"-rfAj- E A S T ASSKSSOR-'S.,Lor 4vA4-6JrR. A(V- Me A55ESSMEMT PATA pkjgSKAjrjy U^1AVAII-ASLW 4& OAr Srogy pWcj-L1Ao,&1NO SASEA4svr C3 Ome sroxyloAsEmp-Awr -rwo 45T-OR rwo 6ripRy1AASAFAfK?4T' 4), Wo,tilt SYMBOLS Foe cowa:"#" -64SMA-rLC AND T"VS 00 Nor 614OW AGTVAL- 51Q.11@4AAr-. op_ L.OCATIOM ON Lor APPROXIMAM AAAIDWAAD zicromr 0.= v-.XOAIE peop_wq-rj-=S --SrIAMTKo DV'WMIAL- 64clefirON/NS A5 JV&r HA vWem Nlc,,q po-rm",rIAA_ pop_ paTuAc /jG2 FLIerl4quary -bell ptopeATIOS OSTil-fAreD BY PMASM Ir 14STMODOA-04r -43 ANe FUrfIRE /"Z AR--A POTN"TIAI-1-Y Wl'rA8L.E PV& FVTUJerz ACQVISIrIO.Al 133 oo tit ob 0 db IS ov@ op 'brb 0 lb it qh V-ZDN-- 82 WESTBROOK Two areas in Westbrook were identified; Grove Beach and West Beach (see Figure 24). GROVE BEACH General Description Grove Beach is located a short distance along the coastline east of Clinton Beach and just east of the Westbrook town line. The study area includes about 3,000 feet of shoreline. The beach is relatively wide especially in the western and central portions of the study area where it is at least 100 feet wide. The area is oriented to the south, and some protection from storm waves is afforded by an offshore breakwater. West of Riverview Road is a land con- tact formation. East of Riverview the study area is a barrier beach, backed by a salt marsh and extending to the mouth of Mennunketesuck River. The eastern boundary of the study area is marked by a jetty protecting the channel that leads to the boatyards found in the mouths of the Mennunketesuck and Patchogue Rivers (which have a common outlet to the sound through this channel). The study area contains 64 structures, including 48 shorefront structures (see Figure 25). Most of the shorefront structures are built on the area that would apparently be the natural dune line. There is a mixture of year-round and sea- sonal dwellings. The year-round dwellings occur mostly at the eastern end of the study area, some smaller beach cottages are present at the western end of the study area (west of Elm Street). Most of the homes are elevated on piers. A portion of Grove Beach is owned by the town. There are three active beach associations in the area. The area is regularly flooded at high tide, and ero- sion is a significant.problem. Many residents evacuated the area two years ago during a winter storm. No homes were lost, but extensive damage to foundations and seawalls occurred. The state has expressed an interest in owning recreation land in this area. Al- though the town is not actively seeking property in the area, it would not turn away additional beach frontage that became available and would welcome additional 83 land that could be used for parking adjacent to the existing town beach. Almost all of the lots are less than 1/10 of an acre in size. The assessed values are generally less than $12,000 although there are some higher. Potential Damage Assessment Westbrook is still in the Emergency Phase of the Flood Insurance Program and the V-zone has not been mapped. For purposes of this study, the V-zone was assumed to extend along Old Mail Trail and Beachway Road. The lowest grade elevations are found on the western end of the study area, in the area with the least expensive homes. Summer cottages in this area have elevations ranging from approximately 6 foot grade with first floors elevated about 3 feet, to approximately 3.5 fool: grade elevation with first floors raised 5 to 7 feet. Grade elevation for beachfront homes in the rest of the study area to the east are in the 6.5 to 7 foot range with grades between 7 and 8 feet at the eastern end of the study area. Most of the homes are raised 2 to 4 feet above grade with several raised significantly higher. Only scattered properties throughout the area were estimated by the Phase II methodology as having high potential for meeting Section 1362 eligibility cri- teria. Conclusions Access into the area for any public recreation beach would appear to present problems because of the narrow roads. Because of possible access problems, active beach associations, limited town interest, and only scattered properties with high potential, the area does not appear suitable for future Section 1362 acquisition by either the town or the state. WEST BEACH General Description The West Beach area is a barrier beach formation backed by salt marsh and the Patchogue River. The coastline is oriented to the southeast. The study area includes 45 structures on the beach side of Seaside Avenue and 45 structures on the marsh side of Seaside Avenue as it runs west to east from Pilots Point Road 84 on the west to Post Avenue on the east (see Figure 261. The structures in the West Beach study area are almost all summer cottag es with the exception of a small group (12 structures) of year-round homes fronting the Sound in the Coral Sands section (-just west of the paved parking are for the public beach). The shorefront homes in this group are built right on the beach, very close to the shoreline. Grade elevation on the Sound side of Seaside Avenue gradually increases from west to east across the study area. In the area of the summer cottages, the grade ranges from approximately 6 to 7 feet. In the central Coral Sands area (year-round houses) the grade increases to about 9 feet. The summer cottages are raised on the average about 3 feet above grade; the year-round group about 2 feet above grade. A separate group of summer cottages is located on the marsh side of Seaside Avenue in the Coral Sands section. The cottages are on small lots, most less than .1 acre, extending into the marsh. All of these structures are.assessed at less than $10,000, most in the $4,000 to $6,000 range. Almost all are elevated on piers. Most were built during the 1950's. Structures are generally elevated 4 to 6 feet above grade, and grade elevations decrease away from the road to less than 5 feet above mean sea level at the north end. These structures were built prior to zoning regulations established in 1956, and they pose a poten- tially serious problem with inadequately functioning septic systems, particularly when flood waters are impounded in the area for a long time. Also included in the study area is the row of structures extending from the group of cottages described above eastward to Post Avenue,. The grade here gradually rises from about 6.5 feet at the western portion to-over 8 feet at the eastern end with individual structures raised 3 to 4 feet. Most of these structures are seasonal and almost all are assessed at less than $10,000. Current assessments represent 65 percent of 1971 market value. Revaluation is presently beingdone which will be based on 70 percent of current market value. The present mill rate is 38.00. 85 Potential Damage Assessment Westbrook is in the Emergency Phase of the Flood Insurance Program, and the 'V-zone has not been mapped. For purposes-of this study the V@zone was assumed to extend to Seaside Avenue. None of the structures north of Seaside Avenue were estimated by the Phase II methodology to have high potential for meeting Section 1362 eligibility criteria. A fairly large grouping of structures west of the existing town beach and parking area are estimated to have high potential (others without high potential are interspersed within this group of structures). Conclusions The area immediately west of the existing town beach and parking area to Pilot Point Drive includes several properties; estimated to have high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility and Would provide a convenient expansion of the existing town beach. Therefore, the area appears suitable for future applica- tion of Section 1362, perhaps in combination with other sources of funds. Total assessed value of properties in this area is $319,570. The amount of annual. real estate tax revenue to the town is $12,144. 86 FIGURE 24: LOCATION OF GROYE BEACH AND WEST BEACH AREAS IN WESTBROOK T, w 1 17 V!00 IM Q@z 10 A 35. Scale 1:24,000 7N NNINi S u d A r e a V w1u.. it N IN -Sol UNCAS RDA GROVE BEACH JkOAo 71 T. 0 m 06 0 C 7 0 P Quor s-jFtEE TR4#t SLUFF 163 *3 C. Es we 0 a r3 fn on 0 vwis E9 0 IVATE RD. IONEER ROAD E8 BEACH 0 N5 No fur vp 10 rl I Lo ML 3 N4 43 Me 9 It? TR41L tjlo 17 iva @3 Q 0 AIIS NI GROVE BEACH is 19 A 3 5 a 9 A12 3 OLD 3 0 0 ISL41VO V,E,, /3 GROVE BEACH GROVE BEACH TER'RACE L 0 IV G GROVE S 4 D ASSKSSOeS Lor NvA48,oZk ASSESSORL'S 8,L00C AM. W- rA)f ASSESSME"r ENATA PJt5SXAjr,LY LWAVAII-ADI-S' ov.- sroey owei-L-m,61Aeo &AsmA4rwr om-- srox-eleAsemps"r Two sroelrPwz, -1 1.v&/,vo aAsxAfomr rwo srop-v,/aAszwavr NO-tity SY FOIL PWIKLAJNC.5 AME SCH&M - A14D TOUS 00 SHOW ACTUAL- Sixrt. SMArr-,Om 9-OCATiopi oP4 L-ar APPJe&)CIMA,rr= LAjvvWAeo ZxrAwr oo= V-ZOjW6 0 PAoPsariES ESrwArffo swAvrrIAL. 64,eWJWN1)V& AJN&r NAvl"C. M.,CrM Po-rMvrlAA- POJZ ParvAtig, ij62 r.L1&i81wry PXOPEXTIMS ESTIMATED SY PMASE = 14"IYODOL04le AS MAVIJVCw 1414M POTMA/r/AL. Coe j=U7(/,ef-r 1-4.62. AR-@EA POTC"'rlALjv LWI'rA8LC POe FUTURCL A61?V151rfoA1 88 093 Eli a lWrJ E.0 Ell too Woo a Woo w,c) ED CJ E ED 11 Ell] cl ty z ao .,Q ".) Wag (d 3 r) Es We Ld z CL O'l oft 43 C3 LL #0 C3 MAY cOjt4L '-SANDS W E S T L 0 N ZN D AssKssogt i-or NuA48AM ASSESSORL'S AM- MC ASSJICSMKJVT OATA mrsat4rme ilAlAvA',LABLw 13 viv-- SrOe-e Owl-l- L/Af&/A(D SASE"A" r' C3 OjvLr srOcy1*Asemaivr 0 TWO smity PWzA.LiAF&114o sAsrAfaNr 0 rwv 5roav1AASArMa)V-r Pa. VWmLAJwG5 Alta SGH FOAA-m AND T"VS M, Zmr _rIOILE@"liN 20L I-OCATIONI-oN L-or APPZOXIMATJE I.AJVDWAeD ZxrAwr OF v-zomg PROPiFaTINS 5Sr/*4ArJW AY.PVrr,1A1_ ASNOr NA-11"6 MICrM P07AWrlAA- POAL FarvAtc j.062 EL1&1Sa_irr p,COp,ff^'rjX 6 JESTIMATF-0 BY PMASM Z' 14XTHOV0,LOfv1r AS MAVIVCw 01" $107AWr/Al- FOR FU'rvR.E 1-462- r-i-ilgiOl"ry AR-Z4 pOrjC"r1Ai.,LV` WITABLE FOZ FUTC1,erm ACM115 lrl*Al 89 OLD SAY13ROOK Three areas were identified in Old Saybrook: Chalker Beach, Great Hammock Beach and Plum Bank Beach (see Figure 27). CHALKER BEACH General Description The study area is located east of Westbrook Harbor and includes all of the struc- tures in the Chalker Beach area between Cold Spring Brook on the west and the end of Bel-Aire Drive on the east and is bounded on the north by the approximate land- ward extent of the VZ-zone,*approximately 200 feet inland of Beach Road (see Figure 28). (Saybrook Manor area and Nehantic Trail area are not included in this study area.) This is a barrier beach formation backed by wetland with landward development on artificial fill. The shoreline has an unobstructed orientation to the southwest. There is a 200 foot long by 100 foot wide existing recreational beach area. The remaining beach area is relatively narrow but widens in the eastern part of the study area in the Bel-Aire Drive section. The study area includes 100 structures. Two different subareas within the study area can be identified. East of Bliss Street is a group of 22 structures that are relatively more expensive and are built on slightly higher grade elevation than the rest of the study area. This appears to be predominantly a year-round se ction. Most of these structures are assessed in the $@0,000 to $30,000 range average structure asssessment is about $29,000. Average total assessment in t-h-is subgroup is about $59,000. Of the 78 remaining structures -- mostly summer cottages, elevated on piers -- most are assessed at less than $15,000. The aver- age total assessment is $31,000. Assessments represent .70 percent of 1979 mar- ket values. The mill rate is 20.8., Most of the seasonal cottages were built in the 1920's and 1930's. It is highly vulnerable to flooding and was damaged severely in 1938. Most of the cottages have been in the same family for at least a generation and there is little turn- over. The Chalker Beach Association has been active in representing the interests of the residents in recent discussion of a community septic system. SIO Acquisition in the Chalker Beach or Saybrook Manor areas would meet town needs either for additional beach property or for additional access to the Sound. According to officials interviewed, the town would be interested in any Chalker Beach properties voluntarily offered for sale following severe flood damage, The town has a need for additional beach areas, established by a study commis- sioned by the town's beach study commission in the 1970's. Chalker Beach is physically the best beach area in town -- it is wide, sandy, and has good depth at low tide. Beach erosion only occurs during storms with a strong southwest wind; most often the beach is in an accretion area. Though Chalker Beach itself would make an admirable site for a public beach, there would be some access and parking problems. The town has only two boat launches, of which only one is open to the public; accordingly, public., access for an additional boat launch would serve an important community.need. The town would not, according to officials interviewed, use its power of emi- nent domain to acquire properties adjacent to eligible properties to make a suit- able reuse area; it believes that its aggressive evacuation policy during severe storms removes any threat to life and the threat of property damages or need for public recreational areas are not sufficient justification for taking people's property. Potential Damage Assessment Grade elevations throughout the study area are low. Shorefront structures are built right on the beach system and these structures are on the highest grade ele- vation in the study area -- what would appear to correspond to the natural loca- tion of the dune line. The elevation of the shorefront structures is approximately six feet in the area west of Cranton Street. East of Cranton Street, the grade rises to over eight feet in the shorefront area of Bel-Aire Drive. Landward of Bel-Aire Drive grade elevation decreases but is still within the range of six to seven feet. Landward of Beach Road elevations are significantly lower, especially to the west of Chalker Beach Road. Grade elevation of structures landward of Beach Road are generally in the four to six foot range. Most of the cottages are raised two to three feet above grade on piers. The Phase II methodology estimated that almost all of the structures in the study area have potential for future Sec- tion 1362 eligibility. Conclusions Because the town has a high interest in developing a public recreation beach in this area, and because almost all of the properties have a high potential, the entire area appears suitable for application of the Section 1362 program. The assessed value of the entire area is $3,755.560. Annual real estate taxes to the town are $78,116. GREAT HAMMOCK BEACH General Description Great Hammock Beach is an extremely low and flat area south of Oyster River. The study area includes all of the structures located between Plum Bank Road (State Rt. 154) and the Sound. It is bounded on the north by the mouth of Indiantown Harbor and on the south by the outlet of Plum Bank Creek (see Figure 29). The study area includes 82 mostly seasonal structures, all of which are within the mapped V-zone. -Most of the structures are assessed in the $10,000 to $20,000 range -- more than half are assessed at less than $15,000. Average assessment is about $15,000. Average total assessment is about $32,000. Great Hammock Beach is the most vulnerable of the Old Saybrook beaches due to its southwestern exposure. Numerous private groins and seawalls line the beach in this area. Because the beaches are so shallow, they'are good for small children. Only a few of the cottages on Great Hammock Beach are winterized. The town needs additional land for beaches and beach parking facilities. The town also needs additional boat access points to the shore . Acquisition may also help protect the extensive state-owned marshlands across Plum Beach Road -- a critical natural area identified by the DEP wildlife unit. According to officials interviewd, the town would be interested in any Great Ham- mock properties voluntarily offered for sale following severe flood damage. How- ever, such voluntary sales would likely be rare according to town officials, and the town would not use its power of eminent domain to acquire additional proper- ties to make a suita ble reuse area. 92 Potental Damage Assessment All of the structures are located within the FEMA-designated V-zone. The base flood elevation is 11 feet. Grade elevation throughout the study area is rela- tively very low, particularly in the Barnes Road area where shorefront structures are built right on the beach, very close to the water and on grades generally less than five feet. Landward elevations are also generally less than five feet. Most of the structures in the area are elevated on piers. Structures in the Barnes Road area are generally elevated four to five feet above grade. The re- mainder of the structures are generally elevated one to three feet above grade. The Phase II methodology estimated that all structures in this area have high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility. Conclusions Because all of the structures in this -area have high potential and there is in- terest by both the town and the state in acquiring property in this area, it appears to be suitable for application of Section 1362. Since the Chalker Beach area and Plum Bank Beach area (see following discussion) are both suggested for town application of Section 1362, the Great Hammock Beach area is suggested as being most appropriate for state use as an expansion.of its holdings in the marsh- land across the road. Total assessed value of all properties in the area is $2,613,360. Annual real estate taxes to the town are $54,358. PLUM BANK BEACH General Description This area is just south of Great Hammock Beach on the same southwest oriented shoreline. This is a barrier beach backed by extensive wetlands owned by the state. The study area extends southward from the. mouth of Plum Bank Creek to the end of Plum Bank Road (State Route 154) and includes 54 structures between the Sound and Plum Bank Road -- 47 of these structures are considered to be in the V-zone (see Figure 30). The structures in this area are a mixture of year-round and seasonal dwellings. More than half of the structures are assessed at less than $20,000; several, how- ever, are assessed at over $30,000. Average structure assessment is about $23,000. 93 This is a strip of shorefront approximately 1/2 mile long. Located in the mid- dle is a town beach, Houses are not built as close to the shoreline as in Great Hammock Beach but the beach area here is relatively narrow, particularly in the area south of the public beach where numerous private groins have been built to trap sand. The town would also be interested in any available properties at Plum Bank Beach for expanded beach area and parking facilities. The state has indicated interest in the entire area to help protect the marsh. Potential Damage Assessment Grade elevations are higher here than in the,other two Old Saybrook study areas. North of the town beach there is a low area immediately on the shore side of Route 154. The structures, however, are built on higher ground closer to the Sound. There is a high point in the northern part of the study area where grade elevation of the shorefront structures are greater than 10 feet. Structures in this area are raised only about 0 to one foot above grade. South of this high point grade elevations range fron six to.nine feet and structures in this area are raised two to three feet above grade. South of the town beach grade elevations of the shorefront structures range from six to eight feet until the topography begins to rise approximately 300 feet from the end of Plum Bank Road. Structures south of the beach area are only 0 to one foot above grade. The Phase II methodology estimated that 23 structures in the study area have high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility. These include a large, almost contiguous group near the south end of the study area, a small group immediately adjacent to the existing town beach, and some additional properties in the northern part of the study area. Conclusions Two groupingsof properties appear suitable for Section 1362 application to assist the town in expanding its public beach areas. The small group of high-potential properties north and south of the existing town beach could be used to expand the town beach. The larger group of high-potential properties at the southern end of 94 the study could be used to develop a new public beach, Total assessed value of the 14 properties at the southern end is $832,270 and annual real estate taxes are $17,311. Total assessed value of the four properties adjacent to the town beach is $219,930 and annual taxes are $4,574. 95 FIGURE 27: LOCATION OF CHALKER BEACH, GREAT HAMMOCK BEACH, AND PLUM BAN-k BEACH AREAS IN OLD SAYBROOK rodav, Uo M 7 @u N", H -50- Af 0 @OA L it ifft- 'Aml 0 a xx e-r lrtdv@n A 7m' 7:LY, Scale 1:24,000 Study Area N IS4 Willard Bay Cr po. le/d lf)t" 96 AVENUE GARDEN T" R E 7r. ALLADIN M rn S-TREET w ME DOW C0 w 0 w cn rn .7. HAG40 . . .......... .. .. .... .... .. . .... .... ....... .... ... L 0 N G SL AND ASSAESS09.15 OLD" ASS05SOAS )-Or rA)c ASSASSMEJ-fr DATA masnivmY mf4AyAll-AALW C] opvr 5roe-e pwei.Lnva@lAto aAsamamr SrvAce1*ASHA4F-"r Two 6rojtv pK@wA."Aftplnv fiAsKAjamr rvvv 6rvJtY18A5ArWKM7- LS Foa 0!!t Mto ScHrEmAlric AND TOVS -00 tLW,741w. St4APX. OR. t-OCATIOM OW L-Olr APPMOXIMATZ LAMPWAARD oicrAwr oF v-7-OmE PaoPoartaS a5rmfArgo MY PJ/7'/A& 6cAtrKAt1,*49 AS JV&r loAvl)VCw ,Wj&Aj Po-rffNrIA,6 PDAL J-OrVAC IA62 EA.1&181,LlrY p,t*p,ff^-rlA94T 207-IMAr4W SY PMASE Jr NXTHOD04.0tiv- AS 0 /662. mAvlAfrw ot" PwrarAinAl- j:Vjt FvrvA AjvgA porAwvA&.&v AvirABLIC AM FUT(I&A Acm/,f5,,r'c,,w 97 11 ASSCSSOR-11 -or "t1m8K& ASSessox's SLoe-< AM. W TAX ASSESS"EMr DATA PR_M5&;VT,LY L1"AVAI"VLR` ci oN-- s roe Y Dw--L sAsramam r olve srocy1*As_-mxvr rwo sroxy PwzA_"N&1,vv sAs_-AiaNr rWV 67VRZY1OAS&.AfK"7- NOTE, SYMAD LS FOJL OWF-"IWG-, AIM SC.WaMA-M AND TOWS COO NOT SHOW ACTUAL- SIZF-. SMAfri, OIL L@DCAMOM ON LOr APPROXIMAT-W I.AAvWARD zierW"r CW V-ZOP45 PROPERTIRES ESr/A4ArKV AYWMIAL. 6C-CV&AffAoS ASIVOr HAvIA.,Cv H/&R- Po'r=v'rIAA- POP- F07700-S' 062 FLJ&,,8lLirY PR.DPO^'rljff6 ESTIMAT" -BY PHASE JX M&-rMoDo4LOfvv' .45 MAVIAla WCrM PcrraA/'r.*Ai- FOR FU'r(IR-E /-462- ZL44151LIrY AM-CA Por,9"rlAj.A.Y w/rAsLs- Foe FuTup-r. Acaillsirlo" 22 98 00 :g:a ..... .... ........... Rog= ........... . . . . ..... . .I 0 31 32 33 34 33 36 44 . 41k* 4t 48 47 49 27 4 45 46 So 22 fto4b 51 21 20 3 14 24 PLUM cl .............. ............ 14 U 13U @4 LON G I S L A N D ASSXSS0.CIsLor mome" ASSESSOAtS SLO" AM. my AWEcsm&vr DATA MRS,w/vr.Lv' LoPAIAVA1,LADLC otv-- sroey PWCLLfAid@1Af0 sAsamam rQ ome srojty1sAs--mF-jvr Two s rojev. p,,wtAjv&/Am mAsrAfp-vr rwo 6rcRY1SASArAfV"7- NOW; SYMAOLS FOIL DWF-"I#J&2 AME w-i4rm^lrW- A14D T"QS 00 Nor SHOW ACTUAL- 51XK. S14AIPX, QF- WCATIOM ON I@Or APPROXIMArg I-ANDWARD Exrmmr OP v-xONK 0 PROP0,erloS SSr/HArgo AV04MIAL 6Ce@MWINS A5140r HAVIMS HICrM Po-rAWrlAi- PVP- jcOrt/AC M62 Ei-I&ISALiry pxopo,t TIJK 6 ESTIMAr" OY PNASK Ir MATH0001-04W AS MAVIJVCw olaM FcrrffAl'r1Al- FOP. 'FUrIVAZE J"X ZlJCI8ILlr'Y AR-.EA PorCAff1At.&,V 6&lr.*SLC ;::'OP- FUTURE .4Cg?VlSlrf*Al 99 OLD LYME Two areas in Old Lyme were selected for detailed study; Hawks Nest and Sound View (see Figure 31). HAWKS NEST General Description This study area is located on an approximately half-mile long barrier beach for- mation that is backed by marshland. The shoreline fronting Long Island Sound is oriented towards the southeast, and there are no offshore obstructions to storm waves. There is a fairly large groin field, and the beach is good for swimming. The study area is bounded on the west by Mile Creek and on the east by Hawks Nest Road. (See Figure 32.) The study area contains 85 dwellings. Although most of these structures are seasonal, rental cottages, they all appear to be well-maintained@. Most of these cottages are@own6d by one family. Conversation with the owner revealed that, for economic reasons, he has decided not to purchase flood.insurance for these rental cottages. Structures in the study area may be divided into subgroups. In the eastern part of the study area are smaller, one-story seasonal rental cottages -- most assess- ed at less than $15,000. There is a smaller middle group of about seven year- round structures, ea ch of which is assessed at over $20,000. The largest sub- group is composed of the remaining 59 structures, most fronting the Sound, sea- sonal, and generally more substantial than the cottages in the eastern part of the area. The average structure assessment in this subgroup is approximately $19,000. Old Lyme has taken a hard line against rebuilding substantially damaged beach- front structures -- it feels that such structures should not be rebuilt. To pre- vent such rebuilding, the zoning enforcement officer has determined that the re- quirement for a floodproofed septic system cannot be met in a coastal high hazard area. 100 Potential Damage Assessment The base flood elevation is 11 feet. The V-zone boundary follows West End Avenue from west to east. As the road begins to curve inland in the eastern part of the study area, the V-zone does not followthe road but instead continues eastward approximately 150 feet inland of the shoreline. Sixty-six structures are estimated to be in the V-zone. Shorefront homes are built right on the beach system with generally less than 100 feet between the house and the shoreline. Grade elevations for the shorefront cottages forming the largest subgroup is generally in the range of 7 to 9 feet. Grade elevation increases to over 10 feet in the central year-round area and then decreases slightly to the east edge of the study area. Almost all of the seasonal dwellings are elevated on piers. Most of the structures are elevated, on the average of about 2 feet above grade level. The Phase II methodology identifies scattered one-story structures in the V-zone as having high potential for future Section 1362 eligibility. Conclusion Officials of the Town of Old Lyme noted the usefulness of an additional town beach in the Hawks Nest area. However, because only scattered properties were estimated to have high potential and because most of the structures in the area are unlikely to be covered by flood insurance, the area does not appear suitable for applica- tion of the Section 1362 program. SOUND VIEW General Description This study area is located just to the east of Hawks Nest on a land contact beach area and adjacent shorelands. The shoreline is oriented to the south and there are no offshore obstructions to stormwaves. Almost all of the structures are seasonal; some have been recently renovated but others are poorly maintained. The area is densely developed and the focal point of the area is the public beach .101 located at the end of Hartford Ave. The study area is bisected by Hartford Ave. which in the summer is the entertainment strip for what becomes a crowded resort area. (See figure 33.) Of the 64 shorefront structures (between Pond Rd. and Hartung Place and the Sound) a few individual structures are assessed at over $30,000 each but many are assessed at $10,000 or less. Most are assessed at less than $15,000. Some of the shorefront structures are in a seasonal, commercial use. Potential Damage Assessment The base flood elevation is 11 feet and for the purpose of estimating potential damage, the 64 shorefront dwellings were treated as if they were in the V-zone. The landward extent of the mapped V-zone passes through the interior of the shore- front lots, approximately midway between Pond Rd. and Hartung Place and the shore- line. For purposes of estimating potential damage, all structures on the shore- front lots were considered to be subject to wave damage (in the V-zone). The first row of structures fronting the Sound are built on the beach system. The beach is relatively wide -- in most places over 100 feet. High grade elevations between Pond Rd. and Hartung Rd. and the s horeline were found to be generally within the seven. to eight feet range. Most of the struc- tures are raised above grade on piers. Most of the structures are raised about two feet above grade. Throughout the V-zone the Phase II methodology has identi- fied scattered structures as having high potential for future 1362 eligibility. A small group of contiguous structures adjacent to the town beach are estimated to have high potential. West of Hartford Ave. and just landward of the shorefront structures, grade ele- vation decreases significantly to low points estimated at less than four feet along Pond Rd. Grade elevations rise slightly north of Pond Rd. but elevations in this area (north of Pond Rd. - west of Hartford Ave.) remain generally low; the lowest in the study area. DeSpitE@ the low elevations, structures here are not estimated to have high potential for future 1362 eligibility, primarily be- cause the area is out of the V-zone. East of Hartford Ave. and landward of the shorefront structures, grade elevations do not drop off as significantly as they do in the Pond Rd. area. Hartung Place 102 is at roughly equal elevation to the shorefront grade and north of Hartung Place grade elevations remain relatively high in comparison to.the area west of Hart- ford Ave. Conclusions The town owns vacant lots in the study area which it rents for parking, but a shortage of parking areas limits the beach's use. It is a good swimming beach with better road access than White Sands and Hawks Nest Beaches. In the early 1970's a redevelopment plan was proposed for the area, but the voters turned it down decisively. By acquiring properties in Sound View, the town could extend a popular town beach. Additional parking facilities would also be needed if the beach were expanded. Old Lyme officials expressed interest in acquiring properties in Sound View, although residents are unlikely to want to sell if they are allowed to rebuild. The areas adjacent to the Town Beach at the south end of Hartford Ave. appear suitable for future application of the Section 1362 program. WE". vim rt (f) c m 0) \wx 0 D it .1 ou(s aT % v W!A cc) 2 oaltwurK Ft nds. each 06 38 41 30 HEMLOCK CIR 'E,* lie 0 120 lie. j%q jk [3 109 08 103 87 1 1 1 60 be 49 120 A as C3 C3 r"O-END- 02 $16 lis 00 00 0 0 Li .................. n U n 114 11, 110 1 '04 94 El 0 00 0 0 89 60 T9 71 62 43 L 0 N G I S L A N D 4SSE"SSoP-!5 Lor 14vA48AM gmo" Ao% rAic ASS--csMFsjr pATA PX-KSKAirA-Y IWAVAII-AZI-C C1 O'V-' -5T*O'ey ZAsEmam r L3 om-- sroc-e1oAs--mF-,vr 0 Two sroky J>wxAuv&/,vo aAscmaNr 0 rwo 6,rc,p-Y15AS&,WCI47- NOTES SYMADILS F&& ARE SCH&MATiC. AND T"VS 00 NOT-.P-N0WACTVIkL- Sxu.S4Arr-.op-L-ocA-rt5Q ow-Lor APPJeOXI-%,IAr4m LANDWARjo ZxrAwr Cw v-xoma PRoP-'J'r'fS ESrI"fATJC0 AV-PV/'r/A& 6Ce&-9w-v/N6 ASJV&r "AvlAoiew "fe-H PO-rm"rlAl- POR, FdrVjZZ /J62 _c4t&ISm-iry AtOPEATIO 6 ESTIMAT&O gy pMASE Ir 14&TH*9>0&.0CIr AS PAV1JVCw 041Co PaTm.44r/AL FOR 'F(JrVAE 1-46Z A)P---A PorR"rjALLv 5&1rA8J-E FOR FUTURCE ACQVISIrloAl rAle A35AC%j6fChfr VATA C) ovr :sroeY PweLLAo,6@lmo aAs&xtxvr Ome 5r*Pt-el8AsrA4F-Vr- 0 7WO SrOXV- PWEA.LJN&1JVV AA5K't4SNr rwv 6'rOP-V/,8ASAr"JrAE`r NO,Wr SYmAcELS, Foa OW9"I"125 Alcir 6CwrmA'VW- AMP TWYS DO No T ji% I i.Kq @g;Arx,ort 1.01SATIolki ON 1.0r APPROXIMA'M LAA.,,pWARD zxrz"r oo= v-.co)vAZ ZSrwAraa AgleAvIvIAL. A5*vdwr HAvimg HI&AO P07AWriAi- POA F&lArve',c #,.li62 RL1*145i4irv P,eDPZA'rl,& 6 F-s7/MAr" VY PmAsli jr A;,*V.$Alrw OW44'oW P070AMAL iFZOQ I=UTV&g i-14-PZ AmwrotOll-17-y AJIWA POrAiC"-r,'Allv- FO& FVT(/gZ ACQUASITtoAl 44 us LL 40 STREET LIBERTY sib ROA 239 3's A. 0 z 53 ca ra An 2A z li 0 9lo- Lzn 4x ICE c 29 133 2t WS 95 tv 14EE an* r-l 4, w US 43 3 --7Z4 046 Z2 ou Sol - 105 C3 ONE 5 roey PWA-L L/#v4rr/,vo &AsEmx" r a#v--.5rvcy1sAszmo"r -rW* SrOity- pv%orj.Ll*V4rr1NVAASKA-(AWr rwo 6r0JtY1XAS4rHJW141- 0 K)S 00 OLS F-oalo.wr-"' AXE SC,%4 M@A^TW- AMD L4o-- . 5 Arrw or_ L"ATIOW ON 1-07 APPROXIMAM LAmvWA.C0 zg-rcvr 0@= AVI'ri^&. 64oeCJ.-V1dVS AS &4Pr HAVIMG 14,4rrN PoTAwrlAs. Pop- tatirot a 1362 Z441&14@14lrY JMZWO)t TIA 6 ESTIMA'Mi> BY P14ASS JW PvTSPjrlAL. rOP FVT'VjCC /-46Z ZAJ41611-17-Y Ajt--A P07-JRf4-rlAl.&Y 6&1-r*8LC POC nrrVAJE ACQUISMOAl Lu Q co C.) S,rR,c T Ll ERTY MA lee C-772 0 12 34 IR ROAD 190 jst 200 fel 1*9 31D 0 209 0 0 291 E2 a 3*3 aos 153 [3CZ3 a 1141 w 4w -W 346 364 z f" w 2m q cl 233 (35 347 f- 03 411 9L Az 0 aft Ll 14. n w 333 143 a jpr Wo SOS ICA I S L A 0 I I I PART III I I I FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I I I I I I i 11 - 11 I .I I I 107 SUMMARY OF SECTION 1362 ELIGIBILITY FOR SELECTED AREAS As discussed in Part II, not all of the areas investigated as part of this study were judged to have high potential eligibility for acquisition under the Section 1362 program. Although all of the areas except Long Beach in Stratford had at least some properties with high potential for eligibility, in many areas these properties were widely scattered. In other areas, large groups of properties appear to have high potential for future eligibility, notably Cedar Island, Chalker Beach and Great Hammock Beach. Those areas with a high potential for Section 1362 eligibility are summarized in Table 5. Since information on flood insurance coverage of individual structures was not available, it has been assumed that the structures having high potential to meet the damage criteria will be covered by flood insurance. It is also difficult to judge the future willingness of owners to voluntarily sell their property if it and surrounding properties have been destroyed or severely damaged by a major flood. Although town officials varied in their assessments of the likelihood that property owners would voluntaril, sell, the general perception seemed to Y be that long-time residents would elect to stay while relative newcomers might be interested in selling. Some officials observed an increased turnover in properties following each significant flood. No systematic survey of property owners was conducted during the study, but mem- bers of the study team did talk with many residents who approached them during field surveys of the areas. These conversations with property owners did not reveal many who would definitely be interested in selling. A few people did state that immediately after a flood a lot of people would be willing to sell if offered a good price, but that within only a few days the desire to sell usually disappeared. Almost without exception, residents readily acknowledged that the areas were subject to frequent flooding. Somewhat less common was acknowledgment that property might be subject to total destruction or severe damage. A type of comment often heard was "You have to be crazy to live here!" However, this was usually expressed with considerable pride. Others commented that it was worth putting up with occasional flooding for the pleasure of living in such an 108 attractive area. Another frequently heard comment, especially by those not immediately on the beach, was "If I get flooded, the whole town will be under water". In some of the study areas, such as Clinton Beach in Clinton, that were reportedly "wiped out" during the 1938 hurricane (slightly less than a one percent flood), the Phase II methodology showed only a portion of the structures as having high potential for future section 1362 eligibility. Presumably, this is because the rebuilt structures were'elevated higher above grade and would not be subject to as severe wave impact-in another one percent flood. In general, structures were elevated above grade -- usually on piles or posts -- in relation to their exposure to wave impact and high water, but many exceptions exist. Almost all structures estimated by the Phase II methodology as having high poten- tial for future Section 1362 eligibility are in the V-zone. Structures outside the V-zone could qualify, under the methodology, only if estimated water depth above the first floor in the structure exceeded seven feet. A structure with a first floor elevation of only four feet, very close to the normal mean high tide level, could thus qualify only if the anticipated stillwater elevation exceeded 11 feet. According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, stillwater levels exceeding 11 feet during a one percent flood are anticipated in very few places outside V-zones along the Connecticut coast. The depth of water/percent damage tables used in this study do not relate the amounts of damage to differences in quality of construction. The tables are based on empirical data, so they presumably represent a range of type and quality of construction in the study areas, Although determinations were not made on an individual structure basis, it is of course likely that many poorly constructed structures would in fact be damaged more than comparable structures of sound construction. The estimates of potential for future eligibility do not include estimates of properties that could become eligible because of community enforcement of ordi- nances prohibiting rebuilding or permitting rebuilding only at significantly increased costs. As explained in the Phase II methodology, these ordinances in most communities have results very similar to those under other damage criteria. 109 TABLE 5: AREAS WITH HIGH POTENTIAL SUITABILITY FOR SECTION 1362 ACQUISITION Properties Having High Community or State Potential for Future Town/Areas Interest in Public Reuse Section 1362 Eligibility Norwalk Harborview Community boat launch as Group of 5 structures at recommended in 'town recrea- south end of Beach Road tion plan Fairfield Pine Creek Beach Provide parking and expand Group of about 15 contiguous existing town beach at end structures east of South Milford of South Pine Creek Road Pine Creek Road Cedar Beach Additional beach recrea- Two small groups of structures tion area for Milford at eastern and western ends of Cedar Beach Guilford Grass Island Develop state recreation Small groups and scattered and area adjacent to existing properties in both the Madison state boat launch Grass Island and Circle Circle Beach Beach areas Clinton Cedar Island Town recreation or expan- More than one-half of the sion of Hammonassett State structures on the island Park Harbor View Expand existing town beach Contiguous group of and marsh holdings and structures in northern develop as public beach. section Westbrook West Beach Expansion to existing town Small group of structures beach adjacent to existing town beach Old Saybrook Chalker Beach Additional public,beach Essentially all structures Great Hammock Expansion of state holding All structures Beach for wildlife protection or additional public beach for town Plum Bank Beach Expand existing town beach; Structures on both sides of additional town beach existing town beach; group of structures south of existing town beach Old Lyme Sound View Expand existing town beach Group of structures on both and provide par-king sides of existing town beach 110 IMPROVING OPPORTUNITIES FOR OBTAINING SECTION 1362 FUNDS The preceding section indicates that there are several developed floodprone areas along the Connecticut coast that could become eligible foracquisition under the Section 1362 program. Some of these areas appear most appropriate for the state to acquire and others for municipalities to acquire. In Part I of this report several existing state actions and requirements were listed that already in- crease the chances of flood damaged areas in Connecticut qualifying for Section 1362 funds. There are additional actions that can be taken by both the state and interested municipalities to increase their chances of actually receiving Section 1362 funds. Most of these actions would prove useful for the state and communities to pursue, even without consideration of improving their chances of receiving Section 1362 funding. ACTIONS TO TAKE BEFORE A FLOOD DISASTER OCCURS A. State of Connecticut 1. Amend the Connecticut SCORP to identify specific coastal flood hazard areas that the state is interested in acquiring when an opportunity may become available following a disastrous flood. Provide in the SCORP that prior funding commitments of federal and matching state funds can be modified to take advantage of the unique opportunities that may be presented at that time. 2. Proceed with the development of plans for the reuse of floodprone areas designated in the SCORP. 3. Proceed with acquisition of the highest priority floodprone area(s) designated in the SCORP even in the absence of a flood that makes some or all structures in the area eligible for Section 1362 funds. 4. Establish a record of strict enforcement of the new state building code (Section 743) requirements concerning construction in special flood hazard areas. 5. Encourage municipaiities to develop post-flood recovery and hazard mitigation plans and provide guidance for the development of these plans (see page 125 of this report). (Example - the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, through its Coastal Zone Management Program, has worked with several of its municipalities to develop hazard mitigation plans for areas with a high flood risk.) 6. Establish a program -- in cooperation with FEMA to aggressively promote the purchase of flood insurance by property owners and tenants in special flood hazard areas. (Example -- several states, using funds from the FEMA State Assistance program, are developing strong public awareness programs including information on the avail- ability of flood insurance.) 7. Establish legislation that would require all real estate agents to inform prospective purchasers and renters that the property is in a special flood hazard area. (Example - Santa Clara County, California requires that property buyers be provided a written statement of flood hazards and landslide and seismic risk. Realtor associations have prepared maps and other materials to assist real estate agents in complying with the law.) 8. Establish a state requirement of a minimum set-back from mean high water or the first dune line for all new construction or substantial improvements. (Example - Florida has enacted a Coastal Construction Setba ck Line Law in order to "prevent beach encroachment that would endanger the existing beach dune system and to help prevent existing and future structures from being unreasonably subject to great and irreparable harm".) 9. CAM, in cooperation with the state Civil Preparedness office, encourage coastal communities to develop improved programs of flood warning and evacuation. (Example - Florida has used the FEMA State Assistance Program to re-evaluate the hazard mitigation program for the City of Sanibel, including procedures for total evacuation.) 112 10. Continue to request that FEMA improve its procedures for making flood insurance claims data available to the state, and use the data to: a. Identify the areas that receive flood damage from different levels of storms. (Example - North Dakota has also requested insurance claims data from FEMA to assist in developing a history of flood damages in selected communities.) b. Develop depth of water/percent damage tables specifically appli- cable to Connecticut flooding and construction i. structures not built in conformance with minimum FEMA regulations ii. structures built in conformance with minimum FEMA regulations. (Example - Using a FEMA grant the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council under contract to the Florida Bureau of Disaster Pre- paredness, is undertaking a Hurricane Loss and Contingency Planning Study that will include projected structural loss based on the development of thresholds for percentage of unit damage correlated to surge height and wind velocity.) 11. Establish a state policy concerning whether pre- or post-flood value will be paid for damaged structures acquired by the state. (Example Pennsylvania requires that pre-flood fair market value be paid for public acquisition of flood damaged properties, whereas South Dakota state law forbids public bodies from paying for property which is not present at the time of the! appraisal; e.g., requires post-flood land value for a completely destroyed structure.) 12. An appropriate state official should send a letter to the FEMA regional director in Boston with a copy to the FEMA Associate Director, State and Local Programs and Support, Washington, D.C. stating Connecticut's commitment to proper floodplain management at both state and municipal levels and expressing an intent to apply for (or support municipal applications for) Section 1362 funds should the opportunity arise. If deemed appropriate, a copy of this report may be submitted along with other appropriate infor- mation as supporting evidence of the state's intent and commitment. 113 B. Municipalities 1. Modify existing floodplain management regulations so that they go beyond the minimum FEMA regulations. Some possible actions are: o Reserve all undeveloped V-zones for op en space and public recreation. o Allow limited new development and substantial improvements within the V-zone, but require that all structures be ele- vated above the estimated wave-crest level. o Prohibit certain critical facilities from being constructed within the one percent flood zone or provide that they be floodproofed or elevated to the level of the 0.5 percent (500-year) flood. Critical facilities could include hospi- tals, nursing homes, non-water dependent portions of electrical generating facilities, hazardous waste genera- tors or storage areas. o Provide that all new construction and substantial improvements in flood zones be elevated or floodproofed at least one foot above the level of the one percent flood (instead of to the level of the one percent flood) to provide protection from floating debris, a flood of greater magnitude than the base flood, and increases in flood levels due to future development. 0 Establish a substantial improvement definition lower than 50 percent structural damage or 50 percent of fair market value of the structures (e.g., 30 percent of fair market value). 'A lower limit could be established for all flood hazard areas, or only within the V-zone and floodways and the 50 percent limit retained in other portions of the floodplain. 2. Maintain a record of strict enforcement of floodplain regulations, with few or no variances permitted. 3. Prepare a post-flood.recovery and hazard mitigation plan (see following section of this report). 4. Develop an effective flood warning and evacuation plan. 114 5. Submit a complete and timely annual report to FEMA (including all variances granted and denied). 6. Establish a procedure to notify all prospective purchasers and renters of floodprone properties of the risk of living in the area. This could include a requirement that all real estate agents notify prospective purchasers and renters whether or not the property is in a flood hazard area. ACTIONS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING A FLOOD DISASTER Immediately after a major flood, both the community and the state should take the necessary actions to apply for Section 1362 funds. At a minimum, the formal ap- plication procedures required by FE14A should be followed (see Appendix B). The initial steps in this process are described below. Eligibility is likely to be enhanced and the process speeded up if the community and state go beyond the minimum requirements and assist FEMA with other necessary actions. Therefore, the steps described include both the minimum requirements and additional useful actions. Unless specified otherwise, it is suggested that both the state and community be involved in each of these steps regardless of which government unit will eventually accept title to the property. 1. Inventory Damaged Properties. All. areas of the community that suffered significant damage should be inventoried and the amount of damage esti- mated. If structures in areas in which the community or state are inter- ested in acquiring meet the "damaged substantially beyond repair" criterion, the community should proceed with steps 2 through 6 below. 2. Assemble Initial Data. Within a few days following the flood, the commu- nity and the state should assemble the information called for in Figure 1 34. Some of this information (such as insurance claims data) may not be Figure 34: Section 1362 Potential Project Form was developed by FEMA and has been used by FEMA headquarters and regional offices in evaluating the eligibility of communities to participate in the Section 1362 program. A revised form is currently under preparation, but the type and detail of in- formation requested is not anticipated to be greatly different than the present form* 115 available to either the state or community but will be supplied later by FEMA. In addition to the information listed in Figure 34, the community and state should compile the following information: o Name of the community and state contacts for'the project.. o Copy of community floodplain management regulations or ordinance, including a summary statement of any special features of that regu- lation, such as provisions that go beyond the minimum regulations required by FEMA. o Copy of any appropriate state floodplain management regulations, building codes, etc., if they include special features or go beyond minimum FEMA requirements. o Copies of any additional local, regional or state regulations, legis- lation, policy statements, executive orders, memorandums of under- standing, etc.,that may be applicable to the proposed Section 1362 project. o Summary statements describing arty existing or proposed flood control works or studies affecting the study area, studies of non-structural floodplain management measures that may have been conducted, land use plans affecting the area, etc. o Copies of maps describing the proposed project area: - map showing location of the project area within the community, including standard land use categories within the community such as industrial, commercial., residential, open space, etc. - Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (FBFW) of the project area. - large scale map of the projectarea showing property boundaries, size of parcels, location of structures, and different types of land use within the project area. o Estimated recurrence interval of the flood, if known (high water marks compared to elevations shown on FIRM's may provide a rough estimate of recurrence interval). 116 3. Letter of Intent to FEMA. As soon as the community or state has decided that it wishes to pursue Section 1362 funding, it should send a letter to FEMA stating its desire to participate in the Section 1362 program. This letter should be sent to the FEMA Regional Director in Boston 1with a copy to the FEMA Associate Director, State and Local Programs and Support, at FEMA headquarters in Washington. Included with the letter should be as much of the information described in Step 2 above as the community and state have been able to assemble. The state or community (whichever is not proposing to acquire the property) should write a letter endorsing the application, to accompany the primary request. 4. Assemble Additional Data. In anticipation of FEMA inquiries concerning the individual properties and community eligibility, the community and state should cooperate to complete the compilation of data described in Step 2 above and should develop additional information in support of their request for Section 1362 funds. Additional efforts should concentrate on the community eligibility criteria (see Figure 2) and on community permit decisions if properties are believed to be eligible on the basis of local ordinances concerning rebuilding. 5. Prepare foE Public Meetings. If FEMA determines that the structures and the communities are potentially eligible and that Section 1362 funds may be available, it will require one or more public meetings with local of- ficials and property owners. In anticipation of these meetings, the community should notify property owners that it is seeking federal assistance to acquire their properties (emphasizing the voluntary nature of the program), provide them with information about the Section 1362 program, and describe what the community intends to do with the property if acquired. The community may also wish to provide information about the FEMA guidelines published in the Federal Register state that the letter should be sent to the Federal Insurance Administrator, but, as a result of internal FEMA reorganizations and modified program procedures, the letter should be sent as stated in this report. 2FEMA guidelines require, at this stage, only an identification of the structures and the individual and community criteria (see Figure 2) under which the struc- tures are believed to qualify. Providing additional information at this time should speed up the process and perhaps improve community changes of being in- cluded in the program. 117 program to the general public through newspaper articles or other appropriate methods. 6. Reuse Plan. The community should prepare a plan, or update any existing plan, for reuse of the acquired properties. This plan will have to be approved by FEMA before FEMA will order a property appraisal and begin negotiations with property owners., The plan need not be detailed, but it must include assurances that the land will be "managed in a manner consis- tent with sound land management and use". 118 FIGURE 34: SECTION 1362 POTENTIAL PROJECT FORMI 1. Comunity Name: 2. Program Status: Emergency Regular Anticipated Entrance to Regular Program - Date: History of F`PM Compliance: (check one) 1-7 High Satisfactory 21-1 Satisfactory Poor Please explain if either "Highly Satisfactory" or "Poor" is checked. (Include any unique or innovative regulatory approaches): 3. Number of Policies In Force: 4. Number of Claims (most recent event): $ Date of Loss: 5. Flood History: (Last 10 years) (a) Date of Event Total NLvnber of Structures w/Claims Amount Damaged Structures (b) Date of Event Triggering Eligibility: Figure 34: Section 1362 Potential Project Form was de veloped by FEMA and has been used by FEMA headquarters and regional offices in evaluating the eligi- bility of communities to participate in the Section 1362 program. A revised form is currently under preparation, but the type and detail of information requested is not anticipated to be greatly different than the present form. 119 (Figure 34 continued) 6. Flood Characteristics (a) For 100 Year Flood Insurance Zone Number Base Flood Elevation Approximate Depth of Flooding Above Grade (indicate range if applicable) (b) For Event Triggering Eliqibililty If Coastal flooding, indicate if /7 non-wave action, or /7 wave action If riverine flooding, indicate if Standard Over Bank /7 flash flooding Backwater Describe flood characteristics Comuents: depth (above grade) velocity duration flooding warning time flood frequency (estimate from best available information) ~0 120 (Figure 34 c~Qnt~i~.nued) (c) Other Flooding: (check one) mapped /~8q7; proposed /~2q7; probable ~2qZ7 Existing Flood Control: ~6qf~4ql~- Yes ~2qZ~-7 No Proposed: /7 Yes 7 N~0qo Ca~n~Dents: (If yes, explain) 7. N~L~qrnber of Potential Project Structures: Estimate of Average Property Market Value: $ Range of Property Values: $ $ Property Descriptions (i.e., number of levels, basement, foundation type, approximate height(s) of first floor above grade, approximate age, condition, lot size): ~8qL7 Wood ~qI~r~q-~8q1 One Family ~8q/~-~6q7 Rental Primary Residence ~24qL7 Brick /7 TwoFamily ~64q/~q-~96q7 H~6qo~qr~2qw~q-~q- Ownership (indicate of structures in each category) (use boxes for all factors i~qn #7) 121 (Figure '4 continued) 8. Probable Criteria Under Which Structures Will Qualify: List Number of Structures Under Appropriate Category Permit Denial Z-7 Substantially Damaged /-7 Repetitive Flooding 9. Number of of Candidate Structures Currently Repaired: /7 Unrepaired: Partially Repairedd- 17 10. Reuse Potential of Acquired Land: (a) Are the majority of parcels contiguous? Yes No If not, explain. (b) What are the likely potential uses? 11. Probable Receptivity of Program (if known): High LOW Comnunity /-7 Affected Individuals Z-7 222 (Figure 34 continued) Explain: (include if community would be willing to provide coordination, manpower of funds) 12. Indicate if and ho w comnunity wets (or might meet) the following factors: (a) Comwnity has plan for post-disaster recovery which includes acquisition and relocatiom. (b) Community has on-going relocation plans or program or 1362 might be a logical continuation of a previous relocation project. (c) There is potential for significant savings in flood insurance, disaster relief and other monetary savinqs, as conpared to program costs (estimates only). 123 (F i gu re 34 continued) (a) There is potential for significant avoidance of future personal injury and loss of life. (e) Significant environmental improvement will result from the acquisition program. 13. Would any of the following mitigation alternatives be more practicable or as practicable as acquisition? Briefly explain, if possible, whether or not the alternative could apply. /7 Elevation Floodproofing: /7 Dry Floodproof ing Wet Floodproof ing Temporary or permanent closures 124 (Figure 34 continuedl /r7walls or levees Repairs with water resistant materials Remarks: 14. Can the project be separated into logical phrases? (This might be necessary where a project could potentially account for a large percentage of the 1362 funds available). Indicate nature of project phasing (i.e., Justification, number of properties involved, approximate cost of each phase). 15. Describe the social characteristics of the project area (i.e., project neighborhood services, quality of infra-structure, general age of inpacted community, approximate income range, any unique characteristics, etc.) 16. Indicate any comrients you feel would further justify selection of this project. Name: Title: Regional Office: Date: 125 POST-FLOOD RECOVERY AND HAZARD MITIGATION NEED FOR A POST-FLOOD RECOVERY AND H112ARD MITIGATION PLAN Historically, development in coastal flood hazard areas has occurred with fewer controls on the location and type of construction than exist today. Consequently, some of the existing development is in areas that state and local governments would now prefer to have undeveloped -- areas that could serve functions of public recreation, open space, and protection of valuable natural resources such as fish and wildlife habitat. Other development has occurred that does not meet today's construction standards for public health and safety or that does not make efficient use of scarce coastal resources. Some of this unguided development has occurred in areas or in a manner that make it susceptible to severe damage from flooding and erosion caused by major hurri- canes and northeasters. Although Connecticut has been fortunate that few major storms have hit the Connecticut shore in recent years, inevitably they will occur. What will be state and local reactions when the next instance of severe flooding and erosion devastates portions of one or more Connecticut coastal communities? Will property owners be allowed to rebuild to the pre-flood condition? rebuild to more stringent construction standards? not be allowed to rebuild at all? rebuild with a different development pattern? answers are not readily available. In response to inquiries made during this study, local officials indicated they did not know what the official town posi- tion would be, Although expressed in different ways, their responses generally indicated that a case-by-case decision would be made based on existing building codes, zoning regulations, floodplain management ordinances and other applicable regulations. Some officials expressed personal views that some areas should not be allowed to be rebuilt, others should be acquired by the municipality for recreation or open space purposes, and still others should be converted to dif- 7 ferent uses. Sometimes officials were able to express what they considered to be a general view of town officials. Occasionally, the town plan of development identified specific areas that should be converted to another use or acquired for open space or recreation purposes. 126 None of the towns have specifically addressed the issue of post-flood recovery and hazard mitigation. Neither general policies nor specific plans exist to guide town actions in the difficult Period immediately following a major flood disaster. Failure to plan ahead for post-disaster actions is not unusual: nationwide, few communities have been properly prepared for disasters when they struck. Most commonly, pre-disaster planning is limited to some type of flood warning and evacuation plan. Only communities that have recently experienced several damaging floods -- and are especially attuned to the possibility of still greater flooding seem motivated to develop some type of post-flood action plan. Even though few communities throughout the country have undertaken pre-disaster planning, professionals in the field of flood hazard mitigation increasingly are pointing out the advantages of doing so. In response, government agencies that provide post-disaster financial and -technical assistance have been attempting to promote hazard mitigation as a part of post-flood recovery actions instead of focusing exclusively on returning the community to pre-flood conditions and recreating the same flood risk. Eff orts at post-flood hazard mitigation have so far met with only limited success. There are many reasons for this limited success, but one prominent cause is that following major floods communities are not prepared to make the decisions and take the actions necessary to implement hazard mitigation actions. Often the decisions and actions are politically difficult. In the aftermath of a major disaster, and with no prior consideration having been given to the issues, the emotional atmosphere often leads to decisions that favor short-term interests, especially of affected residents and businesses (i.e., return to pre-flood con- ditions) rather than long-term interests (i.e., hazard mitigation). Rebuilding is frequently permitted in areas-subject to flood damage, and variances to local building codes and other regulations are commonly permitted in an attempt to reduce the economic hardship on individuals. Communities with a known major flood risk would be well-served to examine the degree and nature of that risk and to make at least tentative plans for what to do in the event of a major flood disaster (i.e., preparation of a post-flood 127 recovery and hazard mitigation plan).. Almost all coastal communities in Connecticut would benefit from such an effort. One of the major advantages to a municipality of preparing a post-f lood recovery and hazard mitigation plan is that it: allows the community to turn a disastrous situation into a unique opportunity for positive changes. It may also lessen the trauma associated with the disaster because community officials and affected residents will be better prepared to deal with the many decisions and actions that will be forced on them. A mechanism already exists by which Connecticut coastal communities could under- take this type of planning effort: the municipal coastal program. Although CAM does not require development of a post-flood recovery plan as part of a municipal coastal program, a contingency recovery plan could easily be incorporated into a community's initial municipal coastal plan or added as an amendment once the initial plan has been completed. CAM could provide communities with guidance on how to develop a post-flood recovery and redevelopment plan. The following sec- tion provides suggestions on the types of issues that should be considered in the development of a post-flood recovery and hazard mitigation plan. CONSIDERATIONS IN DEVELOPING A POST-FLOOD RECOVERY AND HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN A. Basic Considerations Any post-flood recovery and hazard mitigation plan should be prepared with the following points in mind: o To what extent does the municipality wish to bring nonconforming uses into conformance with existing plans and regulations? 0 Under what circumstances should they be brought into conformance? o What is the desired level of protection from flooding (and other health and safety hazards) that the municipality wishes to provide for future property owners and 37esidents? B. Identification of Areas Subject to Flooding The first step toward preparation of a post-flood recovery plan is to inventory those areas within the coastal zone that are subject to flooding. Communities should also identify those areas that are sub- ject to wave impact in addition to tidal or river flooding. Existing 128 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps will provide the starting point for this effort. However, these maps should be reviewed for accuracy in light of known local conditions or changes that may have occurred since the maps were prepared -- both physical changes and changes in data availability. For example, the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Guilford and Madison show different one percent tidal flood (base flood) elevations: 11 feet in Madison and 12 feet in Guilford. As a result, adjacent areas such as Grass Island in Guilford and Circle Beach in Madison are subject to dif- ferent regulatory requirements. 'These communities should consult with CT DEP, Water Resources Unit.and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to try and resolve this discrepancy. C. Determination of the Degree of Flooding Once areas subject to flooding have been identified, the next step is to estimate the degree of risk within these areas. Not all areas identified as subject to flooding from the one percent flood are subject to the same degree of risk. in areas not subject to wave impact, the degree of flood risk relates pri- marily to the site elevation. Some areas may be subject to a flooding from a ten percent (10-year) flood, others only from a two percent (50-year) flood, and others only from the one percent (100-year) flood. The elevation of flood waters during a ten percent and two percent flood can usually be determined from the FIRM, even though only the level of the one percent flood is shown directly on the map. Many Connecticut coastal communities do not have the detailed topographic information needed to determine areas subject to different flood levels... During this study, for example, the contractor was unable to obtain detailed topographic information (2-foot contour intervals) in Stratford, Guilford, Madison, Clinton, old Saybrook, and Old Lyme. Detailed topographic information is basic to floodplain management and most other land use planning and should be developed by all communities. The degree of flood risk in V-zones is more difficult to determine. In addition to the site elevation, obstructions -- both natural and man-made affect the height of waves and how far inland they extend. The wave crest 129 elevation at locations within the V-zone cannot be determined from current FIRM's. These maps provide only the stillwater elevation and cover areas subject to the greatest wave impact (at least a three -foot wave). FEMA is currently preparing revised maps that will indicate the expected wave crest elevation in V-zones from a one percent flood, but only a few preliminary maps have so far been prepared for Connecticut coastal communities. In the absence of revised maps, communities may use a simplified methodology (used in this study) prepared by FEMA -- Field Manual For Estimating Wave Heights In Coastal High Hazard Areas In Atlantic And Gulf Coast Regions, March 1981. D. Identification of Developed Areas within Coastal Flood Hazard Areas All developed areas within the coastal flood hazard area that might be con- sidered for redevelopment or hazard mitigation actions should be identified. 1. All development that can reasonably be expected to sustain substantial damage during a one percent flood. FEMA and many states and communi- ties use 50 percent of the market value of a structure as the criterion for substantial improvement that triggers many regulatory requirements. A few communities have established more restrictive definitions of sub- stantial improvement. 2. All development that would be prohibited under existing codes, regula- tions and ordinances or that would require a substantial increase in reconstruction costs in order to meet current code requirements, or that would require variances to be rebuilt to the same use or con- struction standards. In Old Lyme the Zoning Enforcement Officer has prohibited rebuilding in the Nr-zone of some structures requiring sub- stantial improvement on the basis that an on-site sewage system cannot be properly floodproofed in a wave impact zone. In Milford, the Planning and Zoning Office has required property owners requesting a substantial improvement to their home to incur considerable additional costs for elevation and floodproofing. 3. All development that could help meet current or future community needs for public recreation or open space. For example, Clinton officials have expressed A desire to expand the existing public beach, to add parking in the Clinton Beach area, and to develop a public beach in the Harborview secti on. 130 4. All development that the town would prefer to see in some other type of development, e.g., water-dependent rather than nonwater-dependent, conversion of substandard housing to better housing. As part of the development of a municipal coastal program, Norwalk has established a Citizens Advisory Committee t:hat is currently-identifying coastal areas that they consider incompatible with existing zoning. 5. Any areas that the state of Connecticut has formally expressed an inter- est in for recreation, wildlife, or other purpose. Under the Natural Heritage Program, DEP is currently identifying areas that it would like to acquire such as Long Beach, Stratford, and the Norwalk Islands. 6. Areas wh ere public roads' and other infrastructure and utilities are subject.to periodic damages and require unusual expenditures to main- tain. Several Connecticut coastal towns acknowledged incurring extra costs for frequent road repairs and sand removal, but did not keep records of the additional expense involved. 7. Areas where there may be risk of injury or loss of life to residents in the event of a major storm, including areas from which evacuation would be difficult. Islands, such as Cedar Island in Clinton, would pose a significant evacuation problem if residents failed to heed early warn- ings. other areas such as Harborview in Norwalk and Milford Point and Cedar Beach in Milford provide risks because access roads into the areas can become flooded before maximum flood levels are reached. E. Determine Desired Uses in Each of These Areas The community should determine the most desirable use for each of the areas identified in the previous step. 1. Areas where a different use is desired. 2. Areas where the same use is desired, but with higher standards of construction. 3. Areas where open space or recreation uses are desired. F. Determine Community Options for Attaining These Desired Uses 1. Might some areas be acquired by the community? If so, what sources of funding could be sought? Possibilities include: 131 a. Town funds:o Annual operating Funds (Guilford recently allocated $100,000 to acquire a parcel of land that became available adjacent to an existing town beach at White Sands). 0 Bond Issue o Special Capital Furid (Norwalk makes ahn ual contkibut"ions to a special-ftihd intended to eventually be used for purchase of one or more of the Norwalk Islands). b. State funds: Parks and Recreation (state matching funds to federal Land and Water Conservation funds). c. Federal funds: Section 1362, Land and Water Conservation funds. 2. Could existing regulations be strictly enforced, and hardship variances be given only in limited cases? 3. Do existing regulations,need to be strengthened and new requirements added: Some possibilities are: a. Establishment of a set-back line; e g., no construction of permanent dwellings on or seaward of the primary dune line. b. Establishment of more stringent requirements concerning ele- vation of structures above the one percent flood levels; e.g.,, at least 1 foot above the stillwater level in A-zones and at least 1 foot above the wave crest level in V-zones, to provide a margin of safety. c. Strengthening of structural requirements through amendments to the building code; e.g., adoption of specific standards for tie-downs, bracing, break-away walls, etc. d. Strengthening of standards for onsite sewage disposal, with specific reference to beaches and wetlands. For example, Old Lyme currently refuses to issue new permits for onsite septic systems in V-zones because it feels that the system cannot be adequately floodproofed against the effect of waves. The Soil Conservation Service does not give beach soils a capability rating for any type of development, 132 stating t hat "Beaches are poorly suited for most uses other than recreation...", and states that the Westbrook soil series found in tidal wetlands is generally unsuitable for develop- ment without considerable! fill because of the high water tables and flooding. G. General Policy and Guidance Develop a general set of policies and guidelines that articulate the town's preferred policy for rebuilding following a disaster. H. Adopt Plans Once the desired changes have been identified, appropriate public meetings should be held and other legal requirements complied with, and the re- sulting plans and policies adopted as amendments to: 1. Town Plan of Development 2. Zoning regulations and zoning map 3. Building code 4. Subdivision regulations 5. Floodplain management ordinance 6, Other necessary town documents I. Identification of Responsibilities Since any time when this post-flood recovery plan will be implemented will be a difficult one, the community may wish to establish special procedures for what each town department should do following the disaster. Special procedures can help prevent conflicting actions on the part of different departments. Special task forces to deal with the program of post-flood recovery can also be provided for. J. Rebuilding Moratorium To provide time for the orderly implementation of the post-flood recovery plan, a community may wish to provide for automatic adoption of a temporary rebuilding moratorium during the initial recovery period. Such a moratorium could last about one to six months and prohibit all building and rebuilding except for temporary and emergency repairs. This time period would also give the community an opportunity to update and modify the post-flood recovery 133 and hazard mitigation plan if needed to reflect changes that may have oc- curred since it was originally adopted. Post-flood moratoria have been successfully adopted in other parts of the country. K. Encourage Purchase of Flood Insurance In communities with floodable areas, the entire community benefits if residents, including tenants in floodprone areas, are adequately covered by flood insurance: o Residents face less financial hardship o Fewer community resources will be needed to assist flood victims 0 Flood insurance may make other assistance available, such as Section 1362 funds. Accordingly, the community should take appropriate actions to promote the purchase of flood insurance by all floodplain residents and property owners. L. Notification to Property Owners Property owners and tenants should be notified concerning the probably effect implementation of the post--flood recovery and hazard mitigation plan will have on their property following a major flood. M. Implementation Determine what events will trigger implementation of the post-flood recovery and hazard mitigation plan. options include: o A presidential disaster declaration o A Small Business Administration disaster declaration o Request by the Governor for a disaster declaration o Request by the chief elected municipal officials for a disaster declaration o A designated minimum number or percentage of identified properties receiving substantial damage 0 Applies to any property that is damaged; i.e., continuous implemen- tation o Should the post-flood recovery and hazard mitigation plan apply to structures damaged from other causes such as wind and fire? I I I APPENDIX A I I I @ I SELECTED REFERENCES I I 11 I I I I I .I t I I I A-2 GENERAL REFERENCES Federal Emergency Management Agency, Design Guidelines for Flood Damage Reduction, December, 1981. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Elevatihg to the,*Wave Crest Level, A Bene- fit: Cost Analysis, July, 1980. New England River Basins Commission, The Ocean's Reach, February, 1976. State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Air Pho tographs, Scale I"=1,000', Spring, 1980. State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 1978 - 1983, March, 1979. State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Area Management Program, Coastal Resources Maps, scale 1:24,000, 1979. State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Area Management Program, Planning Report: No. 25, Recreational,Demand, Opportunities, and Limitation in Connecticut's Coastal Area, March, 1978. State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Area Management Program, Planning Report: No. 28, Model Municipal Coastal Program, January, 1979. State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Area Management Program, Planning Report: No. 29, Shoreline Erosion Analysis and Recommended Planning Process, June, 1979. State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Area Management Program, Planning Report No. 30, Coastal Policies and Use Guide- lines, December, 1979. State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Area Management Program, Shoreline Ownership Maps, Scale 1:24,000, 1979. State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Center, Connecticut Water Resources, Statutes, Planning Report No. 1, Long- Range Water Resources Management Planning Program, August, 1980. State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Center, Water Planning Report No. 2, Flood Management in Connecticut: A Pro- gram Review, Long-Range Water Resources Management Planning Program, December, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with 19"0* Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station and Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station, Soil Survey of Fairfield Coun@y, Connecticut, February, 1981. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, People nd the Sound - Erosion and Sedimentation, a Planning Report, January, 1975. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, People nd the Sound - Flood Damage Reduction, a Planning Report, January, 1975. A- 3 U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Connecticut Coastline Study, Effects of Coastal. Storms, July, 1976. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of: Engineers, New England Division, Hydraulics and Water Quality Section, Tidal Flood Profiles New England Coastline, Abridged Set, January, 1980. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, office of Policy Development and Research, and Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Admin- istration, Design and Construction Manual for Residential Buildings in Coastal High Hazard Areas, January, 1981. A-4 CITY/TOWN REFERENCES City of Norwalk Master Plan of Development. Master Plan of Parks and Open Space. Norwalk Planning & Zoning Commission, Norwalk Coastal Area Management Program, Draft for Discussion, October, 1981. Zoning Ordinance, Department'of Public Works, Topograpiic Maps, Scale 1"=1001, Contour Interval 2', April, 1978. Metcalf & Eddy, Engineers, Woodward Avenue Area, Norwalk, Connecticut, Lateral Sewers & @Murtenant Work, Contract: 77-3. Tax Maps, scale 1"=100', September, 1.971. U.S.. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Insurance Admin- istration (FIA), Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of*Nbrwalk, C6nnecticut, Scale 1"=1,000', effective'April'.3, 19.73 (does not include Nbz-;;alk Islands)'. Town of Fairfield Town Planning & Zoning Commission, Fairfield Master Plan, adopted June 5, 1979. Town Planning & Zoning Commission, Zoning Regulations of the Town of Fairfield, Connecticut, adopted on August 26., 1925, as amended. Town Planning & Zoning Commission, Topographic Maps, Scale 1"=1001, Contour Interval 21, April, 1968, revised April, 1973. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Insurance Admin- istration (FIA), Flood Insurance Rate Map, Town of Fairfield, Connecticut, effective August 15, 1973. Town of Stratford Flood Damage Prevention Ordinances, amended 1979. Planning & Zoning Commission, Plan of Development Update 1981, adopted June 30, 1981, effective July 7, 1981. Zoning Regulations of the Town of Stratford, effective May 8, 1965, as amended. Department of Engineering, Map of Long Beach Area, Scale 111=1,0001 (locations taken from 1960 aerial photograph). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Insurance Admin- istration (FIA), Flood Insurance Rate Map, Town of Stratford, Connecticut, Map revised August 1, 1980. A-5 City of Milford Planning & Zoning Board, City Development Plan, Milford, Connecticut, May, 1972. Zoning Regulations, October 1973, Revised to November, 1980. Metcalf & Eddy, Engineers, City of Milford, Connecticut, Sanitary Sewers, Force Main & Appurtenant Work, Cedar Beach, Contract 72-1, Job 1680. Property Maps, Scale 1"=200' (no date given). Topographic Maps, Scale 1"=2001, Contour Interval 21, 1979. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Insurance Admin- istration (FIA), Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of Milford, Connecticut, Scale 1"=1,000', effective September 29, 1978. Town of Guilford Flood Plain Management Ordinances, April 29, 1978. Guilford Planning & Zoning Commission, Comprehensive Plan of Development and Conservation for the Town of Guilford, Connecticut, July 24, 1978, effective date August 18, 1978. Guilford Planning & Zoning Commission, Zoning Regulation, Town of Guilford, Connecticut, adopted February 22, 3.969, amended to February 23, 1981. Property Maps, Scale 11'=1001:@, January 1963, corrected October, 1977. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Insurance Admin- istration (FIA), Flood Insurance Rate Map, Town of Guilford, Connecticut, Scale 1"=1,000', effective May 1, 1.978. Town of Madison Madison Planning & Zoning Commission, Zoning Reg lations and Subdivision Regula- tions, revised May, 1981. Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations of the Town of Madison, Connectic-ut, revised September, 1981. Coastal Site Plan, Circle Beach Road, Scale 1"=40'@, September, 1980. U.S, Department of Housing and Urban 'Development (HUD), Federal Insurance Admin- istration (FIA), Flood Insurance Rate Map, Town of Madison, Connecticut, Scale 1"=1,000', effective September 15, 1978. Town of Clinton Planning & Zoning Commission, Comprehensive Plan of Development, Clinton, Connec- ticut, 1978. A-6 Property Maps (air photographs with property lines drawn in), Scale 1"=1001, (no date given) . U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Insurance Admin- istration (FIA), Flood Insurance Rate Map, Town of Clinton, Connecticut, Scale l"=400', effective September 30, 19,80. Town of Westbrook Master Plan of Development, Westbrook., Connecticut, adopted June 13, 1977. oning Regulations for the Town of Westbrook, Connecticut, adopted August 25, 1956, amended to 1979. C. E. Maguire, Inc., Topographic Map 21-1 (Grove Beach), 22-1 (Grove Beach and West Beach), Connecticut Flood Insurance Study, Job Number 3027:301, Scale 1"=2001, Contour Interval 5'. Town of Old Saybrook Flood Plain Management Ordinance, amended to July 2, 1980. Old Saybrook Planning Commission, Plan of Development for the Town of Old Say- brook, Connecticut, revised April 7, 1971. Old Saybrook Zoning Commission, Zoning Regulations of the Town of Old Saybrook, Connecticut, as amended through September 30, 1981. Property Maps 12 (Chalker,Beach), 14 (Great Hammock Beach), 2 and 6 (Plum Bank Beach), Scale 1"=100' (no date given). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Insurance Admin- istration (FIA), Flood Insurance Rate Map, Town of Old Saybrook, Connecticut, Scale 1"=1,000'�t @ffective July 3, 1978. Town of Old Lyme Plan of Development, effective September 15, 1975. Zoning Regulations, effective October 9, 1980. Property Maps 6 (Hawks Nest, Sound View), 8 (Hawks Nest), Scale 1"=100', (no date given). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Insurance Admin- istration (FIA), Flood Insurance Rate Map, Town of Old Lyme, Connecticut, Scale 1"=800'�t effective July 16, 1980. APPENDIX B FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Acquisition of Flood Damaged Structures; Guidelines on Property Acquisition B-2 -Monda July 28@ 1980 7-E Part VII Federal Emergency Management Agency Acquisition of Flood Damaged Structures; Guidelines on Prop*rty Acquisition 93 50282 Federal Register/Vol. 45, No. 146/Monday, July 28, 1980/Rules and Regulations FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 44 CFR Part 77 (Docket No. FEMA FIA-77) Acquisition of Flood Damaged Structures AGENCY: Federal Insurance Administration FEMA. ACTION: Interim Rule. SUMMARY: This rule implents Section 1362 of Pub. L. 90-448 as amended, which provides for the acquisition of flood damaged structures (buildings) along with the associated land, meeting certain criteria, and transfer of title to this real property to a local or state government for management. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of this rule is July 28, 1980. Comment due date: On or before September 1, 1980. ADDRESS: Send comments to Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency Room 802, 1725 I Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20472 FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard W. Krimm, Assistant Administrator, Office of Natural Hazards Reduction and Evaluation. Federal Insurance Administration. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1725 I Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20472 Phone: (202) 155-3581. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In creating the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. Congress stated that "A program of Flood Insurance can promote the public interest by providing appropriate protection against the perq of flood losses and encouraging sound land use by minimizing the exposure of property to flood losses" (42 USC 4001, Section 1302(e)(1). In seeking to minimize this exposure emphasis has previously been directed toward measures regulating new construction in flood hazard areas. Several provisions, however, address reduction of flood losses to existing property. One of the provisions, Section 1362 of Pub. L. 90-448, as amended, provides the Director of FEMA with the authority to negotiate for the purchase and subsequent transfer to a state or local government of flood damaged, improved real property under certain conditions. Acquistion of flood damaged, improved real property not only reduces flood losses to properties built prior to the adoption of adequate flood plain management measures, but it also reduces future federal costs for disaster relief and flood insurance subsidies, and offer flood victims the opportunity to break the cycle of damage and costly recovery from flooding. Acquistion of such property may be the most efficient, economical or perhaps the only means of reducing future flood damage to certain existing structures. Research performed for the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) between 1977 and 1979 has examined the potential scope of a flooded property purchase program, its costs, potential benefits, relationship to other disaster related assistance programs and its social, environmental and economic impact of individuals and communities. (Evaluation of Alternative Means of Implementing Section 1362 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1978, Draft, March 1980). This research has found that acquisition of certain flood damaged structures can make a significant contribution to Federal flood damage reduction policies and will produce a wide range of benefits when compared to costs of the program. It can also be a significant tool in helping communities implement comprehensive hazard mitigation strategies. During fiscal year 1980, FIA's initial year of implementation of a flooded property purchase program under Section 1382, the program will be regarded as a demonstration program. FIA will examine the impacts of acquisition under a wide range of social and geographical conditions to the extent possible. Guidelines for implementing the program will be published as a Notice. These Guidelines will set forth more specific acquisition criteria, priorities, and steps for program implementation. Public comment will be welcomed throughout fiscal year 1980 to this Rule and to the Guidelines to be published separately. At the end of fiscal year 1980, based on comments received and evaluations of program impacts, formal program rules will be proposed. Pub. L. 90-448, the Natioanl Flood Insurance Acto of 1968, included at Section 1382, authority for FIA to negotiate for the purchase of flood damaged improved real property under certain conditions. Included in the conditions were requirements that structures be located in a flood risk area, be covered by flood insurance, and be damaged substantially beyond repair while so covered. The 1977 amendments to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 expanded Section 1382 to include several new criteria. Under one criterion, Section 1382(a)(3), a property may be eligible if it has incurred significant flood damage on not less than three previous occasions over five years, and on each occasion the cost of repair of the average, constituted at least 25 percent of the value of the structure. In addition, under Section 1382(b), a property may be eligible for purchase if it has suffered damage from a single casualty of any nature such that a status, ordinance, or regulation precludes its repair or restoration or permits repair or restoration only at a significantly increased construction cost. An additional provision was added to Section 1382 in 1977, allowing low interest loans for elevating structures located in floodways. Implementation of this provision. Section 1382(c), will be withheld during fiscal year 1980 for further consideration. This program has been determined not to be a major federal action having significant environmental impact. This finding is on file with the Rules Docket Clerk for public inspection. The program number in the Catalog of Domestic Assistance is 83.104. The program is subject to OMB Circular A- 95. Accordingly, a new Part 77 of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations is added as follows: Part 77-Acquisition of Flood Damaged Structures General Provisions Sec. 77.1 Definitions 77.2 Criteria for acquisition. Authority: National Flood Insurance Act of 1989 (Title XIII of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1989), effective January 28, 1989(33 FR 17804, November 28, 1988), as amended: 42 U.S.C. 4001-4129; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (43 FR 41943) and Executive Order 12127, dated March 31, 1978 (44 FR 18387); and delegation of authority to Federal Insurance Administrator General Provisions 77.1 Definitions (a) Definitions found in Section 59.1 of this subchapter are applicable to this section. (b) Furthermore, the following definitions are established: Damaged Substantially Beyond Repair- means where (a) damages to the improved real property are such that as a condition of repair as imposed by a state or local government, the structure must be elevated or floodproofed to or above the 100-year flood elevation, or (b) damages to the improved real property equals or exceed 50 percent of the structure's fair market or actual cash value, whichever is less, or (c) where damages to the improved real property are such that repair is physically impossible or infeasible. Flood Risk Area-See definition for Special Hazard Area in Section 59.1, or B-4 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 146 / Monday. July 28, 1980 Rules and Regulations $0283 other ores subject to flooding as (1) The property must be located In a approval in writing of the Administrator; determined by the Administrator. flood risk area as determined by the and that the community shall not permit Significantly Increased Contruction Administrator, any use which will create a threat to Cost--occurs when a specific State or (2) The property must have been human Ufa from flooding. local statute, ordinance, at code requires covered by a flood insurance policy (2) in Seneral. allowable open space that improvements be made to a under the National Flood Insurance uses include park@ for outdoor structure as a condition of the repair of Program at the time damage took place. recreational activities, nature reserves, damages sustained. such that the actual (3) Tbe building. while covered by cultivation. trazing. camping (except cost of repair would be greater by 25 flood insurance under the National where adequate warning time is not percent then the cost which would be Flood Insukance program. must have available to allow evacuation). required for repair of the damages only. been damaged substantially beyond temporary storage in the open of Sound land Management and Us- repair or must have been damaged not wheeled vehicles which are easily The process wherein the goverrimen-tal less then three previous times during the moVable (except mobile homes). body responsible for land use regulation preceding five year period, each time the unimproved parking lots, buffer zones. in a political jurisdiction plans and met of repair equalling 25 percent or or open space areas that are part of regulates the use of land within its More of the structure's value. or must Planned Unit Developments [PUD's). jurisdiction in order to promote the have been damaged from a single Structures fimctionally related to these reduction of property exposure to flood casualty of any nature so that a statute, tises am open-sided picnic and camping hazard and the protection of orftance or regulation precludes its facilities. kioaks and refreshment stands environ.mental values of flood plains. repW or restoration of permits repair or or noribabitable, elevated or Sound use of land acquired by FEMA restoration only at signMcandy Iloodproofed service structures and transferred to local go,. ernments increased cost. associated with a marine. pursuant to Section 1362 of Pub. L 95- (4) A state or local community must (3) The rights to enforce the restrictive 228 is use for primarily open space and enter into ori agreement authorized by covenants shall be assigned to the recreational purposes to minimize ordinance or legally binding resolution Federal Insurance Administrator as potential for any future flood damage. to take title to and manage the property assignee, together with a declaration with a general prohibition of enclosed in a manner consistent with sound land that any future violation of the structures unless functionally dependen managment use as determined by the restrictive covenants or egmements, t Administrator. delivered in writing to the Chief for some recretoional or open space use. (5) The community must agree to Executive Officer within thirty (30) days The criteria set forth In paragraph d(i- remove without soot to the Federal bom the date the Administrat. : receives Iv). below and restrictions to be pieced Emergency Management Agency actual notice of the violation. shall be in deeds used to convey title to real OFEMA). by demolition. relocation, deemed. at the Administrator's option. property from the Federal Government donation or sale any damaged structures to cause a revervion of title to FEM.A. to local govemments will set forth more to which the community accepts title and specific requirements to be used in from FEM.A. provided the AdmirListrator (4) The property shall be transferred determining what constitutes sound may. when it is in the public intemet to subject to zonina and building laws and Land Management and Use for do so. agree! to assume a pan or aU of ordinances; easements. agreements, indhidual land parcels. the cost of such removal. reservations, covenants and restriction 77.2 GrItarls fcw acquiettlom (c) Tide to the mal prope,rty acquired afrecord. any state of facts an accurate (a) The objectives of the Flooded by FEMA shall be conveyed to local @May might show; encroachments and Property Purchase Program under the communities subject to.specific the record lines of National Flood Insurance Program are: restrictive covenants, conditions and hedges. retaining wall&. sidewalks and agreements which will run with the land fences: (1) To reduce future flood insurance and be binding on subsequent (e) Any structures, as described at and disaster assistance costs by successors. grantees and assigns. Those Cara uiltFsph (d)(2) of We section. arid removing repetitively and/or restrictive covenants, conditions and In accordance with the deed substantially damaged structures from agreements will be recited in the deed a restrictions shall be floodprooi.d or flood risk areas; community receives from FEMA and the elevated to withstand the effects of the (2) to provide an opportunity for community shall. join in the execution of 500 year or .02 pement chance flood. owners of repetitively and substantially The deed. (0 Appraisals for the determination of damaged structures to be permanently (d) The general criteria bom which compensation for flood damaged real removed from flood risk areas. and to specific deed restrictions wW be property will be undertaken in reduce risk to life from flooding: and developed may include. am7ong other conformance with the "Uniform (3) to complement Federal. State and things. that: Appraisal Standards for Federal Land local efforts to restore flood plain (1) the land must be dedicated In Acquisitions" published by the Inter- values, protect the environment and perpetuity for open space purposes, or agency Land Acquisition Conference, provide recreational and open space suca other purposes as the GPO (1973). Appraisals will reflect the resources. Admini iOrator may agree am consistent adjusted (for time) pre-damage fair (b) The Administrator will, when he or with the objectives set forth in 177.2 market value (FMV) of the structure and she deems it to be in the public interest. (&)(1-3) above; that the community shall land to the extent that We FMV may enter Into negotiation with property faithfully manage the land for its bove been reduced or depressed in the Owners whose improved real property dedicated purposes. that the community open market as a result of flooding. has been damaged by flooding for the shall not erect or permit to be erected Actual com .pensetion of FMVwill be purpose of purchasing such buildings and structures or other improvements on inclusive of any flood insurance claim and associated land or lot for transfer the land unless such structwel are. payments made or to be made as a by sale. lease, or donation to a oxceLt for matrooms, open an all sides result of the most recent flood event to community when the following and ctionally related to a designated the extent that repaim have not yet been conditions an met: open space use without the prior made. 59824 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 146 / Monday, July 28, 1980 / Rules and Regulations (g) Agreement to sell real property on the part of owners will be completely voluntary. No property owners will be required to sell their properties under Section 1362. (h) Relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquistion Policies Act (42 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.) is not available to property owners who sell their properties under Section 1362. (National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968), effective January 28, 1969 (33 FR 17804, November 28, 1968), as amended; 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (43 FR 41943) and Executive Order 12127, dated March 31, 1979 (44 FR 19387); and delegation of authority to Federal Insurance Administrator) Issued at Washington, D.C. July 28, 1968. Gloria M. Jimenez, Federal Insurance Administrator. (FR Doc. 80-22371 Filed 7-25-82 8:46 ) BILLING CODE 8179-03-82 ~0 B-6 Federal Rooster VOL ~8q0~. No. ~q14~q6 Monday. July ~q2~qg, ~q1~q9~8qW N~qot~qIc~qe~s ~q5~6q=~q5 FEDERAL EMERGENCY Research pe~r~qf~or~qm~e~6q& for ~qFIA b~etw~e~e precludes Its repair or ~0qmtor~s~qt~qio~n or ~4qMA~0qNA~4qGEMENTA~2qGE~4qNCY ~q1~6qV~q7 and IWO has examined the permits repair or restoration only at ~2qGu~0qW~ol~ql~n~es on Pro~4qWty Acquisition potential scope of a flooded pr~i~2q#~qw~r~qty significantly Increased construction Under So~ 1362 u~rc~qh~s~q" program. Its costs. potential cost. Merits. relationship to other disaster An additional provision was added to PART ~q0~-~q4~q0~qr~2q"~2qWO~qUC~qT~qION ~qi~ted Assistance ~4qpo~qs, ~qms and its Section ~q23~q0~q2 in ~qI~0qW~q7 allowing low PART ~qH-~6qGE~qN~qERAL ~qP~qN~qO~qV~2qW~qON~qS social. environmental and economic Interest loans for ~6qA~ev~el~qin~qg structures SWART A~q-~0q4~qENE~qRAL impact on individuals and communities located in ~qfl~oo~qdw~ay~s. Impleme~nt~sfion of ("Evaluation of Alternative Means of this provision. Section ~q2362~q(c~q). will, be ~qs~qm implementing Section ~q2362 of the withheld during fiscal year 19~2qW for ~qU~.1 Definitions. National flood Insurance Act of ~q1~q9~6qW~.- further consideration. ~qU~-2 D~es~qu~qip~t~qion o~q1~qpr~o~qgr~a~in. Draft March ~q19~2qW~q). ~q7~q1is research has 7~q1hi: program has been determined not ~6q"Part 1~q1~-~0q4~qh~qg~4q"~qt~qy ~qR~2q"~2q*~qW~r~qm~0qf~0qt found that acquisition of certain flood to be major federal action having ~q0~.3 Purpose of subpart. damaged buildings can make a significant environmental impact. ~q7~q1is ~qU~-4 De ~te~n~t~qi~n~s Lion of ~el~qi~qg~ibili~ty-~qg~e~ner~al. significant contribution to federal flood fin~qd~qin~q4 is on rile with the Rules Docket 11~-~q5 Selection of eligible communities~. damage reduction policies and will Clerk for public inspection. ~qL~qI~-~q6 Community commitments upon which produce ~a~,~0qMde range of benefits when ~ne~qso~n~at~i~on with ~qi~eal property owners is compared to the costs of the program. It Part ~q1~q11-~6qC~o~n~er~a~ql Pro~v~qi~s~qi~qm~e predicated. can also be a significant too) in helping Subpart A-~8qGeneral 11~.7 Selection of eligible property owners communities to implement once the community is fully qualified comprehensive ~qba~z~a~rd mitigation Section ILI Definitions under sections 11.4. ~q5 and ~6. strategies. As used in these guidelines- PART ~2qO-APP~2qW~qIAL VA~qLUA~8qn~8qON OF Inasmuch as fiscal year i~6qn~qo is ~8qnA'~s ~"Adm~qi~n~qi~s~q0~a~qto~r~" (some as in ~q44 C~qFR REAL PROPERTY AND NEG~4qO'~4qnATION Initial year of implementation of Section ~q5~q9.~q1). PROCEDURES 136~qZ the program will be regarded as a ~"Ac~qtu~a~qlC~a~s~qh ~4qV~a~ql~que"m~ear~i~s t~qhe ~qS~ec demonstration project. ~qI~8qM~e procedures replacement cost of a structure reduced 1~q11~.1 Appraisal. set forth In these guidelines will provide by an amount for depreciation. ~q11~q1.2 valuation or real property. "Building" (some as "structure"). ~q1~q1~q1~-3 Negotiation procedures. specific acquisition criteria. priorities, Coos~qi~o~ql~6qf~6qt~qh Ha~r~a~r~2qdAr~e~a~" (same as and steps for program implementation. in ~q44 CF~qR 59.1). PART ~qIV-~qS~qETT~qLEMENT AND CLOSING FLA will examine the Impacts of "Community" (same as In ~q44 CF~qR Sec. acquisition under a wide range of social IV~.~q1 Settlement and closing and geographical conditions. ~-D~qo~qm~a~qge~qd~2qSu~qbs~qiant~qi~a~ql~qly Beyond ~qFIA initially published Section 13~q6~q2 ~8qRep~a~qi~qe~' means where (a) damages to the Pan ~qI~.~-~qI~n~qt~r~o~qd~u~cti~o~n statutory criteria in the form of an Improved real property are such that as ~qi~n creating the National Flood Interim Rule~. a condition of repair as imposed by a Insurance Act of 1~q9~8qW. Congress stated Public comment wi~qH be welcomed State or local government. the structure that "A program of Flood Insurance can throughout fiscal year ~q2~q9~8qW to the Rule must be elevated or ~qf~ql~oodpr~oofed to or promote the public interest by provid~qi~n~qg and to this Notice of Guidelines. At the appropriate protection against the per~qd end of fiscal year 2~q9~8qW. on September 30. above the ~qI~qOD~-year flood elevation, or of flood losses and encouraging sound 1~q9~2qW~. based on comments received and ~q(b) damages to the improved real land use by minimizing the exposure of evaluation c~qi~qtpro~qgram impacts. final property equals or exceed ~q30 percent of property to flood losses (42 U~qSC 4~q0~q0~q2. program rules and regulations w~0qW be the structure~'s fair market or actual cash see 1302(c)(1)). In seeking to minimize proposed. value. whichever is ~ql~q"~s~. or (~c) where this exposure, emphasis has previously As additional background Pub. L ~6qW~- damages to the improved real property been directed toward measures 448. the National Flood Insurance Act of art such that repair ~qi~s physically ~re~qgul~otin~qS new construction in flood 19~q6~6q& included~. at Section 136Z authority impossible or Infeasible. hazard areas. Several provisions, for FIA to negotiate for the purchase of "Fair Market Value" (~2qW means however. address reduction of flood flood damaged improved real property t~qh~qi amount an owner would be willing. losses to existing property. under certain conditions. ~qIl~iese but not obliged to accept. and a buyer One of these provisions. Section 13~q62 conditions included that structures be would be willing. but not compelled to of pub. L ~6qW~-44~q8, as amended. provides located in a flood risk area. be covered pay. It is an estimate of what is fair. the Director of ~qFEMA with the authority by flood i~ns~t~er~en~ce, and be damaged economic, just and equitable value to negotiate for the purchase and substantially beyond repair while so under normal local market conditions subsequent transfer to a State or local covered. ~0qT~0qbe ~8q1~8q9~4q77 amendments to the and is arrived at by a consideration of government of damaged (usually by "National Flood Insurance Program" prior sales of the~6qk~qr~qop~qerty being flood). improved real property under expanded Section 13~4q5~2q2 to include acquired. reasonably recent and not certain conditions. Acquisition of flood several new criteria. Under one criterion forced, including sales occurring several damaged real property not only reduce@ (Section ~2q13~2q62~4q(~qa)(3)). a property may be years before acquisition. Absent flood losses to properties built prior to eligible if it ~8qha~qs incurred significant transactions Involving the property th~qe adoption of adequate flood plain flood damage on not less then three itself. sales of comparable properties management measures, but It also priviou~qs occasions over a five year conducted at arms length are to be reduces future federal costs for disaster period. and on each occasion the cost of considered. Establishment of ~4qF~24qV~0qV by relief and flood insurance subsidies and repair. on the. average. ~. constituted at other means (e.g.. capitalization of offers flood victims t~8qh~qe opportunity to least 25 percent of ~4qL~6qbe value of the income. replacement cost less break the cycle of damage and costly structure. In addition under ~8q2362~0q(b), depreciation) may be resorted to should recovery from flooding. Acquisition of structures m~qay be eligible for purchase there be no basis for using past sales of such property may be the most efficient~q. that have been damaged from a single 'the subject property or comparable economical, and perhaps~q. the only casualty orally nature such that a properties as elements In arriving at means of reducing future flood damage statute, ordinance, or regulation ~8qF~20qM~6qV~q. to certain existing buildings. B-7 50286 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 146 / Monday, July 21L 19W / Notices **FEMA" meant the Federal transfer to a community subject to a Section 11.4 Determination Of Emergency Management Agency. number of restrictions. 7bree general Elisibility-General "FIA" means the Federal Insurance . conditions must be met for real property Eligibility for community and property Administration. to be considered eligible for acquisition owner participation in a Section 1362 "Flood' (same as in 44 CFR 59.1). under Section,138L acquisition project. can be established "Flood Hazard Boundcuy Map` (same (1) The property must be located in a through either of two ways, as in 44 Ult 39-1). flood risk area,, as determined by FEM.A. (A) Community Initiated "Flipod Insurance" (same as in 44 CFR and (1) Following a flood or a single "Flood Insurance Rate Map" (same as (2) The property must be covered by casualty of any nature Involving real in 44 Ult 59-1). flood insurance under the NFIA and property meeting the conditions set forth -Floodproofing- (same as in 44 CFR (317'he property must meet any one of in Section 11-2(s) (U (2). and (3). a the following damage criteria: community upon review of the published damaged criteria may initiate the process of -Flood Risk Area" (same as "Special (I) Property that has been astablishlng eligibility by writing to the Hazard Area'. in 44 CFR 59.1): or other ..substantially beyond repair by flood Federal Insurance Administrator and subject to flooding as determined by the while covered under the r6LP: identifying (i) the specific structures and Administrator. (ii) Propertydiat has incurred locations of structures considered to be "Floodway" (same as "Regulatory significant flood damage on not less eligible for acquisition and Iii) the Floodwa in 44 CFR 159-1). than three previous occasions while community and individual eligibility -licantly Increased Construction Cost" occurs when a specific State or covered under the NFIP under a five criteria under which these structures are local statute, ordinance, or code requires year period. and on each occasion the believed to qualify. The Administrator, that improvements be made to a cost of repair. on the average. was at after consultation with the FLMA structure as a condition of the repair of least 25 percent of the value of the Regional Director. will respond to damages sustained, sucl 11al the actual structure; or individual community requests as cost of repair would be greater by 25 (iii) Property, while covered under the Promptly as is reasonably possible by percent than the cost which would be- NFIP. that hassustained damage from a indicating whether or not the case(s) required for repair of the damages ordy. ..sinSle casualty of any nature" so that a identified meet the eligibility criteria. -Sound Land Mcniagement and Use- statute. ordinance or regulation priorities and budget constraints of the means the process wherein the precludes its repair or restoration or Section 1362 program. This will government body respt.-sible for land permits repair or restoration only at constitute only a preliminary notice of use regulation in a political jurisdiction significantly increased cost. interest and will be accompanied b% a plans and regulates the use of land (b) Improved real property will only written inquiry. for response by the within its jurisdiction in order to be acquired through voluntary sale and community, leading to a determination promote the reduction of property not through an), eminent domain or of whether the community is eligible exposure to flood b'82ards and the condemnabon proceeding. Thus. no pursuant to Section 0.5 hereof. protection of environmental values of property owners will be required to sell (2) Property owners interested in sale flood plains. Sound use of land acquired their properties under Section 1362 of their real property under Section 2362 by FEMA and transferred to local should contact their community directly governments pursuant to Section 1362 of Subsequent use will be for open space Inquiries to FLA from individuals will be Pub. L 95-128 presupposes use for and not for any purpose involving a refined to their community by FLA primarily open space and recreational construction project. along with an offer to investigate the purposes to minimize potential for any (c) A community must be wiHing to potential for initiating an acquisition future flood damage. with a general accept title to die acquired real property project. prohibition of enclosed structures unless for land management and restrict its use (B) FIA Initiated such structures are, exe:ept for to open space use or simdlar purposes. (1) Following a flood or single restrooms, open all sides and The community shaU join in the casualty of any nature involving real functionally dependen. for some open execution of the deed which wIU recite property meeting the conditions set forth space use. such use restrictions which w9l run with in Section 11.2[a) (1). (2) and (3). the "Stole" (same as in 44 CFR 59.1), the land. accompanying the property in Administrator. upon recommendation 'Structure" means a walled and perpetuity. even if title is subsequently from FOAA hesdquamm or field staff roofed building. other than a gas or transferred by the community. Any and after consultation with the Regional liquid storage tar& that is principally Improvements an the real property shall Director, will identify communities in above ground and affixed to a be demolished. transferred to the former which acquisition under Section 1362 permanent site, as weU as a mobile owner for relocation to a site outside of may be a feasible contribution to a home on foundation. The term includes any flood risk &rea or sold for salvage community's comprehensive hazard a building while in the course of value. as appropriate and agreed upon mitilation strategy. In such cases, FLA construction. alteration or repair, but between the community and the federal staff and FEMA regional office staff will does not include building materials or government. develop preliminary information (i) of supplies intended for use in such the eligibility of the community pursuant construction. alteration or repair. Subpart S-Eligibility Requirements to Sections n.4 and 5 and (ii) of "100 Year Flood" (same as "hase Section 11.3 Purpose of Subpon structures for acquisition. flood" in 44 CFR 59.1). (2) Upon receipt of eligibility This subpart sets forth criteria to be documentatiOL if a determination is SectionIL2 DescriptionofPm8rom used in determining community and made by the Adminis"tor that a (a) Section 1362 provides FEMA with individual eligibility for Section 1352 community and specific case(s) meet the the authority to acquire flood-damaged. acquisitions and to prescribe the general criteria, priorities and budget improved real property and such method by which determination& of constraints of the Section 1382 program. property damaged by other casualty for eligibility are made. the Administrator will. after ~0 B-~8 Federal Register Vol. 45~, N~qo. 14~q6 / Monday, ~qJ~4qWy 2~q8. 1~q980 ~q/ Notice@ ~q5~q0287 consultation with the Regional Director. (d) ~q7~1~be distribution of properties regulations. or statutes meeting t~qhe notify the Chief Executive Officer of the eligible for acquisition under Section applicable requirements of I ~0qW~4qJ of ~q44 ~F am unity in writing of its potential ~q13~q6~qZ or the distribution of these eligible CFR Part ~q00 and by adequately eligibility for a Section 1~q3~q9~q2 project and properties combined with those ~s~o~qlo~rc~qir~i~qg owl land use measures~. explain the requirements, specific properties that c~a~n be acquired and N~4qO~*~-~q-~q4~q1~qD~qA~qA held staff ore responsible for ~284q; ~e~qqui~s~qit~qion opportunities, and the removed ~qdu~v~o~8qo programs that are ~ad~v~qi~s~qi~4qf~4qt the Administrator of the adequacy ~84qroc~es~s far participating in a project. A readily available from, sources other of a Community's program for m~e~etins the meeting with community officials will be ~8qW~n ~qF~qIA, will result in a pattern of ~qf~qt~qqu~qb~vme~n~ts of the NFI~0qR A ~c~o~m~in~iu~n~qit~qy is not scheduled to discuss the program properties which ]ends itself to a logical considered to be participating satisfactorily if further. and desirable muse function. a general pattern of violation of ~t~qh~e ~qN~2qT~qI~qP ~q(C) Fo~qU~o~qwin~qg eligibility identification (e) Alternatives to acquisition under regulations by the community. including pursuant ~qf~qb Sections 1~q3.4 and ~q5. the Section ~q13~2qW have been investigated and ~q"~4qPl~a~t~q'~qn~s ~c~o~n~c~emi~f~tg elevation. decis~qion-ma~qki~n~qS processes and public found to be less effective than Section ~qf~qlo~odproo~qf~qi~n~qj placement in identified notice procedures of 44 CF~qR Pam ~q0 shall ~q2~q3~q6~q2 acquisition in meeting flood plain ~qf~qlo~odw~ay~s. or variances tinder ~q11 W~-3 (b)~. ~q(~c). (d). and (~e) of 44 CF~qR Part ~00, exists in the be commenced and public meetings may management and hazard ~a~l~qiti~qg~ation community and there is no clear evidence be held in the community between oa~ql~s~. These alternatives could include. that the commu~n~4q4 h~a~s corrected. prior to the ~qFE~4qMA staff and community officials and Cut am Dot limited to. acquisition event ~t~r~i~qgge~r~qi~n~qs eligibility. ~qit~&-pa~s~t practices property owners to discuss ~qh~u~qther the programs and permanent relocation of non-compliance and/or improper or unsafe deta~qJ~s of the acquisition program. programs of local. state or other federal ~qi~s~sui~t~t~qs of variances. ~&~4q@e~r~ic~qie~t~i~, f~qloodp~roo~qf~qi~n~0qC or structural ~q(b~q) The community. if in the Section U.5 Selection of ~4qE~qli~qS~qible ~o~od protection. Emergency Phase of the ~qN~0qTIP~, must Communities ~q(f) Communities have undergone a agree to enforce elevation and Communities~, which express, in planning process and found acquisition fl~oodproofi~n~qg standards for new writing~. a willin~qgr~ie~s~s to remove, by and relocation of structures to be the construction and substantial demo~qb~qt~qio~n. relocation, donation or gale. most desirable alternative in terms of improvements in flood risk areas as 'damaged structures in respect to which cost degree of flood protection required under I W~.3~q(~qb~q)3 and 4 of 44 the ~commur~qity accepts tide from ~qFEMA. achieved. environmental enhancement CFR Part ~6qW and maintain on file first will be selected for participation in and other factors. floor elevation information as required Section 2362 acquisition initiatives on (~qS) Communities have demonstrated under I ~6qW~.3~q(~qb~q)~q5 of 44 CF~qR Part ~q60. the basis of a series of factors. These or agree to ~u~qmue an active program of factors will be used by the sound ~qf~qloo~4ql~ql~i~qp~ql~a~qi~n management which No~qN.-Wher~e base flood elevation data is Administrator on recommendations exceeds the minimum requirements of not available from any existing source. the ~qFEMA field staff should determine. based bmitted by FIA staff or by ~qFEMA field the National nood Insurance ~qP~r upon the potential for future development in ~q:Utaff and information submitted by the (h) ~qT~he communities can a~ctive y the community, whether base flood date community in determining whether participate i~n the planning and should be required as a condition for the acquisition of real property in a given implementation phases of the Section community's participation in the Section 1362 community will be in the public interest 1362 program through the provision of program. ~qU it is Likely that the future as required by Section ~q1362. These either financial or staff resources. development potential will be si~qS~nifi~car~i~t. the factors include, but are not limited to. Communities am not required to meet community ~sho~6qWd be required to generate situations in which: a~qU or even ~c~A~!~rtai~n of t~qhese factors. base ~"ood data or adopt an ordinance (a) The permanent removal of flooded Community eligibility and priorities ft~stric~t~qi~n~qg development in the flood plain. buildings in a community will contribute among communities for Section ~q23~q6~q2 (c) ~qT~qhe community must submit to the to the achievement of existing, on-going assistance will be determined by the Administrator ~a proposal for the use of programs for the permanent evacuation Administrator an the basis of the extent acquired land including. among other of flood plains (provided that the to which these factors are achie~qVed as things. assurances that land transferred Section 1362 program fulfi~qHs a unique well as the number of factors achieved. to the community w~4qW be managed in a need not addressed i~i~n the on-going The Administrator will notify the Chief manner consistent with sound land program nor not duplicative of existing Executive ~0qC~I~qf~qi~cer (CEO) i~n writing of management and use. ~qFEMA will assist funding). any com~qmu~mity selection determination in preparation of a land reuse proposal (~qb) Acquisition will contribute to the made pursuant to this section. where requested and the Administrator achievement of multiple goals of Section ~qU~-8 Community Commitments will accept or reject any submitted ~comrn~u~nity development in addition to Upon Which Negotiations Wi~th~qR~e~a~ql proposal within seven (7) days of its hazard mitigation. including, but not receipt by th~p Administrator. limited to. environmental enhancement, Property ~0qOwner~qts) is Predicated (d) Upon acceptance by the open space, recreation, urban renewal. Once a com~qn~qi~qun.~44q4 has been Administrator of a community's land or some other public purpose. determined by t~4qhe Administrator to be reuse proposal, the community MLSt (c) The acquisition and removal of eligible for Section ~4q236~8q2 acquisitions, the enter into an A~6qgmement with ~20qM~8qiA for flood-prone structures wi~0qD have an following requirements must be met by the conveyance by ~6qFE~16qMA to the economic benefit. in terms of the community before FIA w~32qW order a community of title to the subject real elimination of future flood insurance property appraisal and commence property acquired by ~6qF~16qV~16qMA as a result claims. avoidance of future damage and negotiations leading to a contr~qect with a of the Section ~2qI~12qM2 acquisition. The reduction of future local, state and ~2q@roperty owner for the purchase of the terms of this Agreement shall include. federal disaster relief costs, avoidance ood damaged real property and but not be limited to, the following of business interruption and reduction in subsequent transfer of title to the provisions: exposure ~4qto loss of life. Th ~q'is criterion community~q: (~4q1) The legal description of the will favor structures located in (a) The community must be property to which the local ~0qgov~qer~8qmnent ~8qf~8qloodways, velocity zones and other partic~2qipatingi~qn the Emergency or agrees to accept tide; flood risk zones of high flood loss Regular ph~qo~qse of the N~6qF~2qI~16qV by having in ~6q(2~6q) Tb~qet delivery of the deed. which. Potential. force ~2qIe~4qg~qa~8qUy adopted ordinances. usua~2ql~2qly. shall be a general or special B-9 50288 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No-'148 / Monday, July 2& 1980 / Notices warranty deed. as appropriate. shall be made for a deduction ham the purchase the community sh 11 assert objections to accepted by the community Immediately price of the salvage value of any the marketability aof title (other than after and at the same closing or remaining improvements: or matters to which title is made subject in settlement at which FDAA takes title (B) Public sale of the improvement(s) the Agreemprit). FEMA oW be entitled from the property owner (a for salvage value. in the event FEmA to a reasonable adjournment to remove $.simultaneous" closing); enters into a contract for the purchase of such objection but shall not be obliged (3) That the community shall join in the real property from the property to bring any action or proceeding or to the execution or the deed and provide owner under which the consideration for Incur any expense in order to render written assurance in the form of a the sale is the fair market value of the tide marketable. In the event such certified iopy of a resolution or similar real property with no allowance beinj objection, cannot be removed all rights instrument that the official signing the made for the deduction from the and liabilities of the parties shaU cease deed has the authority to do so, which purchase price of the salvage value of under the Agreement unless the deed shall include. among other things. any remaining improvements; or community elects to accept such title as the following provision; (C) Transfer bydonation of the FEMA is able to conver, W Title to the real property shall be Improvementfs) to the original owner for (13) That all State and local revenue. subject to specific restrictive covenants relocation to land outside of any flood end documentary stamps, grantor's or that the land is dedicated in perpetuity risk area. in the eVent FEMA enters into grantee*s malty transfer taxes, mccirdinS for open space purposes, that the a contract for the purchase of the real charges and legal fees. closing costs. community shall faithfully manage the property from the property owner under and similar expenses sh&H be home by land for its dedicated open space which the consideration for the sale is the community; purposes. for public use, and that the the fair market value of the real property (14) That FEMA makes no commurLity shall not erect or permit to less a deduction from the purchase price representations as to the kind, number. be erected any structures or other of the salvage value of any mmainin condition and tide to any fixtures and improvements on the land. unless such improvements. articles of personil property attached or structures am. except for restrooms, (5) An agreement that should the appurtenant to or used in connection open on all sides and functionally relate community remove any improvement(s) with the property-. to some open space use, all of the from the land pursuant to (4)(A) or (15)Tbal the Agreement may not be foregoing restrictive covenents.and (4)(B), above, any proceeds resulting modified or assigned by the community agreements to run with the land and be from such removal. after deductiM the without the prior written consent of binding on subsequent successors. reasonable costs of conducting such FF-MA: grantees or assigns; removal. shall be returned to FEMA. &IG) That risk of I*" or damage to the (@i) An assignment to FEMA. as (6) An agreement that the provisions improved real property from fire. natural assignee. of the community's rights to of (4) and (5). above, shall survive or other casualty of any kind shall be enforce the restrictive covenants delivery of the deed. borne by the community after delivery together with a declaration that any (7) An agreement that the community of the deed from FEMA. future violation of the rest3ictive will assume responsibility for any legal. (17) That there shall be annexed to the covenants or agreements. at FEN4A's administrative, or other expenses that Agreement and incorporated by option. in writing to be delivered to the may be incurred; as a result of the reference therein. a resolution or similar community's Chief Executive Officer transfer and that any taxes, general and Instrument by the governing body of the within thirty (30) days from the date the special assessments. sewer rents. water community authorizing the official(s) Administratoirreceives actual notice of charges. utility charges and similar executing the Agreement to enter into the violation. shall be deemed at the expenses are not to be apportioned the Agreement on behalf of the Administrator's option to cause a between the parties but are to be community and citing the appropriate reversion of title to FEMA. assumed by the communit)n local law under which the transaction is (iii) That the property is transferred (8) An agreement that the authorized. subject to zoning and building laws and requirements and procedures to be '%I$) That the Agreement is subject to ordinances; easements. agreements. adhered to under the Section 1362 and conditioned upon the ability of reservations. covenants and restrictions program are understand and will be FLAA to acquire the real property and of record, any state of facts an accurate complied with by the community-. should FEMA*s contract vendor fail, for survey might show; encroachments and (9) That the property is to be any mason. to deliver tide, as provided variations from the record lines of conveyed in an -as is" condition with no for in the contract for the sale of the real hedges. retaining waUs. sidewalks and representations having been made by property to FEMA. oil rights and fences. FEMA as to the condition of the obligations of the parties shall cease. (4) An agreement that the community property: and will remove without cost to MM (10) That FEMA is not responsible for (19) The community must certify to the unless the Administrator agrees in compliance with any notes or notices of Administrator that no duplication of furtherance or &,e public interest to violations of lave or municipal Federal benefits will knowingly occur in assume part or all of such cost. all ordinances, orders or requirements. any Section 1362 assistance being improvements and debris. including any issued by any governmental body requested. concrete slabs or foundations, from the having iturisdiction. against or affecting 120) Any other matters that may be land and restore the site to its natural the premises: agreed to by the community and the environment within ninety (90) days (11)'nat the deed shall convey to the Administrator for conveyance of title. from delivery of the deed by either. community fee simple tide; (A) Demolition, in the event FEMA (12) That FEMA shall convey and the Section 11.7 Selection of Eligible enters into a contract for the purchase of community shall accept marketable title Property Owners Once the Community the real property from the property (except as otherwise provided in the I.8 Fully Qualified Under Sections u.4. s. owner under which the consideration for Agreement), that expenses of title and 6 the sale is the fair market value of the examination. survey and related costs (a) The following minimum criteria real property with no allowance being shall be home by the community and. if shall be met in order for a specific B-10 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 146 / Monday. July 28, 1980 / Notices 50289 improved real property to qualify so an acquisition by requesting the property sizes, or because of high land costs. the eligible property under the statutory owner to execute a written Request for Administrator may offer to purchase requirements of Section 1362: A isal. which must be riled. together only part of the lot to reduce the direct (i) The property must qualify under =84 co y of (be recorded deed under cost to the government on condition that the conditions set forth in Section 112. which thifowner look tide. with the the property owner enter a restrictive above; Administrator within W days from the avenant upon,the land records, as to (2) There must be economic benefit in date of the Administrator's request that The land not purchased. restricting its terms of reduction of flood insurance The Request for Appraisal 1* filed, ustes consistent witlistucl eound land claim payments. avoidance of future uriless the time for filing is. at the sole amagement and use purposes as may damage and reduction of future local. discretion of the Administrator, be agreed upon by the Administrator. state and federal disaster relief costs. to extended-and which must contain the (10) An agreement that the property be gained through acquisition of the toDowing provisions: owner must include a duplicate original property. In general in the following (1) An expression of the owner's copy of either an Option or a Contract to situations, properties will. if otherwise willingness to enter into negotiations for * urdese new land site outside of the eligible, receive preferential the sale of the real property; good risk area upon which any consideration for acquisition: (2) Permission by the owner for an improvement(s) transferred to the (i) Structures located in an identified appraiser(#) appointed by FEMA, at property owner by the community is to floodway as established on FIA's Flood ft.MA'a expense. to enter in and upon De located before FEMA can proceed Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). or which the real property to conduct the with the purr-hate process by executing are determined through FIA's analysis to appraisal during normal working hours an Acceptance of the Offer to Sell Real be located in a floodway area; on forty-eight (48) hours written notice Property pursuant to Section W.3(d) (ii) Structures located in an identified to the owner. below. Relocation to the new site must Velocity 7one (V-zone) or which are (3) An acknowledgement that the be accomplished in conformance with determined through FlA's analysis to be benefits. requirements and procedures all state and local codes and ordinances. located in a Velocity zone. and of the program have been explained and All aspects of any physical relocation of (iii) Structures meeting the statutory understood and that any relocation of an improvement(s) transferred back to eligibility requirements which have an the improvement(s) on the property shall the property owner to the community. established history of repetitive flooding be to land outside of any flood risk zone. Including obtaining estimates and in excess of the statutory criteria or (4) An acknowledgement that FEMA securing contracts for property removal, which on the basis of available or way refuse to complete the property locating and purchasing the new developed flood frequency and depth- purchase, if marketable tide cannot be property site and other relocation cc damage data can be shown to have a delivered ito the United States an the sole responsibility of the high probability for meeting the Government. if the local or state property owner. The Administrator may. statutory requirements for repetitive government does not, for any reason. at her sole discretion, modify the flooding. or have a high probability of accept tide from FEMA. or if other requirements of this paragraph (c)(101 to incurring future damage. the cost for criteria set forth in these guidelines accommodate the reasonable needs of a repair of which exceed the anticipated cannot be met; particular acquisition project. costs of acquisition. (5) An acknowledgement that the (3) The anticipated contribution that purchase price to be offered in any Part T11-Appral"). Valuation of Rea) ine acquisition may have toward the negotiation will consist of the Property and Negotiation Procedures achievement of existing, on-#oing eclamaged appraised fair market value 3 Section M-1 Appraisal r programs in the community for le aany salvage if the community is to permanent excavation of flood plains. return the structure to the owner and (a) Following receipt by the and the extent to which the intended any insurance claims paid or to be paid Administrator of the property owners land reuse of the property provides as a result of any flooding event which "Request for Appraisal." FEMA will benefits to the public. caused the damage and which is used 1:0 Mign an appraiser to collect evidence (b) In addition, priority will be given establish eligibility under this section, of th probable fair market value (nV) to eligible property owners who agree to and that no other costs incurred by the of th: real property with which the limit FEMA's actual program cost by seller as a result of acquisition under Administrator can establish an amount substituting benefits available from this section are compensable; which the Administrator believes to be a other government and non-government (8) The assurance that a vilid flood just reflection of the FMV and which loan and disaster relief programs for insurance policy purchased under the can be used as a basis for negotiation. benefits available under thisgogram. National Flood Insurance Program was Detailed instructions wiH be provided to (c) Once the property qual lee under in force the! time of the e@entfsj which the appraiser so that the appraisal will (a), above, the feasibility of using Initiated eligibility for acquisition under be performed according to the standards practicable alternatives to acquisition this section, I ether with a recitation of for conducting appraisals contained in under Section 1362 will be considered. the policy numter and expiration date. the Uniform Appraisal Standards for including but not limited to acquisition (7) An agreement to cooperate in Federal Land Acquisitions. published by and permanent relocation by local. state every way reasonable In the appraisal the Interagency Land Acquisition or other federal sources. floodprootmg, and any title search to be undertaken by Conference to the extent that such or structural flood protection. FEMA; standards are consistent with the NFIP (d) Assuming practicable alternatives (a) An acknowledgement that the ancrthe state law in the state in which to acquitition under (b), above. do not Request for Appraisal does not the appraisal is being performed. exist and the property qualifies under constitute it commitment to selL (b) The appraisal will be conducted (a). above, the Administrator &hall. (9) An acknowledgement that. where by qualified appraisers as determined assuming Section 2362 budget . the cost to the Federal government for by FEMA to be familiar with the constraints do no, preclude acquisition. purchase ofdie land is deemed community and experienced with determine the property under unreasonable and not in the public performing appraisals for federal consideration to be eligible for interest due to the extraordinary lot government acquisition programs. ~0 50290 Federal Re~g~irt~r Vol. 4~S~, No. '14~6 Mdhd~y~. July 2~q& ~1~9~qW / N~ot~ic~qa (c) The appraisal shall provide (~qIi) An inventory k~ql~qnt~qi~qf~q*~q1~n~q1 the appraiser acceptable to the evidence of the fair market value of the buildings, ~s~qtr~uc~qh~e~qw ~qf~qixt~u~qm~. and other Administrator, and have a ~qKc~on~qd land and improvements. followi the Improvement& Including appurtenant ~' appraisal performed~. nil appraisal standards set forth in (a), ~abo~q:~6q0~q"~u the. removal buildings and equipment~. w~qb~qd~c~qb must be performed within two weeks of property in Its condition. to ~8q" extent were considered in establishing the receipt by the p~i~op~e. ~@~qy owner of the that it can be determined. prior to the ~qFMV of ~qd~qw mat Offer to sell ~qR~sa~ql Property. if it is not occurrence of the flooding or other (III~q) A ~st~e~qtem~e~nt at ~a established the process w~qf~qll be terminated in casualty event which initiated ~qF~8qM is the full amount b~e~qf~qi~qv~r~ed by the accordance with ~q(2~q), above. Upon consideration of eligibility for Administrator to be the fair market completion of ~qth~e second appraisal, the acquisition under Section ~qI~2qM~2qL value of the p~r~o~qlp~er~qt~qy as determined by property owner may either accept (d) During the course of the the appraisals, less any flood insurance reasonable the Administrator's appraiser's personal inspection of a claim amount paid or to be made ~0q" If established ~qF~8qM~0qV~. or forward the second property being appraised. the appraiser appropriate. less salvage value. appraisal to the Administrator for (~q1~q@~q) A statement indicating the ~qis required to we or talk personally to ~qt the review. Ile Administrator may accept the owner, or in th~e owner's absence his compensation disregards any increase reject or modify the second ~qF~6qMV ~a~qge~qf~qit or representative. In addition. t~qh~& or decrease in the fair market value of appraisal and may revise the Offer to owner must be given an opportunity to the property c~au~s~ad by the Project for Sell Real Property in accordance with accompany the appraiser during any which the property is b~2qo~6qV ~ac~qq~uf~r~9~6q4 any mod~i~qr~i~ca~qt~qio~n by mailing an inspection of the property. noting that the compensation is based (e) Appraisal reports must contain upon v~a~4qhe of t~qh~e property determined~. amended Offer to Sell Real Property to sufficient documentation. including to the ~e~xt~e~r~f~l possible, as It w~a~s prior to the property owner. along with an veific~a~qtion of past sales of the pro" the flooding or other casualty wed ~a~s~-~qh amended St~at~am~e~n~qt of Determination. and sales of comparable properties basis for ~ac~qqu~qi~t~qh~qi~o~qm~- and Upon receipt of the amended documents supporting valuation data ~qw~4qW the ~q(v~qj An ~exp~qlan~i~stio~n of the p~qd~n~c~qf~6qW the property owner at this point. or at appraiser's analysis of that data. to appraisal techniques used in app~rai~si~r~8qg any other point In the appraisal process. demonstrate the co~.r~ect~r ess of the the real property. may either execute the ori~0q&a~ql or appraiser'* opinions of ~qFM~6qV.~' (2) An ~-~4qMr t~o Sell Real Property~" to amended Offer to Sell Real Property. FEMA w~qbk~qb Is am offer on the ~0qW of mailing ~qt~qh~e offw to the Administrator, or Section M.2 Vo~qluoti~on of Real the ~qhomww~oer t~o sell the improved red terminate the transaction~. Property property to ~qF~ql~4qWA for the ~qF~0qM~6qV (c) Aside from the process described (a) Following receipt by the established by the A~8qd~qm~qI~n~qis~qtr~ol~or~. In this Section. there Is no other basis Administrator of the Appraiser~'s reports (b) Upon receipt of the Offer to Sell for negotiation of the amount of the and recommendations. the evidence of Real Property an~qd the Statement of ~qF~0qM~qV. property value shall be duly considered Determination of C~ompen"t~qi~on. the ~(d) Upon execution of any initial or and the ~qF~6qMV of the real p~q@operty shall property owner will have three opt~qi~o~ns~c amended ~4qO~8qf~8qf~eT t~qd Sell Real Property. the be established by the Administrator (a) make an offer to sell for the prop" ow~n~e~r~q(~s) shall return this based on the order of evidence established ~qFMV; (~qb) reject the ~qF~4qW: or ~executo~ry purchase contract to the evaluation provided below- (c) request a ~qm~c~qmd appraisal while Administrator In duplicate. upon receipt ~q(~qi~q) Prior sales of the prop" being remaining willing to ~se~ql~qL all as foll~ow~r~- of which the Administrator shal~q] acquired~. reasonably recent (within (~q2) Acceptance ~o~qf~qf~6qW~. ~4qN the property execute the Instrument and return a several years) and between wil~0qw~0qw ow~ner(~s) wishes to sell the Mal property duplicate original executed contract to buyers and sellers, shall first be for the established ~qF~0qMV~. the property the property ow~ner~q(s)~. A title search considered. ~oW~ner~q(~s) will sign ~qt~qh~e Offer to Sell Real ~-~l~k~&~qU then be ordered by the (2) If ~qF~6qM~6qV cannot be fairly Property in duplicate and ~qm~8qf~8qt~qm ~qH to the ~0qW str~at~o~r. preparatory to fixing a established using (1), above, sales of Ad~qm~qirLi~str~a tar w~qh~o will cause one copy date for the transfer of title. comparable properties in the area. to be executed ~a~nd returned to t~qh~e ~q(~a~q) Contract vendors executing an reasonably recent (wi~qd~iin several ye~qm) property owner and order a title ~se~a~r~c~ql~L Offer to Sell ~qR~0~8q4 Prop" in a and between willing b~oy~e~r~s and sellers, Upon receipt Of a tide r~epor~qt. b~qL~nde~r or ~rep~r~e~s~e~s~sta~qt~qiv~o capacity shall so indicate shall be considered. ~ab~stra~c~qL as appropriate, which It ~q&~.~0 and p~r~o~v~qi~2q& by separate do~qmme~nt. (3) If ~qF~0qW~qV cannot be established ~Q~v~qI~n~qg establishes to ~qd~qw satisfaction a. -- evidence of the authority under which (~q1) or (2). above, and the property Is Administrator, upon receipt of a Won the instrument it executed. For example. income producing. capitalization of satisfactory preliminary title o~6qO income produced by the property shall from the Department of justice. that title if the Offer to Sell Real Property Is be considered. is marketable. the transaction may executed by a corporation. it must be (4) If ~0qF~16qW~12qV cannot be established using proceed ~0qto closing. executed to the full and correct name of ~4q(~0q1~2q). ~6q(~4q2~0q)~q, or (3)~q. above, reproduction cost (2) Rejection ~qo~0q)~q'~q,~6qF~16qW. If the ~0qF~6qb~6q4V it the corporation by its duly authorized of the property less depreciation shall rejected by the property owner without officer or officers. under seal if required be considered. the intention ~4qt~qo continue negotiation~q, the by State law, and be duly attested and acquisition process for that particular acknowledged. A corporate secretary's Section M~q-3 N~0qe~6qgo~20qd~qa~4qLi~qo~qn Pr~qoc~qe~4qd~qa~qr~qe~qs property is termi~qn~qs~0qt~qedL certificate transmitting a certified copy (a) Once the Ad~qn~qkin~6qist~qr~qator has (3) Contest of ~0q1~20qMV. If the property of the action of the Board of Directors established the ~6qF~16qW~20qV fo~qr the property. ~qowner(~qs) still desires to sell his or her which authorized the corporate the owner will be furnished with: property following receipt of the initially officer(@) to act must accou pa~qn~8qy ~0qt~4qh~qe (1) A Statement of Determination of established ~6qF~16qW~08qV. but feels that the ~0qFMV Offer to Sell Real Property. Similarly. if Compensation to be offered for the does not adequately reflect the fair the in~qstrv~qa~qne~qi~qnt is executed by an property which will Include, market value of the 'property. the ~0qF~16qM~16qV at~0qtorney-~6qi~qn-f~qact. the offer to Sell Real (i) A description and location may be conte~qst~qed~4qL To c~qon~0qte~q9~4qt the ~0qFM~28qV~q. Property must be accompanied by the identification of the real property and the prop" ~6qm~qae~qr~q. at this or her own original. or duplicate original. executed the interest therein to be acquired; expense. must retain a qualified and acknowledged power of attorney. B-12 Federal Rooster / Vol. 45. No. 248 / Monday, July 28. 1980 / Notices SU91 Part W-4onlement and Closing waived, upon a proper showing, as to cortified copy of the Minutes of the conveyance by states. municipal Board of Director's meeting in which the Section IV. I Settlement and Closins corporations. and fiduciaries and other Resoluticit was adopted by the Board Upon execution by the Administirator persons &,%ng solely in a representative authorizing the officer(s) executing the of the Offer to Sell Real Property. FEMA capacity deed to do to. will proceed with obligating &rids for CHI Di;close the capacity In which any (xv) If executed by an attorney-in-fact completing the transaction and grantor acto who conveys in other than to be signed In the name of the principal acquiring tide evidence and other an individual capacity. by the attorney. properly acknowledged documentation in preparation for (iii) Show the name of the grantor In by the attorney as the free act and deed settlement and closing. This part sets the body of the deed and in its of the principal, and to be accompanied forth the procedures and standards to be acknowledgement, be signed by the by the original or a certified copy of the followed in acquistion of title evidence grantor exactly as the grantor's name power of attorney and satisfactory proof and closing. appears as grantee in the conveyance to that the principal was living and the -(a) Procuring evidence of title. All tide the grantor and account for any power in force at the time of Its evidence will be prepared pursuant to unavoidable difference by a recital exercises. the standards of and following the Identi" the grantor with the grantee (xvi) Have affixed sufficient recommended format and process of In the preceding conveyance. documentary revenue stamps. 'Standards for the Preparation of Title (iv) Disclose the marital status of each (2) Deed to the Local Unit of Evidence in Land Acquisitions by the grantor. Government. The deed to the local unit United States." (Department of justice, (v) Recite the true consideration and of government will be a general Land and Natural Resources Division. the receipt thereof. warranty or. if appropriate. special Washington. D.C.. 2970, hereinafter (vi) Convey the land to the "United warranty deed in a form consistent with referred to as the "Standards"). The States of America and its assigns." applicable state statutes. unless the Standards generally provide. among (vii) Contain the correct legal Federal government takes tide by lesser other things, that: description of the real property to be deed, in which case the deed shall be of (2) Title evidence will be collected by conveyed. the same kind (e.g., bargain and sale or tide companies, abstractors or attorneys (viii) Convey all the right. tide and quitclaim deed). The community &hall approved by the Department of Justice interest of the grantor in and to any execute and join in on the deed which and retained by FEMA. alleys, streets, ways, strips. or gores wiH set forth the specific restrictions (2) Purchase orders or contracts with abutting or adjoining the landl. and agreements regarding the use of the those searching tide will specify the (Lx) Contain no reservations or property as am set forth in Section format and content of tide evidence to exceptions not approved by FEMA/ 114(d)(3), above. In addition. the be acquired, the form and content of however, wben land is to be conveyed mtrictions wiD acknowledge and abstrats of title, certificates of tide, tide subject to certain rights, such as conform to 44 CFR Part 9. Flood Plain insurance policies and Torrens system easements or mineral rights thought to Management and Protection of documents of tide. be outstanding in third parties. they Wetlands. (3) Tide evidence will be collected must not be excepted from the (c) Certificate of Possession. As part and submitted to the administrator in conveyance, but the deed should be of the title evidence, a certificate of the required format as expeditiously as framed to convey all the grantor's right possession, b"ed on an inspection possible. Upon receipt of this title. and interest subject to the made at the time of the closing of the information, it wiU be forwarded to the outstanding rights. unless the Offer to purchase. must be signed by a duly Department of justice, Land and Natural Sell Real Property contract expressly authorized employee of FEMA. The Resources Division. for a preliminary provides otherwise. certificate of possession must be in a opinion of title. The preliminary (x) Refer to the deed(s) to the form appro"d by the Department of submittal to the justice Department will grantor(s). or other source of grantor's justice. include a copy of the title report. title. by book. page and place of record. (d) Simultaneous Closin abstract or binder, a copy of the Offer to wherever customary or required by (1) At the closing. a deeg will be Sell Real Property contract and a copy statute. delivered to the United States in of the deed to be deUvered to the (xi) Contain a reference to the Federal exchange for whatever consideration Federal goverrunent at the closing. Emergency Management Agency. This has been previously agreed to. FEMA (4) The Department of Justice will reference should follow description of will be represented by one of its own provide a preliminary opinion of the the land and in no instance should it be attorneys, an attorney from another : cceptability of the title for federal included in the granting. habendum or Federal agency, or an attorney retained wnership, and will specify at this time warranty provisions of the deed. by FEMA for the purpose. Acceptance of the precise information required and (xii) Release all rights of homestead, the deed by the Federal government steps that should be taken in completing dower, courtesy and other interests of @hall be subject to and conditioned upon the closing. the grantor's spouse, as required by the acceptance by the community of the (b) Deeds. The conveyance of title to local low. real property to the community. the Federal government and then to the (xiii) Be aligned, sealed. attested and Therefore, the local unit of government local unit of government will require the acknowledged by all grantors and their will be represented, in addition to the preparation. execution and recordation spouses. as required by local low. property owner and Federal of twodeeds: (xiv) If executed by a corporation, be government, and will immediately (1) Deed to the- United States. The signed in the hill and correct name of *de to ubsequen, to Its vL deed to the United States should the corporation by its duly authorized c P' 70 .7ent. I acquire b officer or officers, sealed with the ;: @ oUoww Eriogsaing the conform to local statutory requirements (2) F 4 and generally adhere to the following corporate seal if required by State law settlement documents will be forwarded requirements; and attested and acknowledgedL as to the Administrator and then to the Ill Be a general warranty deed: required by State Law. In addition. the justice Department for a final title' however, this requirement may be corporation sbaU deliver a Secretary's opinion. The documents to be forwarded ~0 B~13 ~q5~q02~q92 Federal R~e~q&~qt~qn ~/ Vo~L 45~. No. 1~q4~q6 1 Monday, July 28. 19~q80 / No~qt~qi~c~qn_ will include a c~onfor~i~z~i~ed copy of the ~&~qD~ay~$. ~qM~0~q4~L ~I~V~qWt~L W111~7111, 11111~1~2q*~11~1~, ~4qr~qf~qt~& ~q0 title. and. if ~2q6~@ ~qV~a~nd~ar~, kilo to do ~qf~qt ~6q6~0 deed ~qd~eli~s~i~qw~ed to the United States railroad ~r~qi~qg~ql~i~t~s~o~o~q&w~a~qy abutting or ~adio~qi~n~qir~l~qs United Stain may pay ~a~n~qy such taxes~. ~8qGovernm~i~a~n~qt~. the title evidence. t~qh~e said land and in ~s~o~id ~t~o any ~un~8qWd ~a~v~qw~qd for assessments~. and ~s~t~i~t~i~qa~tm~or~a~n~cr~i~s which am a certificate of inspection and a ~qd~an~i~s~qa~a to said p~r~e~qall~o~qw~- and the Vendor w~6qM hen against do ~ql~qu~qd ~qp~r~o~v~2q" the Vendor execute and deliver to the United States~. an shall tithe deliver~ to the obtained at the closing (affidavits, cl~o~s~qi~n~qj at tide, at th~ar~ea~qf~qt~e~r~. an demand. ~a~ql~ql ~qp~urc~qh~a~s~t~a~r at ~qt~qh~e closing of title ~qI~nstr~u~qm~s~u~t~t~a ~qi~n marked up tide ~r~e~qp~o~6qK conformed Copies proper instruments for the conveyance of recordable form ~e~n~qd sufficient to satisfy such of executed releases or satisfaction of **a tide and the assignment and collection 1~,~0~0~- ~-~n~A e~a~c~t~i~qm~ql mortgages~. etc.). of any such award. and further provided "I with the cost of ~s~ic~t~. a# or filing a~6qi~qd (3) Following review by the justice (community) accepts a deed to the described ~qi~ns~trun~i~ont~s; ~6q" provided further. that the Department the acquisition and transfer property ~qb~om ~6q*~a United States ~qimm~od~l~i~s~t~s~i~qty amount of ~a~m~2q* =~qp~e by the United will be considered final. after Vendor d~e~ql~qiv~i~r~t~s ~th~i~a above deed to the States ~0q&~,~a~ql~ql be acted hem the purchase (e) ~0qMo~n~qi~qto~r~qi~h~qS. Following any Section United So&%& It being t~qh~e Intention of the price of the ~ql~qud~qk that the Vendor will~. ~a~t the ~q13~q02 p~r~o~q)~e~c~qt ~qFEMA will from time to parties that the ~t~r~qw~i~s~qf~a~ir of tide shall talus request of the United St~a~t~e~qi and without prior place at a simultaneous Closing at which this payment or tender of purchase price. execute time review the performance of United States shall accept delivery of the and deliver ilia ~qg~i~qm~arall warranty deed to the communities that have accepted title to deed from the Vendor and immediately United States~. ~sub~qj~ec~i~t to ~q(2~q). above. pay the property acquired under Section 13~q62 to deliver a deed to the (community). Upon documentary revenue stamp tax. and obtain assure that the term of the deed are acceptance of the d~qleed by the fcom~qm~u~r~t~qi~ty~q@ and record such other curative evidence of being complied with. both deeds ~8q#~A~qy~ql ~qh~e~~t~e~c~o~i~r~qd~ed and the title as may be required by the United States. purchase price shall be paid to the Vender. rot purposes of this Offer to Sell Real Part ~0qV~q-~4qO~qf~qf~qw To Sag Real Prop" Should the (community for any reason refuse Property. I of the t~qi~e~s~e of the delivery of the The "Offer to ~qSel) Real Property~* for to accept the deed from the United States. the deed. ~t~qh~e p~i~op~e~s t~qy or any pan thereof shall which ~qF~qEMA will be the of~qfe~r~qm parties herein ~s~qt~qir~e~a t~qh~at t~qh~e deed from the have b~eft affected by an assessment or referred to in ~qU~q1.3~q(d)(~qZ) above. shall Vendor to t~qh~e U~s~L~qil~l~ed States ~sh~8q" be r~etu~r~z~qw~qd a~s~s~e~s~s~m~a~n~i~s which an or may become forthwith to t~qh~e Vendor ~a~n~qd a~ql~ql rights and payable in annual ~qi~n~s~t~a~ql~qL~m~ent~s. of w~qi~uc~qh the generally conform to the followi~n~qs liabilities of and between the parties under first installment is then a charge or hen. or format and contain the following this agreement shall cease and be of no has been paid. then ~qh~i~s~t the purposes of this provisions: effect; this provision shall survive delivery of ~2qM~e~r to Sell Real Property ~a~ql~ql the unpaid Offer To Sell Real Property the deed to the United States. Installments of any ~s~uc~t~i assessment. (3) It is ~a~qg~r~ve~qd that the United States will including theme come ~2q&~e and Project. ~qr~r~o~qa No. and Contract N~4 defray the expenses ~qInc~qId~e~qf~qt to the yabl~e after the delivery of the deed. ~s~qh~en The undersigned. hereinafter called the preparation and recordation of the deed to ~q9~q: deemed to be d~u~e and payable and to be Vendor, in consideration of the ~mu~l~w~al the United States a~nd the procurement of the lions upon t~qh~e property affected thereby and covenants and agreements herein e~t forth. necessary tide evidence establishing shall be paid ~an~c~qil di~v~e:har~qged by the Vendor. offers to sell and convey to the United States marketable title. If ~T~qh~e United States sh~a~ql~qil upon the delivery of the deed or by an of Americo and its assigns. the fee simple assert objections to the marketability of title appropriate diminution in ~t~qh~e purchase price title to the r~a~qllowin~g described land~ql. with ~the (other than ~e~nc~i~ambr~a~i~i~ces which title is made to be paid to ~t~qh~e Vendor~. building and improvements thereon, ~8q" all ..subject to" herein), Vendor shall be ~'~v~a~n (~q5) The Vendor We@ that loss or damage ~q'~4qt time ~to the property by firs. acts of God or other rights. h~eredit~ame~nt~g. easements. and due notice the~r~v~o~qt within a r~ea~sonab appurtenances ther~eurit~o belonging. located prior to the date set. for the closing of tide casualty shall be at the risk of ~th~e Vendor in the County or-. St~o It of and. if necessary. Vendor shall be entitled to until the title to the land and deed to the bounded and described as f~oll~ow~r~. a reasonable ~a~qd~qj~a~w~%~qme~nt so remove such (com~qmu~oity) have been accepted by the objections, but shall not be compelled ~t~o United States; and in the event that ~vuc~qb~q)~o~s~o Subject to the following rights ~qi~n third parti~e~r bring ~a~qn~qy ~ac~qb~qm or proceeding or to incur w~8q7 or damage oc~c~am the United States may. expense in order to r~and~e~r Lido marketable~, without ~qh~ab~qility. refuse to accept conveyance Excepting and reserving only the following In the event such objections cannot be of ~t~qhe title at it May elect to accept rights and interests in the above de~qwr~ib~ed removed and as a result thereof tide ~oba~qU conveyance of Lido to ~suc~ql~i property. ~qi~n which case them shall ~qb~a, an ~e~qqu~qU~A~qble adjustment ~qp~r~o~qpe~t~t~qr~. ~qI~n~a~qm~e~ql~qy~:~q1 prove u~nm~quk~et~ob~qt~e. as a condition Precedent to the execution of ilia Offer to Se~qg Real of the purchase price. The terms ~i~s~s~id conditions of this offer are Property. it is agreed that the rights of th~e (a) The property is sold subject ~to~@ (a) as follows: United States and the liability of the Vendor Utility easements. agreements, reservations. ~q(~1~q) The Vendor agrees that this ~n~qf~qr~t~r may shall be limited to ~t~qhe following: (a) United covenants and restrictions of r~ec~o~t be accepted by the United States through any Stain may elect to rescind this contract by providing the now art not violated by duly ~ou~tho~ri~ted rep~re~se~ctat~iv~e. by delivering. giving due notice thereof to Vendor w~qh~o shall existing bu~i~qldl~i~a~n~s or a" ~t~qh~er~v~o~qt. (b~ql any state ~qma~i~'~l~i~n~qg. of telegraphing a notice of thereupon pay to that United States its net of facts an accurate survey might show acceptance to the Vendor at the address actual ~qd~i~sbur~s~t~a~x~e~s~t for ~e~x~am~0qki~n~qg title providing title is rot rendered ~u~n~m~a~2qA~s~t~ir~qb~ql~e stated below. of any time within ~q( ~q) ~q(~qw~qi~t~qh~o~qw Policy ~qi~s~a~u~qk~2q4 ~qw~qh~er~s~u~qp~o~s~i %hill thereby: ~a~nd it) ~o~r~c~qm~ac~qh~i~n~e~n~ts ~2q" month~q(~s~q) from the date bereof. whereupon contract shall b~e~com~i~s null and void and variations fro~in the record line of ~qb~o~qd~qge~s. this offer and the offer and ~qt~2qh~qe acceptance terminated with the same force and effect as retaining W~qO~6qU~qL ~qSid~qtW~q&~2qI~2qk~qS ~qa~qnd fences ~4qtW~2qh~qii~12qa thereof become a binding contract. if i~qt had not been ~qox~6qm~qied~q. and none of the shall ~qr~qt~qo~qt be deemed to r~qa~qnd~qer ~qb~4qd~qo (~q2) Th~qe United States of A~6qm~qe~qric: agrees to Parties shall have a~qny further rights. duties. unmarketable). pay to ~q1~4q1, Vendor ~8qf~qo~qr said land ~qth sum of liabilities, cla~0qh~0qm or obligations arising (7) Vendor has not made. and. except as ~q- ~0q(~8qS-~0q). payable at the settlement after hereunder or in any manner from this expressly ~qs~qet forth h~qe~qnr~0qi~qn. does not make any "he acceptance of this offer and pr~qel'imin~qar~0qy tr~qan~qs~qact~qi~qom or ~4q(b) United States m~qay elect. representations as to t~2qhe physical ~6qwr~qic~4qliti~qo~qn. ~qIpprov~qL~4ql of the Vendor's tide; provided the by giving Vendor ~8qd~qa~qt mice t~8qh~qe~qr~qec~qi~6qE to Income, expense, taxes. operation or ~qs~qa~qry Vendor can execute and deliver a good ~12q" accept such tide as the Vendor is able to other matter or t~2qk~0qd~08qq a~8qf~16qb~qc~0qb~qn~4qg at relating to ~4;208qm ~qiuf~8qficien~qt general warranty deed conveying convoy. without abatement of t~4qh~qe pu~qir~qc~8qh~qo~qs~qe the herein described premises or the fixtures~q, ~;56;72qetabl~qm title to said land with the price for ~8qd~qsf~6qw~8qA~q*~q. o~8qb~4qj~qec~qt~0qi~qc~qi~qs~qs or ~qo~qn~qc~qu~qm~8qb~qr~qan~qic~qe~qs, utilities. ~qO~24q"p~qa~2qw~qi~qs~qt. ~8qF~qi~qs~qtr~qu~qi~qshi~qn~0qg~qs ~2qW~08qJ heredi~qt~qsm~qa~qn~qt~qs and appurtenances thereto of tide. personality ~qt~8qh~qer~qt~0qi~qj~qi~q. no United States belonging to the United States of America (4) I~12qM~qS Vendor agrees that a~2ql~2ql t~qA~qX~q&~qL expressly acknowledges that ~qn~qo and its assigns, ~qi~qn fee simple, bee and clear general end special ~2qW~qa~qs~qs~qam~qen~qt~qs~q. and any representations have been made other than from all liens and encumbrances, except other hem or e~qn~qc~qa~qt~qn~6qbr~qanc~qe~qs which ar~qe a Lee those 9~00q0 forth In this contract and having those specifically excepted or reserved against the land of the time of conveyance to inspected ~qth~qe subject premises and heft above. together with a ~qM~4q&~12qK t~0qid~qs~q. ~qa~qs~qs~qill the United States shag be s~qo~ql~4qi~qe~12qW of r~qe~qc~qo~qi~2qd familiar with d~08qw c~qo~qnc~8qi~qtt~0qior~qt ~qb~2q)~12q~~q. do interest or the Vendor ~qI~q& and to may ~qst~qr~qe~qam~qi~qs. by the Vendor of or do tr~qi~qa~qn~08qd~qer of United Stabs ~qa~4qgr~qa~qv~qe to ~qrc~qe~0qp~qi~4qd~2qw~qo~qo~6qm~qand~q' ~0 B~14 Federal Register Vol. 45. ~6qNo. 14~q6 ~if-M~ond~ay. July 2~q8, ~q1~q9~0qW Notices ~q5~q02~q93 any personality included in this sale. "as Is- Notice of acceptance of this offer Is to be ~e~n the date ~qb~er~ec~if subject to ~n~om~al wear sent to: and ~qw~o~r to the time of closing title. Vendor (Name and Add~qm~e~s~q) of ~a that the United States shall r~ec~ei~q@~e vacant Possession upon closing title to ~t~qhe Acceptance ~of Offer to Sell Real Property subject property. ~q(~q8) Settlement shall b~e made on or about Date: ~q- @I the Office of ~q7~qb~e after of the Vendor contained herein is (~q9~q) Should the Vendor for any mason other ~qb~er~eb~qy accepted for and an behalf of the Son default by the United States fail to United States of America. deliver a deed to the United States. the (Name and Title) Vendor shall reimburse the United States for Witness: any expenses in~cu~irr~ed in connection ~*~1t~qh (National Flood Insurance Act of ~l~q9~b8 (Title ~s~ix~e~qmin~atio~n of title. including the cost of any X~qI~qI~I of Housing and Urban Development Act survey of the p~r~op~t~irt~qy. obtained by the of 295~8). effective January ~q2~8. 2~9~69 (33 ~qF~qR United Stotts. ~q2~q7~q8~qK November ~q28.19~68~q). as amended 42 (10) It is ~0q"d that the spouse, if any. of U~.~qS~.C~. ~qM~-4~1~0q0 Reorganization Plan ~qN~* o ~q3 the Vendor. by signing below. a~4qr~e~e~s to join of ire (~43 ~qF~qR ~0qm~'~43) and Executive Order In any deed to ~t~qh~e United States and to ~q3~2~1~2~,~@~. dated March 3~1.~3~97~9~q1~4~4 Fit 1936~71. execute any instrument deemed necessary to and delegation of ~outh~ori~i~qj~- to Federal Convey to ~t~qh~e United States any *opera It or Insurance Administrator. dated April 1. ~q2~q9~7~1~? Community estate or interest in the subject ~qF~qK ~qZ~0qM2)) p~i~mop~er~ty ~a~nd to relinquish and release any dower. courtesy. homestead. ~or.~o~th~er ri~qSht~s ~6qus~u~e~qd of Washington. D.C. July Is. low. or interests o~qf ~ou~c~ql~i~spou~se therein Gloria M. Jimenez. (~1~1~qi The Vendor represents and it is a ~8qA~e~qder~a~ql I~ns~u~r~c~i~nce A ~qd~i~nini~qo~.~r~o~to~r Condition of acceptance of this offer that no In ~D~w~. 1~1~1~1~r~d ~'~q41,~4~1~) 1~4~5 ~a~m~ql member of or delegate to Congress. or ~b~qu~i~qm Con ~6~7~~1~6~4~1~.~6 resident commissioner. shall be ~a~qdmi~led to or share any part of this agreement. or ~to any- benefits ~t~qh~e~,~. me) arise therefrom. but this ~qV~qmvi~s~qion shall not be construed to extend to any ~a~4qr~e~e~m~en~t if made with a corporation for ~qi~ts general benefit. (~2~2) If the Vendor is a corporation. it %~vill deliver to the United States at the time of the delivery of the deed hereunder a resolution of ~qI~t~s Board of Directors authorizing the sale and delivery of the deed. and a certificate b~@ the ~qSe~cr~et~a~r~@ of the corporation certi~qh~A~n~qs such resolution and setting forth facts showing that the conveyance is in con~qfo~r~mi~t~q% with the requirements of ~the State's bus~4nes~s corporation low. ~qT~qhe deed in such case shall contain a recital sufficient to establish compliance with said section. (23) This Offer to Sell Real Prop~er~l~) and A~t~z~qip~t~a~nce of Offer to Sell Real P~rope~, I ~y may not be assigned by Vendor ~%~qi~th~ou~i the express written consent of the United States. ~q7~qbe tome and conditions aforesaid are to apply to and bind the heirs. executors. ~ad~i~n~i~ni~str~ator~s~. successors. and assigns of the Vendors (14) This Offer to Sell Real Property. upon acceptance and execution by the United States. shall contain the final and entire agreement between the parties and they shall not be bound by any terms. conditions. statements or representations, or&] or w~qrit~ql~qen. ~qno~qt herein contained and Vendor agrees that no representative or &Sent of the United States has made any r~qepri~qe~qsen~ql~qo~qlio~qn or promise with respect to this offer not expressly contained herein. Biped. S~qt~qal~qed~q. and Delivered this do% Witnesses. (Seal) Vendor ~4qI~2qs~qe~qa~2ql~4q) (seal) Spouse of Vendor Vendor (Seal) Spouse of Vendor ml.-I low OWN F4.000 Or-Guitleal4crE PRO&AA" PRE"Mi"At-ve FEVA COMMUNITY VACISIOAI FEMA- COAWLAWTV Pitopstry *PPRAISAL CAUSIAler VANA&AM "ALUAT'126L MX&7'f"* SECT fOAJ 13&z CRITERIA eommumirY F&mA /36X Pxo&RAM Imal-le PIK&-r/Ae&S1 FFNA rWl-EamfivES F"lA SENDS INIrIATES Peo&RAPf A Ot4i"ISTEA TOR IFAC47VISITIom iS IN PROPERTY OKAIZASA EVALVATE5 9,LJ&- 7WE PUBLIC WrEtEs %rows r 0W APP*A#SMA 189-E PROPMTIES At OAfMU"fTY WeITES CON.SuLrATJOAj tVI7,Y LOCAL DECISION- pajkfA SPECIFY/A49 FEMA RE410AIA L- HAfel"46 PCOCEGS r PROACATAO DIRLICToe 0 SLEVAMN AND APPRAISAL" ovirm FEW COMMUNITY WOO- PleVCP/A0& FXgLfA FE"A IFIES E$CPRE"ES eWITNI" 60 DA" opr /IJIT/ArE5 RECAFivi"& SAmar) PRO&ZAM C0,41"umiry op OVILLINAAlaSS, 7- POTEAJTIAL- PARrics PATE' F-Li4i8it-ory commw/@y SUBMITS FE"A HRAVQt44rYlC5 PROPOSAL MR Usr FW,,fA ASS14"S dee A E61a"A L FIELD OF AtGUIRED LAND A PISKa TV vo STAFF R" A PPeA is*L op FAiR EL1618LE ACOPELME5 HAAXArr VAL-ME It PrE"A 1342 PRO- epmv) ACAIA AzeEmS lV55 PROPOSAL. I APPRA ISEX. SUBmirs REPbpr COM14VAWY "erts ITO A"CPr TITLE - d.- EHA Srm FAfv FGA4A Aj&foTATIo"S W17m pp.0pZjtTy OW,4&kS f'AcQvIsmom AMP PADPEjery 4,4jrAgs RELISK TAANSFE)t FAMA SENDS owmak Peery owmaxi oprioms implooe"ATIC)"A04DA" / FKMA 00tPEAS AP40 COMMLwIry CLEARS ec)"mmovtrY INALE "OPF&A 'TO Srd A REA I- OlV"9t RP-1ffCrS PMVANOAf-- 81.16ATE1 TITLS PROPERTY Sys NKAirs &ELISE 4wWria" PROCESS Is TE SKAACH FMAIDS PA-A?4 POP Ae- PROPERTY ro FANA* I OVEMOLITIO" OF QVINED LAND - -OR- IL STRUCTURES F,,---- "RESS TO SELL Ar Fmv TITLE SaARCAl e0l* -oje- T -OR- PL-STED AND AC- 0 PUBLIC SALE OF FEmA PerioDicAL EPTED BY JUSTICE STRUCTWES Fm LY J401`41TORS AC- -Ae REQUESTS SECavoAPPRAGALl DEPAR77ME"r $At-VA6E VALVE dgU/,VND LAND .::t -- IL - _Oe- OWNEC ONTAINS 5ECO#4D APPRAISALl SIMVI-TA"WOUS 9OWAro#j OF (Wirfil" TWO WLAKS OF RaC ctoswa SrRUCTCARCS TO /Af& "OFFER TV SK"' ) 1 :1 ovwvt OWNER SI&AIS "OFFER lj@ FOP- REWCATlaw IV SIELL-' A0VO 3EP405 eavl&vv By PxoPrary owAgjtls orrioAa-,) Ir To rgj6fA DsPr. OWNER A"&PrS FiosrAPPRAISAL.1- [RESTORES SITE AND A6RO" TV SELL J, -1 -OX.- F&PIA S16A4 AT11,le ACtVu,$ITIOAIAPJD_ IfEf,ir AAJDR P7RA"SFER F/NAL SECOAJO APPIR*15. ONE COPY TO P& RAEVIEW F&MA 5573AMWPMVIOEAPPROPR NER "'A' SIE'L.' A -tF& A X" Z 1'. " A14D R, COPY FMARE 84.- PRINCIPAL STEP5 IN FFMA 1362 MM&AM flROP,fR7Y OWNEC@ OP1`13-"S ---- OW"F-Z ACCEPTS AIFEW FMV (FLOODED PXOPE&rY MAMAS& P-406FRAM) LAP40 A69ESS TO SELL -OP-- -- KJECTS F14VAPJD AC PROCESS Is 7EC$4,$jAZD@ AggArlAirmil.4 )Xto- ION2- APPENDIX C METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING POTENTIAL PROPERTY DAMAGE C-2 METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING POTENTIAL PROPERTY DAMAGE The identification of properties with a high potential for meeting Section 1362 property eligibility criteria is based on estimates of the amount of damage that is likely to be caused by a one percent (100-year) flood. These damage estimates are based on "Depth of Water/Percent Damage" relationships developed and current- ly used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (see Table C-1). In order to apply these relationships, estimates are required of thefirst floor elevation of each affected structure and the elevation of flood waters during the projected one percent flood. Estimates of first floor elevation were usually made by estimating the ground level elevation at the structure and then estimat- ing the height of the first floor above ground level. In some cases, detailed data available from surveys conducted for sewerage studies provided data on the sill elevations of individual structures. Table C-2 describes the sources of information for these elevation estimates. Estimates of flood water elevations also had two parts. Estimates of still water elevations were taken directly from FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) for each of the study areas. Wave crest elevations were estimated using the FEMA Field Manual for Estimating Wave Heights in Coastal High Hazard Areas in Atlantic and Gulf Coast Regions, March 1981. A detailed study procedure was developed to identify structures with a high poten- tial for meeting Section 1362 property eligibility criteria. This procedure allows for the sequential application of three sets of screening criteria. The damage threshold used in each screening was set at 40 percent rather than 50 per- cent to ensure that structures marginally subject to "damage substantially beyond repair" were included. 1. Initial Screening. The preliminary screening involved only structures out- side the V-zone and criteria were selected in order to identify, on the basis of the most easily and qu ickly obtainable data, structures which could not be expected to suffer extensive flood damage under the most extreme circumstances. This first screening involved four main steps: o identification of structures located outside the V-zone o grouping of structures within the smallest contour intervals delineated on available topographic maps C-3 TABLE C-1: DEPTH OF WATER/PERCENT DAMAGE RELATIONSHIPS o Percent Damage Per Structure Type Depth of Water One Story 2 or More One Story 2 or More At lst Floor (ft) No Basemen No Basement With gasement With Basement A-zonel- V-zo e2 A-zone V-Zone2 A-zone V-zone2 A-zone V-zonez 3 0 0 0 0 -2 4 -7 3 .5 0 0 0 0 8 14 5 9 0 7 12- 5 9 11 19 7 12 1 10 .18 9 16 18 32 11 19 2 14 25 13 23 20 35 17 30 3 26 18 32 23 22 39 4 28 20 28 28 35 5 29 22 39 33 33 ...... .... ::::61 ........... 38 6 24 35 7 _75`:7 26 38 ............ ........ -..... ....... .... .. ...... 8 A 31 . ... ...... ........... ... . ..... .. ..... .. . .. .. ....... .......... .7 7.: 9 36 .... ....... 10 38 ................ ... . . ..... .. .... @*:: :::* I . ..... .......... ...... .... ...... ........... 4 12 .74 13 X077. .......... .. ........ 14 ......... 15 ..... ..... 16 17 18 .......... ...... ... ................... ..... ...... ........... .......... ....................... ........ ...... ........ ................ 1 Source: Federal Insurance Administration, FEMA, "Depth-Percent Damage Data," January 21, 1974, except as noted in footnote 2 below. 2 V-zone estimates = 1. 75 x A-zone estimates. The 1. 75 factor represents an adjustment, based on an evaluation of damages-to structures.caused by wave impact during Hurricand Frede,,ic in September 1979, discussed in Elevating to the Wave Crest Level, A Benefit: Cost Analysis Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 1980. LLJ Da .mage thresholds used for this study. ~0 C-4 TABLE C-2: DATA SOURCES FOR ELEVATION ESTIMATES Elevation Reference Source of Detailed Study Areas Primary Date Topographic Mapping Norwalk Points (Ft. ~&~b~e~q" M.~S~.L.) Or Elevation Reference Points ~N~a~r~b~o~r~v~ie~w Detailed topographic mapping. Scale I-- . 10~0 ft. Contour City of Norwalk Interval 2 ft. Supplemented with sill elevation$ from Engineering Office Metcalf Eddy sewer plan. ~f~t~o~r~w~. III Islands Fairfield Pine Creek Detailed topographic mapping. Scale I'- ~- 1~0~0 ft. Contour Town of Fairfield Beach Interval ~- 2 ft. Town Pion ~& Zoning office Stratford Long Beach R~MIFA elevation measurements. (Town topographic mapping Top of ~l~o~m~W~ard ends of ~s~zo~n~s groin, Town of Stratford does not Include Long Beach area) Elevation ~1~2.0. Town Engineer ford ~.~1~,~1f~ord Detailed topographic mapping. Scale I" ~- 200 ft. Contour City of Milford ~Po nt Interval ~- 2 ft. Engineering Office Cedar Beach Detailed topographic mapping. Scale I" a 200 ft. Contour City of Milford Interval 2 ft. Supplemented with ~qWI elevations from Engineering Office Metcalf Eddy sower plans. ~B~e~y~v~i~e~w Detailed topographic mapping. Scale I" ~- 200 ft. Contour City of Milford Interval ~@ 2 ft. Engineering Office Silver Reach Detailed topographic mapping. Scale I" - ~Z~DO ft. Contour City of Milford interval - 2 ft. Engineering Office Guilford Gross Island R~MFA elevation measurements. (Town ~s~op~e~gr~aph~ic mapping Mail I ft. up utility pole ~12~58, Town of Madison Madison does not Include Grass Island area) Circle Beach Road. Elevation 5.75 ft. Town Engineer Circle Beach R~KFA elevation measurements. (Town does riot have ~t~o~p~e~- Nall ~Ift. u~p utility pole ~025~8, Town of Madison graphic mapping) Circle Beach Road. Elevation 5.75 ft. Town Engineer Clinton Cedar Island R~MFA el~evat~io~n.~me~a~sur~ements. (Town-does not have t~op~o- Top of catch basin In Grove Street Tom of C I I ~nt~on graphic mapping) near concrete bulkhead at town dock. Zoning Enforcement Office Elevation ~5.~6~4 ft. Harbor View ~R~MFA e~l~ovat~;on measurements. (Town does not have topo- Large n~e~l~l~i~n utility pole ~0963~, Town of Clinton graphic mapping) West Road. Elevation assumed to be Zoning Enforcement Office ~10.0 ft. Clinton Beach RMFA elevation measurements' (Town does not ~h~a~ve~-t~o~p~o~- Top flange of fire hydrant ~at 1~1~43 Town of Clinton graphic mapping) Shore flood (Property Map 86. Block Zoning Enforcement Office 72, Lot 112). Elevation 10.~40 ft. Westbrook Grove Beach Detailed topographic mapping, Scale 101 a 2~00 ft. ~C~A~mt~our C.E. Maguire. Inc. Interval ~- 5 ft. (Town does not have topographic mapping) New Britain, Connecticut West Beach Detailed topographic mapping. Scale I" ~- 200 ft. Contour ~C.~E~. Maguire, Inc. Interval ~- 5 ft. (Town does not have topographic mapping) New Britain, Connecticut Old Saybrook Chalker Beach ~R~MFA elevation measurements. (Town does not have t~opo- Top of fire hydrant an Cr~anton Street Tow" of Old Saybrook graphic mapping) just north of Lot 76 (Property ~M~ap 12). Zoning Enforcement Officer Elevation 7~.59 ft. Gr at Hammock ~RMFA elevation measurements. (Town does not have t~opo- Lowest floor of dwelling off Walker Town of Old Saybrook Be: ch graphic mapping) Avenue (Lot ~4~8, Map 14). Elevation Zoning Enforcement officer 12~-76 ft. Plum bank RMFA elevation m~e~ssure~me~n ~ts~. (Town does not have topo- Lowest floor of dwelling off Walker Town of Old Saybrook Beach graphic ~q:~app~in~g) Avenue (Lot ~4~8, map 14). Elevation Zoning Enforcement Officer, 12~q-76 ft. Old Lyme Hawks Most R~qMFA elevation measurements, (Town does not have topo- Nall marked on utility pole "ear Lot Town of Old Lyme and graphic mapping) 2~q46. Map 6. Hartford Avenue. Elevation Zoning Enforcement officer ~q8 ft. Sound View Bronze disk in ledge outcrop 165 ft. Flood Insurance Rate ~qMa~qp, south of State Route ~q156. ~q4~q3 ft. east Town of Old Lyme. Ct~q. of Washington Ave. Elevation 20.53 ft. Elevation Reference Mark ~q113 C-5 o estimation of the height of water in each structure outside of the V-zone, based on the still water elevation of the one percent flood and lowest case first floor elevation assumptions (e.g., first floor is at the same level as the lowest contourl. o estimation of the worst case amount of damage to each structure caused by the one percent flood, based on the height of flood water estimates and worst case assumptions of structural characteristics (e.g., one story with basement). (Table C-3 was prepared to assist in this de- termination.) 2. Second Screening. The second screening included structures inside and out- side of the V-zone and was designed to eliminate additional structures from consideration before detailed field observations of each site were necessary. The application of the second set of screening criteria to the candidate structures that passed through the initial screening involved three main steps: o calculation of wave crest elevations at representative points in each study area where detailed topographic mapping was available. o estimation of one percent flood water height in each structure, based on still water flood elevation, calculated wave crest elevations, and where available, more precise first floor elevation data than could be interpolated off the topographic maps, i.e. sewerage studies (rather than lowest case first floor elevation assumptions used in the initial screening). o estimation of percent damage to each structure taking into consideration the number of stories and presenceofa basement, as determined from tax assessment records. 3. Final Assessment. The final assessment applied to all structures passing through the first and second screening and to all structures for which these screenings were not possible. This assessment required detailed field ob- servations and measurements. As a result of wide town-to-town variation in data quantity and quality, it was necessary to determine the approximate ground and first floor elevations: using a surveyor's level and the closest and most easily obtainable elevation reference points in each study area for which detailed topographic mapping was unavailable. c-6 These measurements did not include a detailed elevation determination of each individual structure. Sufficient elevation points were established to allow (a) the grouping of structures into areas of approximately equal elevation; (b) the analysis of relative elevations throughout the study area; (c) the calculation of wave crest elevations along continuous reaches of the shoreline with similar elevations. The average first floor eleva- tions above grade level of groups of similarly elevated structures, rather than the first floor elevation of each individual structure, were also estimated. The height of the water (wave crest) in groups of structures was calculated and Table C-1 was used to estimate potential damage. Table C-3 served as a field guide for estimating potential damage to groups of structures. In some cases, the calculation of the first floor elevations and worst case damage of the lowest structures in a group allowed the entire group to be eliminated from consideration. The elevation of some structures, naturally, will vary from the average elevation. These exceptions are not factored into the final assessments. C-7 TABLE C-3 FIELD GUIDE FOR ESTIMATING PERCENT.DAMAGE V-ZONE STRUCTURES (Base Flood Elevation - il ft. above VGVD) Height of Structure Average Grade Elevation Maximum Wave Crest Above Ground (ft.) in Flood Reach Elevation (Rounded to Type of Structures (Avg. Hgt. of Group) (ft. Above NGVD) nearest ft. above NGVD) Meeting Damage Criteria 0 15 all 5 14 all 6 14 all 7 13 oil 8 13 IS noVIS WS B 9 12 IS nOB/IS 8 10 12 no structures 4 15 all 5 14 all 6 14 all 7 13 IS noB/IS WS 8 8 13 IS noB/IS B/2S 8 9 12 no Structures 10 12 no structures 2 4 15 all 5 14 all 6 14 all 7 13 IS noB/IS 6/2S 8 8 13 IS noB/IS 0 9 12 no structures 10 12 no structures 3 4 15 all 5 14 all 6 14 IS noB/IS WS B 7 13 IS noB/IS 8 8 13 no structures 9 12 no Structures io 12 no structures 4 4 15 all 5 14 IS B/IS noB/2S 8 6 14 IS B/IS noB/2S B 7 13 no Structures 8 13 no structures 9 12 no structures 10 12 no structures 5 4 15 all 5 14 IS B/IS noB/2S B 6 14 IS B/IS noB/2S B 7 13 no structures 8 13 no structures 9 12 no structures 10 12 no'structures 6 4 15 IS B/IS noB/2S 8 5 14 IS 8/IS noB/2S 8 6 14 no structures 7 13 no structures 8 13 no structures 9 12 no structures 10 12 no structures NON-V ZONE STRUCTURES (Base Flood Elevation - 11 ft. above NGVD) Height of Structure Average Grade Above Ground Ellevation in Type of Structures (Aver. hqt. of group) Flood Reach Meeting Damage Criteria 0 4 IS B/IS no 8 5 IS noB 6 no structures 7 no structures 8 no structures 4 IS noB 5 no structures 6 no structures 7 no structures 8 no structures I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 3 6668 14100 9763 1 ,