Issuu

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN Final Report

AUGUST 2026

CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary A Layered Roadmap for a Safer, More Resilient Stamford

V 1 1

CHAPTER 2: PROJECT OVERVIEW

CHAPTER 3: A COMMUNITY- INFORMED PROCESS

Project Overview Project Goals Project Team Project Description

A Community-Informed Process Methodology Engagement Media Technical Advisory Committee Community Workshop Site Walk Community Pop-Up: Summer Solstice Celebration at Mill River Park Public Concept Presentation Final Presentation

CHAPTER 4: EXISTING AND FUTURE FLOOD CONDITIONS Project Area Review of Existing Plans, Studies, and Data Coastal Flood Modeling Compound Flooding Dynamics Hurricane Protection Barrier Jurisdiction Present-Day Coastal Flood Risk Future Coastal Flood Risk FEMA Flood Zones

6 6 7 8

13 13 14 18 20 32 41 42 44

49 51 53 54 56 58 60 64

CHAPTER 5: WHAT IS AT RISK?

CHAPTER 6: TAKING ACTION FOR RESILIENCE

CHAPTER 7: PATHWAY FOR IMPLEMENTATION

175

Overview 69 Critical Facilities 70 Parks & Open Space 72 Local Ecology 74 Stormwater Infrastructure 76 Transportation Infrastructure 78 At Risk Assets 80 Population Density & Race 88 Social Vulnerability Index 90 Environmental Justice Areas 92

A More Resilient Stamford – Vision 96 Resilience Action Areas 98 Resilience Action Area 1 100 Resilience Action Area 2 112 Resilience Action Area 3 142 Conclusion 169

Purpose of Chapter 7 How the Frameworks Connect Implementation Priorities Implementation Timeline Resilience Working Group Funding and Grant Readiness Operations, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management

APPENDIX A: OPEN HURRICANE PROTECTION BARRIER MAPS

PROJECT TEAM:

APPENDIX B: CRITICAL FACILITIES EVALUATION MATRIX APPENDIX C: INTEGRATED IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 1641 CO

N N E CT I CU T

APPENDIX D: INITIAL PROJECT READINESS PIPELINE

177 180 182 187 188 190 196

CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 1

Executive Summary A Layered Roadmap for a Safer, More Resilient Stamford Stamford’s coastal neighborhoods contain homes, businesses, parks, marinas, transportation routes, utilities, emergency services, and other assets that are essential to the city and the surrounding region. Many of these places and systems are already affected by high tides, coastal storms, storm surge, waves, tidal backflow, and drainage limitations. Climate change will increase these risks as sea levels rise and coastal flooding becomes more frequent, deeper, fartherreaching, and more damaging. The Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan establishes an updated understanding of these hazards and presents a practical roadmap for reducing risk while protecting public safety, local ecology, waterfront access, and quality of life. The plan focuses on Stamford’s coastal neighborhoods, including Cove, East Side, Shippan, South End, Waterside, and portions of Downtown and the West Side. It draws on previous plans and studies, flood modeling developed by the Connecticut Institute for Resilience and Climate Adaptation, mapping of infrastructure and community assets, coordination among City departments and partner agencies, and community engagement. The analysis considers present-day coastal flooding and future conditions with 20 inches of sea level rise, generally associated with conditions around 2050, and 40 inches of sea level rise, generally associated with conditions around 2100. It also evaluates how flood conditions differ depending on whether the Stamford Hurricane Protection Barrier is open or closed. The analysis confirms that Stamford’s hurricane protection barrier provides substantial protection to the South End and other low-lying areas. However, the barrier reduces risk; it does not eliminate it. Residual risks include delayed or incomplete closure, storms that exceed the system’s design assumptions, structural deterioration, and drainage limitations that can lead to stormwater flooding while the barrier is closed. As sea levels rise, the barrier may need to close more frequently and for longer periods, including during some high tides that are

not associated with major storms. Areas outside the barrier—including parts of Waterside, Shippan, Cove, and Stamford’s shoreline parks—remain directly exposed to storm surge, waves, erosion, and increasingly frequent tidal flooding. Sea level rise will also make it more difficult for Stamford’s stormwater system to function. When harbor water rises above low-lying drainage outfalls, water can flow backward through storm pipes and emerge from catch basins, manholes, and low points in streets. These conditions can also prevent rainfall from draining out of the system, which becomes particularly serious when high tides or storm surge occur at the same time as heavy precipitation or riverine flooding. Although the plan focuses on coastal flooding, it recognizes that Stamford ultimately needs to understand these hazards as a connected, compound-flooding system. The plan also identifies what is at risk. Coastal flooding can affect residential and commercial properties, public parks, beaches, wetlands, transportation corridors, stormwater infrastructure, healthcare and emergency-response facilities, electrical substations, wastewater facilities, shelters, municipal operations, and the Stamford Transportation Center. A facility does not have to be directly inundated to become unusable: flooded access roads, power loss, communications failures, fuel shortages, or disrupted supply routes can interrupt essential services. Community engagement was integrated throughout the planning process. Residents, community organizations, public agencies, City staff, and technical advisors contributed to the development of the plan through a range of engagement activities, including a public workshop, Technical Advisory Committee meetings, a guided site walk, a community pop-up, virtual public presentations, interactive maps, surveys, online materials, and direct correspondence. Participants described recurring

flooding and drainage problems, concerns about the condition and maintenance of the hurricane barrier, tide gates, roads, jetties, and utilities, and the effects of development, impervious surfaces, wetland loss, and tree removal. They emphasized the importance of safe evacuation, affordable housing, public waterfront access, resilient parks, infrastructure maintenance, ecological restoration, and continued public involvement.

eastern terminus near Cummings Park, the western terminus and Wallace Street floodwall, the Dyke Lane Pump Station, earthen embankments, structural transitions, utilities, and other locations where floodwater could bypass or flank the system. Detailed, physics-based modeling should then evaluate rainfall, stormwater, coastal surge, rivers, outfalls, tide gates, and barrier operations together under present and future climate conditions.

The plan’s recommendations follow a layered approach rather than relying on one project or one type of intervention. Four principles guide this approach: prioritize life safety; address present-day problems while preparing for future conditions; use nature-based and hybrid solutions where feasible; and coordinate coastal resilience with related City initiatives, particularly stormwater, transportation, open-space, and emergency-management planning. The recommendations are organized into three Resilience Action Areas.

Resilience Action Area 2: Flooding Outside the Hurricane Protection Barrier addresses shoreline neighborhoods, waterfront properties, drainage outfalls, municipal parks, and other areas directly exposed to coastal flooding. Because risk is distributed across both public and private property, the recommendations combine infrastructure, policy, open-space, and property-level measures. Stamford should inspect, repair, and maintain its existing tide gates; modify them where necessary to allow safe, accessible inspection; and advance additional tide gates at priority outfalls where tidal backflow threatens neighborhoods, roads, critical facilities, or other infrastructure. New installations should be designed with long-term access and maintenance in mind and paired with sufficient stormwater storage or pumping where closed gates could otherwise trap rainfall inland.

Resilience Action Area 1: The Hurricane Protection Barrier and Areas Inside the Barrier focuses on maintaining the barrier as a reliable part of Stamford’s resilience strategy while improving the City’s understanding of residual risk. The plan recommends a comprehensive Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Study consisting of a gate-closure analysis, a systemwide gap assessment, and detailed compound-flood modeling. The closure analysis should examine when and why the barrier closes, how closure decisions are made, how frequently and for how long closures may be needed under future conditions, and how repeated closures could affect drainage, navigation, water quality, staffing, and waterfront operations. The gap assessment should evaluate the full line of protection, including the

Zoning changes are also necessary because buildings approved or substantially renovated today are likely to remain in place as flood risk increases. As a nearterm measure, the plan recommends increasing the elevation requirement in Zoning Code Section 9B from above the Federal Emergency Management Agency Base Flood Elevation by two feet and preparing City staff and applicants for updated flood-resilient building standards. For the medium

term, Stamford should complete physics-based compound modeling and use the results to revise the Flood Prone Area Regulations or create a Coastal Resilience Overlay Zone. Future requirements should apply to the full area projected to flood, establish location-specific elevation standards, and require a dry route between new or substantially improved development and a designated evacuation route. Residents and property owners also have an important role. Depending on the building, use, flood depth, velocity, and wave exposure, appropriate measures may include wet floodproofing of nonhabitable areas, dry floodproofing where structurally suitable, elevation of buildings and utilities, backflow prevention, relocation of vulnerable assets, and business-continuity planning. In areas facing severe and repeated losses, voluntary buyouts may eventually be considered as a last-resort, triggerbased strategy. Any such program would require broad public support, meaningful assistance for participating owners, transparent consideration of communitywide costs and benefits, and a plan for restoring and managing acquired land. Municipal parks and open spaces should be treated as part of Stamford’s resilience infrastructure. The plan presents a toolbox that includes tidal-wetland restoration, living shorelines, naturalized berms, green stormwater infrastructure, floodable recreation areas, resilient landscaping, and daylighted streams. Vulnerable buildings, utilities, paths, promenades, and facilities can be elevated, floodproofed, redesigned, or moved away from the most exposed shoreline areas. These strategies can reduce flooding and erosion while preserving recreation, improving habitat, and maintaining public access. Resilience Action Area 3: Emergency Preparedness and Resilience Corridors prioritizes actions that can improve safety and mobility before larger capital projects are completed. Stamford should formalize a network of evacuation routes connecting coastal evacuation zones to higher ground, inland roads, and Interstate 95. The network should avoid known low points, provide multiple parallel routes, maintain access to critical facilities, support transit-assisted evacuation, and be reinforced through traffic-signal operations and clear public communication.

STAMFORD’S HURRICANE PROTECTION BARRIER

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

modeling. Predetermined thresholds should trigger actions such as road closures, bus detours, evacuation-route changes, warning signs, field verification, and public alerts. A three-tier signage system—permanent evacuation-route signs, dynamic emergency signs, and public flood-awareness markers—would connect everyday preparedness, real-time response, and long-term education. Critical facilities should be evaluated for direct exposure, access, backup power, fuel, communications, equipment, staffing, operational redundancy, and cascading failures across interconnected systems. The Shippan Avenue–Magee Avenue corridor is a priority because it is both a critical evacuation route and the lowest point along the corridor. The concept developed for this area combines new tide gates, stormwater storage, green infrastructure, possible pumping, replacement and rerouting of drainage pipes, traffic improvements, and public-space enhancements. A roundabout could improve yearround safety and support evacuation if traffic signals lose power. The concept should advance through compound-flood modeling, engineering, traffic analysis, alternatives evaluation, cost estimating, permitting, and continued community engagement. The plan is a roadmap rather than a set of construction-ready projects. Stamford can begin with near-term actions such as formalizing evacuation routes, improving signage and communication, piloting flood sensors, inspecting tide gates, beginning the hurricane-barrier closure and gap analyses, updating interim zoning requirements, and distributing private-property guidance. Larger initiatives—including detailed compound-flood modeling, barrier improvements, additional tide gates, the Shippan resilience corridor, critical-facility upgrades, open-space adaptation, and future zoning changes—will require phased investment, agency coordination, permitting, funding, maintenance planning, and public participation. By integrating resilience into capital planning, land-use decisions, emergency operations, infrastructure maintenance, park investments, and private-property guidance, Stamford can reduce current risk while building a flexible pathway for adapting to changing coastal conditions over time.

The City should also establish a coordinated flood information and alert system. Coastal and overland flood sensors should feed a shared web-based dashboard that combines real-time water levels with weather forecasts, tide information, and flood

CHAPTER 2: PROJECT OVERVIEW

CHAPTER 2

Project Overview Project Goals The overarching goal of the Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan is to help the City reduce the risks that coastal flooding poses to people, property, infrastructure, and natural resources. The plan is intended to serve as an actionable roadmap that addresses both present-day flooding and the increasing risks associated with sea level rise and climate change. A primary objective of the project is to establish an updated understanding of current and future coastal flood risk. The planning process evaluates high-tide flooding, storm surge, coastal storm flooding, and the effects of sea level rise. It also considers Stamford’s low-lying topography, the operation of the hurricane protection barrier, and the ways that elevated water levels in Stamford Harbor can interfere with stormwater drainage. This analysis allows the City to understand where flooding is likely to occur, how deep or frequent it may become, and how risks may change over time. The project also seeks to identify the people, places, and systems that are most vulnerable. This includes homes and businesses, roads and evacuation routes, wastewater and sanitation facilities, drainage infrastructure, parks and open spaces, critical community facilities, and the hurricane protection barrier and associated flood-protection system. The assessment considers not only whether an asset is exposed to flooding, but also how its failure or loss of access could affect surrounding neighborhoods and the broader community. Special attention is given to critical infrastructure, public safety, socially vulnerable populations, and areas that experience repeated or severe flooding. Another central objective is to incorporate community knowledge and priorities into the planning process. Residents, property owners, community organizations, City departments, technical experts, and other stakeholders contributed information about past flooding, neighborhood conditions, important transportation routes and

facilities, and desired outcomes for future resilience investments. The engagement process is intended to communicate technical information clearly, recognize residents as experts in their own lived experience, and build a shared understanding of flood risk and the choices involved in managing it. The plan is designed to develop and evaluate a broad range of practical adaptation strategies. These include emergency preparedness and evacuation improvements, flood sensors and warning systems, upgrades to the hurricane protection barrier and tide gates, drainage improvements, resilient design standards, zoning and policy changes, adaptation of parks and municipal facilities, voluntary property acquisition, and floodproofing or elevation of individual buildings. The project emphasizes layered solutions that combine traditional infrastructure with nature-based and hybrid approaches, such as living shorelines, restored wetlands, naturalized berms, green stormwater infrastructure, and floodable public spaces. Finally, the project aims to create a practical, implementation-informed framework for advancing resilience actions and adaptation pathways. Recommended actions are prioritized according to urgency, effectiveness, cost, feasibility, community benefit, and funding eligibility. The plan identifies near-term actions that can be advanced relatively quickly, longer-term strategies that require additional study or coordination, and opportunities to incorporate resilience into capital projects and private development. It also identifies potential funding sources and establishes a foundation for future design, permitting, grant applications, and construction. Together, these goals and objectives are intended not only to reduce flood damage, but also to improve public safety, ecological health, shoreline access, neighborhood quality of life, and the long-term value of Stamford’s resilience investments.

STAMFORD’S HURRICANE PROTECTION BARRIER

Project Team Victor Rella – Assistant Fire Chief of Volunteer Services

City of Stamford

Bill Ackley – Deputy Emergency Management Director

Miguel Robles – Assistant Fire Chief 1641

Jody Bishop-Pullan – Director of Health and Human Services

N N E CT I CU T

Ralph Blessing – Land Use Bureau Chief Ann Brown. P.E. – WPCA Supervising Engineer Luke Buttenwieser – Senior Transportation Planner

Tyler Theder – Regulatory Compliance and Administrative Officer Sergeant John Vossler – Stamford Police Training Division

Fuss & O’Neill

Lou Casolo, P.E. – City Engineer

Katherine Jacobs- Senior Landscape Architect

Robert Clausi – Floodplain Administrator and Environmental Protection Board Director

Sara Morrison- Environmental Principal

Louis DeRubeis – Director of Public Safety Health and Welfare

Erik Mas- Senior Vice President

Brittany Dube – Behavioral Health, Health Promotion, and Emergency Response Supervisor

Ian Concannon- Environmental Planner

Brian Faughnan – Emergency Communications Director Sergeant

SCAPE

Alex Maxwell- Environmental Principal

Kevin Fitzgibbons – Police Department Marine Unit

Pippa Brashear- Resilience Principal

Steve Frycz – Traffic Manager

Nans Voron- Principal

Philip Hayes – Deputy Fire Chief

Tal Fuerst- Senior Associate

Susan Kisken, P.E. – Engineering Coordinator of Inspections and Plan Review

Jessy Rojas Güere- Designer

Vineeta Mathur – Principal Planner

Woods Hole Group

Erin McKenna – Planner and Project Manager

Kirk Bosma, Senior Coastal Engineer and Innovation Director

Robert Morris – Fire Chief Brian Ohleth – Deputy Fire Chief Juan Porro – Associate Engineer

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

CHAPTER 3: A COMMUNITYINFORMED PROCESS

2024

CHAPTER 3

A Community-Informed Process Methodology Data collection

Technical Advisory Committee Meeting 1

2025

Public Workshop Analysis

Site Walk Technical Advisory Committee Meeting 2

2026

Technical Advisory Committee Meeting 3 Design

Community Pop-Up & Concept Design Presentation Final Presentation

TIMELINE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EVENTS AS THEY SHAPED THE DESIGN PROCESS

Community engagement was an important component of the Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan, with an approach designed to ensure that the plan reflects the lived experience of Stamford’s coastal communities. Because climate risks affect neighborhoods, infrastructure, parks, waterfront access, emergtency routes, public facilities, private property, and daily life in different ways, engagement was used to build a shared understanding of Stamford’s challenges and identify priorities that may not be fully captured by mapping and modeling alone.

favorite places, community assets, and opportunities for improvement. A guided site walk supported place-based discussion of existing conditions and potential strategies. Community pop-ups created a way to meet residents during existing public events. Virtual meetings, online materials, surveys, digital outreach, and the project website expanded access for participants who could not attend in person. In addition, the City created a dedicated email address for residents to submit feedback related to coastal resilience.

The engagement approach was intended to be open, equitable, sustained, and systematic. The project team recognized that Stamford was not starting from scratch: residents, City staff, community organizations, and public agencies were already familiar with repeated flooding and its impacts across coastal and urban neighborhoods. The engagement process built on this existing knowledge while creating new opportunities for community members to review information, ask questions, share concerns, and help shape the direction of the plan.

Engagement activities were organized as part of the planning and design process rather than as isolated meetings. Input was gathered in phases, beginning with a shared understanding of existing and future conditions, continuing through discussion of adaptation strategies and focus areas, and concluding with review of draft recommendations and implementation next steps. This phased approach allowed feedback from one stage to inform the next.

The purpose of engagement was to share information and gather input. Project materials and meetings were designed to explain technical findings in clear language and accessible graphics so that participants could understand flood modeling, climate projections, adaptation strategies, and tradeoffs. At the same time, residents and stakeholders were treated as experts in their own lived experience of the city. Their observations about recurring flooding, drainage issues, infrastructure conditions, waterfront access, tree loss, parks, shoreline conditions, and neighborhoodspecific concerns helped ground the planning process in local knowledge.

Community input helped identify where flooding is already affecting daily life, which assets and places matter most, and what types of solutions should be considered. Feedback reinforced the importance of nature-based and hybrid strategies, emergency preparedness, resilient public open space, waterfront access, ecological restoration, infrastructure maintenance, and continued public involvement. The engagement process helped establish a shared vision for a more resilient Stamford. It supported transparency, built awareness of future risks, and created a foundation for ongoing collaboration as the City moves from planning toward implementation.

The engagement process used a range of formats to reach different audiences and support different types of participation. Public meetings introduced the project, reviewed climate and flood risk information, and presented draft recommendations. Interactive boards, maps, and discussion stations allowed residents to identify locations of concern,

Engagement Media To reach the broadest possible cross-section of the community, project details were communicated through multiple channels, including project site walks, in-person and virtual meetings, a project website, and other hands-on community events. Key project materials were translated into Spanish and posted online. The project team produced several forms of media for public distribution:

Project Fact Sheet

Coastal 101 Flyer

The project fact sheet was developed in multiple languages to provide general info on the project, answer FAQs, and provide access to a link in the project website for more information and opportunities to engage with the project planning process.

This flyer was developed as a fun and educational flyer targeted at community members of all ages— including kids. The flyer was developed to be printed and circulated across the community, including at local churches, schools, parks, libraries, etc.

¿Por qu la resi é es impo liencia rtante Stam ford? costera en St

amfo millas rd posee m de co sta Un ás de 19 resilie nc riesgos ia ayuda. a plan de vivien de infraest reducir los da ructur ecosist s, empleo a, s, emas futuro na de la turales y el ciudad

Coastal Management Zone

AREA DEL PROYECTO

SOUTH END

ADAPTAR

Cove Island Park

West Beach

Kosciuszko Park Boccuzzi Park

COVE - EAST SIDE

Cove Harbor

WATERSIDE Westcott Cove

Rippowam River

Stamford Harbor

Desarrollar una hoja de ruta hacia la resiliencia que incluya especificas recomendaciones especificas por sitio para adptar la ciudad a los futuros riesgos.

Long Island Sound

https://tinyurl.com/StamfordCRP

PROJECT FACT SHEET

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

. 4) 02

siliencia? Que es Re dad de una La capaci , empresa comunidad natural o entorno ir, resistir, para preven recuperarse y der pon res errupción. int una de ge Research

Inun da

ci ó n e n C u m m i n g

Fu k(

ding Coastal floo critical can damage e— tur infrastruc power ds, like roa drains, lines, stormater and wastew sing cau s— tem sys uptions . service disr ive repairs and expens

13 ary

rt m e n t C T - J a n u

Depa

Fl o o

din g at

Cu m m in g

s Pa

(So

c ur

INL

RIV

R IE RR BA HURRICANE

EM SYST

FLO OD

PLA IN

,2 13

ry nua

li c e

Online Visita el sitio web que aparece a continuación o escanea el código QR para obtener actualizaciones, detalles de los eventos y oportunidades para participar:

En persona La participación de la comunidad será bienvenida durante todo el proceso. Puedes participar en los próximos eventos públicos: • Reuniones públicas • Recorrido por el sitio • Eventos emergentes

El área del proyecto se enfoca en los vecindarios ubicados principalmente al sur de la I-95 y dentro de la zona de “Manejo del Área Costera” (Coastal Area Management).

Flood Pathways

Inland areas flood when water enters through low-lying areas between higher grounds as water levels rise .

Inlets an channe d tidal ls saltwat allow er to push inland during storms , neighbo flooding rhoods infrast and ru from th cture far e shore .

Tidal flooding is the inundation of the coast by seawater from the ocean or tidally influenced water bodies. Flooding from high tides (“sunny day” flooding, king tides) will be experienced as a chronic stress due to sea level rise.

¿CÓMO PARTICIPAR?

La Ciudad de Stamford está desarrollando un plan de resiliencia costera que tiene como objetivo ayudar a la comunidad de Stamford a prepararse y adaptarse al cambio climático —especialmente a las inundaciones costeras provocadas por el aumento del nivel del mar y las tormentas— para proteger la vida, las propiedades y los activos naturales, culturales y económicos de Stamford.

Department CT - Ja

PARTICIPACIÓN COMUNITARIA

frequent

olice

ESTIMACIÓN DE COSTOS + AJUSTES, ELABORACIÓN DE INFORME FINAL

Hazard TIDAL FLOODING

DESARROLLO DE DISEÑOS CONCEPTUALES

Plan de Resiliencia Costera de Stamford

for

RECOLECCIÓN Y SÍNTESIS DE DATOS, EVALUACIÓN DE INFRAESTRUCTURA CRÍTICA

OTOÑO 2025

PRIMAVERA 2024

Entre la primavera de 2024 y el otoño de 2025, el equipo del proyecto está trabajando para analizar el riesgo de inundaciones costeras, evaluar su impacto en la infraestructura crítica y los bienes comunitarios, generar alternativas de diseño a nivel conceptual y desarrollar un plan final que ayude a Stamford a reducir los riesgos y tomar acción. Este proceso está siendo informado con base en una sólida participación comunitaria, donde se invita a los miembros de la comunidad de Stamford a participar y compartir sus prioridades, metas y aspiraciones.

ta m

¿CÓMO SE VA A DESARROLLAR Y CUÁL ES EL TIEMPO ESTIMADO?

Priorizar soluciones basadas en la naturaleza & soluciones hibridas, entre otras, para reducir el riesgo de inundaciones costeras, apoyar la ecología local y la calidad de vida.

SHIPPAN

Establecer un actualizado entendimiento de los actuales y futuros riesgos de inundacion costera.

Coastal risk refers to the ongoing threat that rising seas and large storm events—both intensified by climate change—pose to coastal communities. In Stamford, the most frequent coastal hazards are tidal flooding and storm surge. These coastal flood hazards are projected to pose even more challenges for the City in the future, resulting in repeated property damage, infrastructure disruption, and long-term economic and environmental consequences.

PRIORIZAR

What are the coastal risks and hazards affecting Stamford’s community?

Holly Pond

Cummings Park

ANTICIPAR

STAMFORD

DOWNTOWN

¿Qué hará el plan?

Mill River Park

Hazard STORM SURGE

event-based

Storm surge is the quick rise in seawater level during a storm, measured as the height of the water above the normal predicted high tide. The surge is caused primarily by a storm’s winds pushing water onshore.

Chan rnmental US Global Fuente: . . ), Intergove (USGCRP ge (IPCC). Program Climate Chan Panel on

Fringe Flooding are Wetlands d by sea threatene yet they level rise, l role in play a vita dwaters, floo absorbing sion, limiting ero coastal g and shieldin . ies communit

Low-lying areas along the waterfront are flooded as water levels rise above the existing ground elevation . Stamfor d’s barrier wa hurricane the 196 s built in 0s to pro the city tect fro storms . It m coastal dikes, flo includes odw pumps tha alls, and storm sur t reduce in the harge impacts bor area .

COASTAL 101 FLYER

Social media posts

Project Website

Social media templates were developed to be deployed at future community outreach junctures, announcing upcoming events and ways to engage in the planning process. These templates were populated and circulated in advance of all public meetings associated with the project.

A website was created to host a simple and accessible means of checking the latest project information, including past and planned outreach events. This resource was updated at major project milestones to disseminate information to the public and solicit feedback via online surveys.

EXAMPLES OF SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

SCREEN SHOT OF PROJECT WEBSITE HOME PAGE

Technical Advisory Committee The Citizen and Technical Advisory Committee held regular check-ins throughout the project and was comprised of representatives from a broad spectrum of departments, boards, and working groups within the City of Stamford. The support of the Citizen and Technical Advisory Committee was critical in guiding the development of this project by offering feedback, co-hosting community events, and sharing major project updates.

Meeting 1: December 2024 The first Citizen and Technical Advisory Committee meeting provided an overview of the project approach and timeline, including the project’s background, goals, and objectives. The project team outlined work to date on existing conditions data and proposed an approach to integrate fieldwork and compound modeling conducted for the Cummings Pond area of the City. The Citizen and Technical Advisory Committee also discussed the approach for community outreach and engagement.

Meeting 2: July 2025 This meeting was held to evaluate updates to the coastal flood model used to assess current and future flood risks across the City. The Citizen and Technical Advisory Committee also reviewed the proposed Resilience Action Areas organizing the City based on flood exposure profile, existing assets, and adaptation options.

Meeting 3: June 2026 The Technical Advisory Committee provided feedback on the resilience action area concepts developed to date, including recommendations for refining the proposed strategies and how they are presented.

SCREEN SHOT OF ANALYSIS IN PROGRESS SHARED AT A TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Community Workshop Overview The meeting started with a brief presentation by project team members, followed by a public workshop where community members were invited to engage with the project team and share their aspirations and challenges related to coastal flooding issues throughout the city.

Purpose The purpose of the community meeting was to introduce the Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan process, share information about current and future coastal and stormwater flood risks, and gather input from residents on their experiences and priorities. The meeting aimed at identifying vulnerable areas, explain the planning process and timeline, and invite community members to help shape the vision for a more resilient Stamford.

Who The workshop was attend by over 60 attendees, including residents from a diverse range of neighborhoods in Stamford, community and nonprofit leaders, and public sector representatives.

What At the meeting, the project team presented an overview of the flood risk analysis for coastal neighborhoods. Attendees learned about potential impacts to infrastructure and community assets, explored interactive maps highlighting areas and community assets at risk, and discussed ideas for preliminary flood mitigation solutions. Participants were invited to share their feedback through stations and open dialogue, contributing valuable insights that will inform recommendations in the final resilience plan.

When & Where The community workshop was held on Tuesday, February 18, 2025, at the Stamford Government Center Cafeteria.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

COMMUNITY MEMBERS CONTRIBUTE FLOODING OBSERVATIONS

Project Overview Board

Understanding Flooding & Climate Change Board

Overview The Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan is a strategic effort to help communities prepare for climate change impacts, including sea level rise, storm surge, and coastal flooding. The project focuses on neighborhoods south of I-95, with particular attention to the Cummings Pond area, which faces both coastal and stormwater flood risks. Over the next eight months, the City of Stamford, along with technical partners, will assess these risks, explore design solutions, and develop a roadmap for resilience. The plan will prioritize nature-based and hybrid strategies that support both flood protection and community qualify of life.

Overview Flooding in Stamford is caused by multiple factors, including coastal storms, storm surge, high tides, and heavy rainfall that overwhelms stormwater systems. As climate change intensifies, both coastal and inland flooding risks will increase, leading to more frequent tidal flooding, riverine overflows, and stormwater backups. The Coastal Resilience Plan uses advanced flood modeling from CIRCA to assess exposure to coastal flooding, while the Cummings Pond Subarea Plan will focus on inland stormwater flooding challenges. Understanding how these types of flooding interact—known as compound flooding— is key to building long-term resilience for Stamford’s neighborhoods.

INSERT CAPTION HERE PROJECT OVERVIEW BOARD

Synopsis

The open house invited community members to learn about the coastal resilience planning process and explore the areas most at risk from flooding. Attendees were encouraged to share personal experiences, participate in discussions, and contribute ideas for future resilience strategies. Public input will help shape the vision of the plan, influence design alternatives, and guide site-specific recommendations. Throughout the process, ongoing workshops and the project team will provide multiple opportunities for residents to stay involved and help shape a safer, stronger Stamford.

The purpose of this community meeting was to help residents better understand the different types of flooding that impact Stamford and how climate change will increase those risks. Attendees explored diagrams and flood maps, learned about stormwater and coastal flooding dynamics, and discussed how development patterns can affect drainage and flood risk. Community members were invited to share their personal experiences with flooding, indicate areas of concern, and provide feedback on which types of flooding most impact their daily lives. This input helped the planning team develop targeted solutions that address both coastal and stormwater flooding in Stamford’s most vulnerable areas.

INSERT CAPTION HERE

PROJECT INTRODUCTION PRESENTATION

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

UNDERSTANDING FLOOD RISK BOARD

INSERT CAPTION HERE

COASTAL FLOODING BOARD

“Where are Your Flooding Concerns?” Board

Ideas Wall

Overview

This series of boards presented neighborhood-scale flood risk maps, illustrating areas exposed to different flood events, including Mean Higher High Water and storms with 10%, 1%, and 0.2% annual chance of occurrence.

This board served as an open-ended “Ideas Wall,” inviting community members to share their thoughts on how Stamford should address flooding and improve waterfront resilience. Participants were asked to reflect on current waterfront uses and suggest ways to integrate flood risk reduction with enhancements to public spaces and ecosystems.

Critical infrastructure, such as transit lines, pump stations, discharge points, and key community assets, were overlaid to show areas of greater vulnerability. The goal was to help residents visualize how flood risk intersects with critical amenities and daily life. These maps will inform recommendations for resilience strategies tailored to Stamford’s most at-risk neighborhoods.

Key concerns included the loss of trees, risks to critical infrastructure such as sewage treatment facilities and electrical substations, and the impacts of increased development on flooding. Suggestions ranged from replacing impervious surfaces with permeable materials to restoring natural habitats like oyster beds and salt marshes. Community members also emphasized the need for resilient waterfront infrastructure and protections for recreational boating and tourism.

What We Heard

Community members provided valuable feedback and local knowledge about flood vulnerabilities and infrastructure concerns. •

•

Questions were raised about development decisions in flood-prone areas like Cook Point (i.e. “14-Acre Site”) and the possibility of surge barriers along the West Branch of the Rippowam River. Residents expressed concerns about the status and repair of existing protections, such as the hurricane protection barrier and damaged jetties in Shippan. Other comments focused on site-specific issues like the need for backflow preventer maintenance and the impacts of development on recreational boating. Additional feedback noted worsening flooding upstream from Cummings Park, flooding and sometimes icing on low-lying roads like Weed Avenue, concerns around tidal creeks and sinkholes near Cummings Pond, and frequent flooding of pedestrian areas in Cummings Park.

•

Attendees highlighted a strong desire for more nature-based solutions, including tree planting, bioswales, and permeable surfaces to manage stormwater upstream. Concerns were raised about the city’s lack of a tree protection ordinance and the noticeable increase in flooding following tree loss due to recent development. Suggestions included forming a volunteer corps for stewardship and ensuring docks, marinas, and waterfront infrastructure remain resilient. The waterfront is widely used for recreation, including beaches, walking, biking, and boating, with community members expressing support for protecting these spaces while enhancing ecological restoration. There was also interest in elevating shorelines and bulkheads outside the flood barrier system to provide additional protection from rising water levels.

INSERT CAPTION HERE

IDEAS WALL BOARD WITH ATTENDEES INTERACTING WITH PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

These neighborhood-specific insights will help the project team prioritize solutions that address both physical flood risks and the needs of Stamford’s coastal communities.

SUB-AREA BOARDS DOCUMENTING FLOODING CONCERNS

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Central Map Station Overview

Sticky Notes

The central map served as a key interactive tool during the workshop, enabling participants to share their local knowledge. By using stickers and pins, this collective input provided valuable insights into community priorities and areas that require attention. This exercise also offered a visual representation of community concerns, guiding future planning efforts.

Over 50 community comments were received, highlighting the following themes in order of frequency: •

Synopsis

•

The central map station was developed using a participatory methodology, where pins were placed to identify favorite places, flooding issues, and locations needing improvement. Additionally, sticky notes were used to complement the mapping of issues and opportunities.

•

Pin Flags

In general, the majority of flags were associated with areas needing adaptation/improvements measures and improvements, followed by flooding issues, and favorite places. •

• •

Pins for “adaptation/improvements” were mainly concentrated around Cove Island, Cummings Pond, and the southern part of Shippan. There were also pins along the West Branch Rippowam River and near the wastewater treatment plant. Pins for “flooding issues” were mostly found in areas marked as flood zones on the map, confirming the team’s diagnosis based on data. Pins for “favorite places” were concentrated in public spaces, though no favorite spots were marked in Shippan.

• COMMUNITY MARKING PRIORITIES AND CONCERNS ON CENTRAL MAP

RESIDENTS COMMENTS

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

•

Flooding and Environmental Risks: Most comments were related to flooding issues, with additional concerns about erosion and water pollution, mainly near Cove Island and Cummings Pond. Infrastructure and Utilities Concerns: Comments focused on pump stations, drain backs, drainage systems, and unpleasant odors near the wastewater treatment plant. Hurricane Protection Barrier Maintenance and Improvements: Another major concern was the three areas of the hurricane protection barrier, with comments on maintenance, repair, and the need to raise them, particularly the barrier at the East Branch of Stamford Harbor. Restoration and Ecological Rehabilitation: These comments were mostly about areas near Cummings Park and Cove Island. Impact of Private Development: Spread across the map, these comments raised concerns about new developments near the waterfront affecting inland areas and the increasing construction of roads, reducing the city’s permeability.

PROJECT TEAM AND RESIDENTS DISCUSSING STAMFORD’S CHALLENGES

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON CENTRAL MAP

FEEDBACK RECEIVED ON STICKY NOTES

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Emerging Themes Compound Flooding and Infrastructure Vulnerability

Responses to outreach events emphasized that the plan needed to address intersections where storm surge, high tides, and heavy rainfall converge. Coastal storms combined with upstream runoff are already overwhelming systems in places like Cummings Park and low-lying roads such as Weed Avenue.

Impacts of Development and the Loss of Natural Systems

Workshop attendees and public comments expressed concern about recent development, with increased impervious surfaces worsening localized flooding. Participants linked the loss of trees and wetlands to increased runoff, erosion, and drainage challenges. The plan should emphasize protecting remaining natural features, restoring those that are impaired or damaged, and promoting low-impact development and permeable surface retrofits.

Nature-Based and Hybrid Flood Solutions

Community members supported nature-based strategies like tree planting, bioswales, restored wetlands, oyster beds, and salt marshes as effective and multifunctional flood mitigation tools. They want the plan to prioritize solutions that reduce flood risk while enhancing ecosystems, recreation, and quality of life. Suggestions included adding backflow preventers, elevating shorelines and bulkheads, and maintaining or repairing existing barriers and jetties.

Resilient Waterfront Access and Recreation

Stamford residents consistently valued the waterfront for for walking, biking, beaches, and boating—yet these uses are being impacted by chronic flooding and extreme events. Community feedback highlighted the need to protect and adapt recreational infrastructure, such as marinas, docks, jetties, and parks, ensuring continued public access and economic activity tied to tourism and boating.

Stewardship and Community Knowledge

Community outreach requested that the Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan tap into the local knowledge of residents who are already experiencing flooding. Maintenance issues (e.g., backflow preventers) and historical flooding patterns should be taken into account. Community members expressed interest in stewardship opportunities, such as a volunteer corps for tree care and shoreline protection, emphasizing a desire for sustained public involvement.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Site Walk Overview The site walk began with a short project overview presentation from the project team, followed by a guided visit through Cummings Park. The park was selected for the site visit because it combines in a relatively short geographic area exposure to several types of flood hazards found throughout the rest of the city (coastal, tidal, and stormwater). The site walk was an opportunity for community members to engage with the design team, to observe current conditions on site, and to reflect on broader issues affecting Stamford’s neighborhoods.

Purpose The goal of the site walk was to exchange knowledge and perspectives—sharing information about present and future coastal and stormwater flood risks across Stamford and exploring potential mitigation and adaptation strategies. The walk also created space for residents to share their experiences and voice their priorities for the plan, making sure that the plan was informed by direct community feedback.

Who Residents from various Stamford’s neighborhoods, community and non-profit representatives, and public sector leaders participated in the site walk. The diversity of voices represented provided essential perspectives on how coastal flooding affects different parts of the city.

What During the event, the project team introduced findings from the citywide flood risk analysis, with a focus on the Cummings Pond sub-area. Participants explored interactive maps that highlighted vulnerable areas and community assets throughout Stamford, discussed preliminary ideas for flood mitigation strategies, and shared local knowledge with the project team at different interactive stations. Their contributions offered valuable guidance informing the development of the final resilience plan.

When & Where The site walk took place on Tuesday, August 5, 2025, at 6 PM, at the Cummings Park Beach Pavilion.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

PHOTO FROM SITE WALK

Existing and Future Condition Boards

Adaptation Strategies Boards

Overview

This series of boards illustrated Stamford’s existing topographic conditions, water levels, and coastal flood risks.

These boards explored potential strategies to make Stamford more resilient to coastal flooding. Three approaches were highlighted: “Keep the Water Out”, focusing on protective measures; “Leverage Natural Systems”, using nature-based solutions; and “Adapt in Place”, including elevating structures and designing infrastructure to coexist with occasional flooding. Project precedents helped participants visualize each strategy.

The “What is at Risk?” board presented FEMA data and identified flood zones, showing how fringe flooding affects much of the communities living along the shoreline highlighting the critical role of Stamford’s hurricane protection barrier in protecting low-lying inland areas. The “Understanding Stamford’s Geography” board provided a broader perspective, using bathymetry and elevation data to reveal how low-lying coastal areas extend inland, underscoring the interconnected nature of the city’s geography and flood risks.

What We Heard

What We Heard •

Residents observed worsening flooding upstream from Cummings Park and on low-lying roads such as Weed Avenue.

•

Comments expressed concern about sediment buildup in tidal creeks and sinkholes near Cummings Pond.

•

Cummings Park emerged as an area of frequent flooding of pedestrian amenities.

•

Attendees inquired about the status and maintenance of existing protections, including the hurricane protection barrier and damaged jetties in Shippan.

•

Community members expressed interest in maintaining neighborhood character and ensuring public access during flood events.

•

Residents generally supported practical measures like drainage improvements and check valves.

•

Some participants favored protective solutions such as seawalls for vulnerable neighborhoods.

•

Many were open to park adaptations, including occasional flooding and daylighting streams.

•

Concerns about costs and long-term feasibility of structural solutions like elevating homes.

•

Residents emphasized that strategies should preserve neighborhood character, recreational amenities, and safe access.

EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITION BOARDS

The observations and feedback received helped the project team prioritize solutions that respond to Stamford’s coastal flood risks while aligning with community needs.

RESIDENTS IDENTIFYING STAMFORD’S AREAS AT RISK AND COASTAL HAZARDS

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

PROJECT TEAM AND RESIDENTS DISCUSSING STAMFORD’S FUTURE

ADAPTATION STRATEGIES BOARDS

What Does a More Resilient Stamford Mean to You? Overview

This board invited participants to reflect on the question, “What does a more resilient Stamford mean to you?” Using stickers, community members shared concerns about specific areas of the city and challenges they face, along with ideas for possible strategies. The exercise captured local knowledge and highlighted common priorities, creating a clear picture of what resilience means for Stamford’s residents. These insights helped guide the project team in shaping strategies that respond directly to community needs.

Key Takeaways • • • • • •

Safer coasts: elevate the boardwalk, reinforce seawalls, and strengthen protection against flooding and storms Accessible mobility: safer sidewalks and streets, more reliable public transit Nature as protection: restore wetlands, expand parks, and use green spaces to help reduce flooding Housing and equity: protect affordable housing and ensure vulnerable communities are included in planning Community preparedness: improve emergency response, raise awareness, and plan for long-term resilience Immediate actions: repair damaged infrastructure, clear storm drains and ensure regular maintenance

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

INPUT RECEIVED ON STICKY NOTES

OUTREACH Overview

During the site walk, project team members distributed pamphlets to participants and other residents at Cummings Beach to raise awareness and provide information about the plan and the coastal risks and hazards. Celebrating Stamford’s diverse population, materials were created in both English and Spanish to ensure that the content was accessible and engaging for most Stamford’s residents

Coastal Resilience 101 Pamphlet

This pamphlet was developed to define and characterize the most frequent coastal hazards in Stamford and how these hazards are affecting residential areas, green spaces, ecosystems, and critical urban systems in the city. This pamphlet can be used by the city in the future as a supplementary tool that promotes awareness and education around the coastal hazards the city faces. Additional information can be accessed by scanning the following QR code, which allows residents to provide input and get more detailed information:

COASTAL RESILIENCE 101 PAMPHLET

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Community Pop-Up: Summer Solstice Celebration at Mill River Park Overview

What

The project team hosted a community pop-up during the Summer Solstice Celebration at Mill River Park, a free outdoor yoga and social gathering that brought community members together to celebrate the start of summer. The event provided an informal opportunity to introduce the Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan to residents and park users in a relaxed, accessible setting. Rather than relying on a formal presentation, the pop-up format allowed the design team to meet people where they were, answer questions, and discuss coastal and stormwater flood resilience in direct conversation with attendees and passersby.

The design team set up an outreach table where community members could learn about the Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan and ask questions about the project. The pop-up format supported oneon-one conversations, allowing the team to tailor discussions to each person’s interests, concerns, and level of familiarity with coastal flooding and resilience planning. Conversations focused on introducing the project, explaining the planning process, and sharing ways for community members to stay involved.

Purpose

The community pop-up took place during the Summer Solstice Celebration at Mill River Park, held at the Cohen Display Fountain in Stamford. The event included a free outdoor yoga class and a social gathering with local vendors and refreshments.

The purpose of the pop-up was to broaden awareness of the Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan and create another opportunity for community members to engage with the project outside of a traditional public meeting format. By setting up at an existing community event, the project team was able to connect with residents who may not have otherwise attended a workshop or site walk. The pop-up also helped direct participants to the project website and encouraged them to attend the upcoming virtual public meeting.

Who Approximately 40 people participated in the free yoga event, with additional engagement from passersby and park visitors. The event reached a mix of community members using Mill River Park for recreation, wellness, and social gathering.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

When & Where

Synopsis The pop-up provided a valuable opportunity to engage residents in a more informal and conversational setting. Community members were able to ask questions directly to the design team and learn more about how the Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan relates to their own interests and experiences. The event helped expand project visibility, build awareness of future engagement opportunities, and encourage continued participation through the project website and upcoming virtual public meeting.

Public Concept Presentation Overview The project team hosted a virtual public meeting to share draft concepts for the Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan and gather feedback from community members before the recommendations are finalized. The meeting built on earlier engagement efforts, including the February 2025 community workshop and the August 2025 Cummings Park site walk. The presentation reviewed the project background, existing and future coastal flood risks, and a roadmap of potential strategies to reduce flood risk, improve emergency preparedness, and support long-term resilience in Stamford’s coastal neighborhoods.

Purpose The purpose of the virtual public meeting was to present the draft resilience concepts developed through technical analysis, interdepartmental coordination, and prior community input. The meeting provided an opportunity for residents to learn how coastal flooding, storm surge, sea level rise, and compound flooding may affect Stamford over time, and to understand the range of actions being considered by the City. The meeting also invited public questions and feedback to help refine the recommendations before the final public presentation and report.

Who The meeting included over 50 attendees, including members of the public, City of Stamford staff, and representatives from the consultant team. The presentation reflected coordination with multiple City departments, including engineering, environmental protection, planning and zoning, stormwater management, transportation, public safety, health, and emergency management.

What During the meeting, the project team presented an overview of the Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan and explained the types of coastal flooding being evaluated, including high tide flooding, coastal storm flooding, storm surge, and the interaction between coastal water levels and stormwater drainage. The presentation also summarized existing and future flood risk modeling, the role of Stamford’s hurricane

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

protection barrier, and anticipated sea level rise conditions. The team then introduced draft recommendations for improving resilience. These included formalizing evacuation routes, evaluating drainage and traffic improvements at the Shippan Avenue and Magee Avenue intersection, implementing a flood sensor network, developing a tiered flood awareness and evacuation signage system, evaluating the hurricane protection barrier under future conditions, expanding the use of tide gates, considering planning and zoning updates, and identifying flood resilience strategies for municipal open space and critical facilities. The presentation also included high-level guidance for residents and property owners, including wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, elevating structures, and relocating vulnerable assets.

Agenda

How We Describe Flood Events

1. Project Background

Recurrence Interval: The average number of years, over the long term, between subsequent flood events of a given size or severity

2. Understanding Coastal Flood Risk in Stamford

Example: A 100-year flood event occurs on average once every 100 years.

3. A Roadmap for a More Resilient Stamford a. What Can the City Do?

% Annual Chance: the probability of a particular flood event or larger happening in any given year

b. What Can Residents and Property Owners Do?

4. Q&A

% Annual Chance = 100/recurrence interval Example: 100-year flood event = 100/100 = 1% Annual Chance

Hispanohablantes: esta información se publicará en el sitio web del proyecto antes de que termine la semana.

Percent Annual Chance is just a probability! It is possible for a given flood to occur multiple times in one year, in back-to-back years, or not at all for a period of years.

We want to hear your thoughts! Please use the Q&A feature to send us your questions.

In this presentation, we will use Percent Annual Chance and Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) interchangeably

Emergency Preparedness

Proposed Evacuation Routes & Modeled Flooding

Legend

Thank you for joining us! Want to talk more? Email coastalfloodplan@stamfordct.gov

When & Where The virtual public meeting was held on Wednesday, June 24, 2026, in the evening, through an online meeting platform. The meeting included a presentation followed by a public question-andanswer period.

What We Heard Community members asked detailed questions about how the plan relates to other sources of flooding beyond coastal storm surge. One participant raised concerns about recurring riverine flooding along Washington Boulevard and the Rippowam River, noting that flooding had caused significant impacts in that area. The City and project team acknowledged that Stamford faces flooding challenges across multiple watersheds and noted that other drainage and riverine flood studies are underway, with opportunities to expand analysis through additional funding. Participants also asked about the Stamford hurricane protection barrier, including whether the height of the wall and gate will remain adequate under future sea level rise conditions. The project team explained that the barrier provides significant protection today and that the current level of analysis suggests the height is adequate, but recommended a more detailed future evaluation to confirm how the system should perform under future climate conditions. Questions also

You have a jar with 100 marbles – 99 clear and 1 red. There is a 1 in 100 (or 1%) chance of you reaching into your jar and pulling out the red marble.

Scan this QR code to get more information and updates at the project website

SLIDES FROM PUBLIC CONCEPT PRESENTATION SLIDESHOW

focused on specific elements of the barrier system, including the berm near Bateman Way and the pump station, and how different barrier components should be evaluated over time. Additional comments focused on land use, zoning, and floodplain management. Participants asked whether zoning approaches should address increased residential density in special flood hazard areas and raised the role of state coastal management policy in reviewing development proposals. The project team clarified that the draft recommendations focused primarily on reducing risk to structures through elevation requirements and a potential future coastal resilience overlay zone, and that more detailed modeling could help inform future land use and zoning decisions.

Synopsis The virtual public meeting provided an important opportunity to share the project team’s draft recommendations and receive community feedback before the plan is finalized. The discussion showed continued public interest in understanding how Stamford can address the interaction between coastal, stormwater, and riverine flooding; how existing infrastructure such as the hurricane protection barrier can be evaluated for future conditions; and how planning and zoning tools can help reduce long-term flood risk. Feedback from the meeting will help inform the final recommendations and support the City’s next steps toward implementation, future funding, and continued public engagement.

Following this meeting, one resident contacted the City by email expressing a concern about the impact evacuation corridors could have on home values.

Final Presentation Overview The last public meeting in this project included a presentation of the final recommendations for the Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan. The meeting built on the draft recommendations shared during the June 24 public meeting and reflected input received from that meeting, along with continued coordination with City staff and project partners. The presentation summarized the project background, reviewed current and future coastal flood risks, and shared the recommendations that will be included in the final report. The project team also emphasized that the recommendations are not “shovel ready” projects; rather, they provide a roadmap for future design, funding, implementation, and continued community discussion.

Purpose The purpose of the final public meeting was to share the plan’s final recommendations with community members and explain how they are intended to help Stamford reduce coastal flood risk over time. The meeting provided an opportunity to clarify the role of the plan, describe the relationship between nearterm actions and longer-term resilience strategies, and identify the types of additional work that will be needed as recommendations move toward implementation. The meeting also gave participants another opportunity to ask questions, provide feedback, and learn how to stay involved as the City advances future resilience efforts.

Who The meeting included 76 participants, including City of Stamford staff, elected officials, members of the consultant team, and community participants. City staff and project team members participated in the presentation and discussion, including representatives involved in planning, engineering, resilience planning, coastal flood risk analysis, and landscape architecture.

What During the meeting, the project team presented the final recommendations of the Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan. The presentation began with an overview of the project, including the plan’s goal of creating an actionable roadmap to reduce coastal flood risk while supporting local ecology and quality

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

of life. The project team reviewed the project area, which includes Stamford’s coastal neighborhoods and areas within the Coastal Area Management boundary. The team then summarized coastal flood risk in Stamford, including high tide flooding, coastal storm flooding, and the ways sea level rise is expected to make flooding more frequent, deeper, fartherreaching, and more damaging. The presentation also reviewed the role of Stamford’s hurricane protection barrier and showed how present-day and future flood conditions differ depending on sea level rise and whether the barrier is closed. The recommendations were organized around actions the City can take and actions residents and property owners can consider. City actions included formalizing evacuation routes, improving drainage and traffic conditions at the Shippan Avenue and Magee Avenue intersection, implementing a flood sensor network, developing a system of flood awareness and evacuation signage, evaluating the hurricane protection barrier for future conditions, expanding the use of tide gates, updating planning and zoning tools, considering voluntary buyouts in very high-risk areas where there is public support, and adapting municipal open space. The presentation also included a toolbox of open space strategies, including living shorelines, tidal wetlands, green stormwater infrastructure, floodable recreation facilities, elevated access routes, elevated promenades, and relocation of vulnerable park assets. The project team also shared high-level guidance for residents and property owners, including wet floodproofing, dry floodproofing, elevating structures and utilities, and relocating vulnerable assets where appropriate. Participants were directed to additional resources, including Federal Emergency Management Agency guidance and the Stamford Environmental Protection Board.

When & Where The final public meeting was held virtually on Tuesday, July 28, 2026. Participants joined through an online meeting platform. The presentation included a question-and-answer period and directed participants to the project website and project email address for additional information and follow-up comments.

What We Heard Members of the public used the discussion period to ask detailed questions about how the final recommendations would move from planning into implementation. Several comments focused on the need for continued public communication, additional opportunities to review project details, and clear explanations of how future design, permitting, funding, and construction decisions will be made. Participants expressed appreciation for the work completed to date, while also emphasizing that many residents and community leaders will need more information to understand the recommendations, share them with neighbors, and participate meaningfully in next steps. Participants asked how the plan accounts for the interaction between coastal flooding, heavy rainfall, stormwater, and drainage issues. Comments noted that flooding in Stamford is often experienced as a compound problem, with coastal water levels, rainfall, drainage capacity, and maintenance issues occurring at the same time. Members of the public asked how related work, including the Cummings Pond watershed project and other City drainage studies, would address areas where stormwater and coastal flood risks overlap. Several questions focused on the Shippan Avenue and Magee Avenue concept, including the proposed tide gates, stormwater storage, potential pumping, and the roundabout concept. Participants asked how these improvements would work, where new infrastructure might be located, whether private properties or businesses could be affected, and how traffic safety and evacuation needs would be balanced. Questions also addressed whether future design phases would include traffic volume analysis, more detailed engineering, and cost comparisons between different options. The hurricane protection barrier was another major area of public interest. Participants asked about the condition of the barrier, the relationship between current repairs and future resilience needs, and whether the barrier will remain adequate as sea levels rise. Comments also raised questions about the timing of repairs, coordination with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the role of the Dyke Lane Pump Station, and whether the barrier should be evaluated for potential future elevation or extension.

Next Steps

July 28

Aug 7

Aug 27

Onward!

Final public presentation

Implementation Plan Meeting

Final report submission

Pursuit of Grant Funding & Plan Implementation

SLIDE FROM FINAL PUBLIC PRESENTATION SLIDESHOW

Members of the public also asked about voluntary buyouts, including who would fund them, whether grant programs could support them, and how similar programs have worked elsewhere. Comments emphasized that any buyout program would need public support, careful communication, and a clear understanding of impacts on property owners and neighborhoods. Additional questions addressed tide gate permitting and maintenance, including past challenges with approvals and coordination. Participants also asked about private property adaptation and how waterfront property owners can understand their options. Overall, public input reinforced the importance of continued engagement, transparent decision-making, and coordination across coastal resilience, stormwater, transportation, emergency preparedness, and land use planning.

Synopsis The final public meeting marked an important milestone in the Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan process. The event provided a clear summary of the plan’s final recommendations and explained how the City can use the plan to guide future resilience investments. The meeting also emphasized that implementation will occur over time and will require continued public involvement, additional technical work, and future funding. By presenting a coordinated set of recommendations for emergency preparedness, flood risk reduction, municipal open space, planning and zoning, and private property adaptation, the meeting helped close the planning process while setting the stage for Stamford’s next steps toward implementation.

CHAPTER 4: EXISTING AND FUTURE FLOOD CONDITIONS

CHAPTER 4

Existing and Future Flood Conditions Project Area The City of Stamford is situated along Long Island Sound, approximately 35 miles northeast of New York City. The City’s growth and development have long been shaped by its proximity to the ocean and Rippowam (Mill) River, which have supported various water-dependent industries over time and provided scenic and recreational opportunities for members of the community. As experiences with recent coastal storms in Stamford have shown, coastal flooding poses a serious hazard to homes, businesses, and communities across the City—especially in the southern areas of Stamford surrounding the inner harbor where there is a higher concentration of commercial development, transportation and other critical infrastructure, and priority populations.1 As

the climate continues to change, rising sea levels and more intense storms are likely to amplify the impacts of coastal flooding. This graphical summary presents maps and brief highlights related to Stamford’s coastal resources, demographic composition, and spatial layout, along with information on Stamford’s existing and future coastal flood risk. Altogether, these maps help foreground where and in what ways the City may be vulnerable to coastal flooding now and into the future. The rendering below shows Stamford’s geography and location in relation to Long Island Sound and neighboring communities. The dashed blue line depicts the boundary of the City’s coastal resource area, while the solid white boundary captures the neighborhoods that are the focus of Stamford’s Coastal Flood Resilience Plan (i.e. the project area).

PROJECT AREA IN WHITE OUTLINE

Notes: The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has defined “priority populations” as those who have systematically experienced greater obstacles to health based on their racial or ethnic group; religion; socioeconomic status; gender; age; mental health; cognitive, sensory, or physical disability; sexual orientation or gender identity; geographic location; or other characteristics historically linked to discrimination or exclusion. PHOTOS FROM PAST FLOODING IN COASTAL NEIGHBORHOODS OF STAMFORD. CREDIT: STAMFORD ADVOCATE

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

The “Coastal Boundary” represents a 1,000-foot setback from the current mean high-water line, inland boundary of state-regulated tidal wetlands, or the “100-year” floodplain, whichever is farthest inland.

Review of Existing Plans, Studies, and Data As the first step in the planning process for developing the Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan, the Project Team started by collecting, reviewing, and mapping data and information from past plans and studies on the existing conditions of Stamford’s coast. The plans, studies, and data reviewed as part of this task included: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY

• • • • • • •

Connecticut Institute for Resilience and Climate Adaptation (CIRCA) Report on Coastal Flooding: Stamford, CT (2024) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood mapping Stamford Resilience Opportunity Assessment Project Grant Report (2018) Stamford Hazards and Community Resilience Workshop Summary of Findings (2015) Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 2021-2026 (adopted August 2021) Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 2016-21 Update for the South Western Region (2016) Stamford Master Plan 2015-2025 (adopted December 2014) City of Stamford Stormwater Drainage Manual (2020) Resolution 4130 – Declaring a Climate Emergency (2022) Tree Inventory Summary Report (2022) Facilities Master Plan for Cummings Park and West Beach (2015) Cummings Pond Restoration Master Plan (2019) A Salt Marsh Advancement Zone Assessment of Stamford, Connecticut (2014) Resilient Connecticut Phase II (February 2022) South End Neighborhood Study (2018) West Side Neighborhood Plan (2013) Stamford 2035 Comprehensive Plan (2025) Stamford Transportation Center Master Plan (2024) Stamford Citywide Parks Strategic Plan (2023) City of Stamford Zoning Regulations (2026)

Additional references were reviewed as needed in consultation with members of the Technical Advisory Committee and City staff.

Coastal Flood Modeling The Project Team consulted with the Connecticut Institute for Resilience and Climate Adaptation (CIRCA) to obtain the latest current and projected coastal modeling information. These models help visualize critical assets and communities at risk from different coastal flooding scenarios, including scenarios modeling the opening and closing of the hurricane protection barrier. Ultimately, the aim is to compare and groundtruth these modeled results with historical observations made by members of the community and Technical Advisory Committee. Maps illustrating the extent of these coastal flood modeling scenarios are shown on the subsequent pages of this summary, emphasizing the closed hurricane protection barrier scenarios; mapped scenarios with the barrier left open can be found in Appendix A.

About Coastal Flooding Coastal flooding occurs when land is inundated by coastal storms and/or the tides. As climate change elevates sea levels, more areas of the City are likely to become subject to daily tidal flooding. Concurrently, coastal storms are projected to become more frequent and intense, which can introduce additional wave action and storm surge, further expanding the extent of coastal flooding. It is important to note that runoff and drainage issues can further compound coastal flood vulnerability, although these forces are beyond this scope of this project.

FLOOD MODELING STEPS PERFORMED FOR THE CONNECTICUT INSTITUTE FOR RESILIENCE AND ADAPTATION (CIRCA) REPORT ON COASTAL FLOODING IN STAMFORD

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

To capture the complex, dynamic processes of tides, storms, and waves, CIRCA generated coastal flood models simulating the extent of coastal flooding under several sea level rise and storm scenarios for the City of Stamford. The scenarios included the 10%, 2%, 1%, and 0.2% annual chance storm events for present-day and future scenarios with 20 inches and 40 inches (in) of sea level rise. As mentioned earlier, these scenarios also modeled conditions resulting from the opening and closing of the hurricane protection barrier, which was built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in the 1960s to reduce the City’s risk from coastal storms. The City of Stamford is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the barrier, with the exception of the navigation gates, which are operated and maintained by the USACE.

When storms are described according to their percent annual chance of occurrence, this refers to the probability that a storm event of this magnitude will be met or exceeded within a given year. For example, the 1% annual chance storm has a 1-in-100 chance of occurring at any point within a given year. While statistically unlikely, this means it is possible that the 1% annual chance storm may occur twice or more times within a short period.

Sea Level Rise & Tidal Flooding

Sea level rise is one of the most potentially destructive impacts of climate change for coastal communities like Stamford. As mean sea levels rise, more of Stamford’s low-lying coastal areas are likely to become inundated by daily tidal flooding. Daily tidal flooding may also impact the capacity of nearby drainage systems, as uncontrolled tidal waters can push saltwater further inland through vulnerable pipe networks.

Storm Surge

In addition to sea level rise, coastal storms—and their corresponding impacts on flood water levels— are another important factor to consider when assessing Stamford’s vulnerability to coastal flooding. Coastal storms produce winds that can push ocean water toward the land, creating a surge in water elevation above the normal high tide. The maximum flood water level reached during a storm event combines this surge with tidal fluctuations, creating what is known as a storm tide. Due to the compounding impacts of sea level rise, a less powerful storm in the future may produce the same extent of flooding as a more powerful storm today.

Compound Flooding Dynamics The coastal flood modeling used to assess flood exposure in the rest of this chapter focuses on the effects of storm surge, tides, and sea level rise. While not captured in this modeling, other inland processes also contribute to flooding, including the development of impervious (paved) surfaces, which increase runoff from rainfall; riverine flooding overflowing the banks of local rivers and streams; and stormwater drainage flooding, where inadequate infrastructure backs up or directs water to areas where it cannot effectively drain out to the ocean. This graphic demonstrates how these forces operate within the City to create certain areas of elevated flood vulnerability. While not formally depicted in the citywide coastal flood modeling maps, the project team incorporated an understanding of these processes in developing the resilience concepts presented in Chapter 6.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Hurricane Protection Barrier Jurisdiction The Stamford Hurricane Protection Barrier mapped here contains several interlocking components that work together to shape coastal flood exposure throughout the project area. These include several earthen levees (including the East Branch levee in Shippan and the West Beach levee in Cove), a system of four pump stations just behind the barrier, and an operable gate in Stamford Harbor’s East Branch. This system is federally accredited to reduce—although not fully eliminate—expected flood risk to areas landward of the barrier, provided the barrier is operated and maintained in a consistent and timely manner.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

HIGHWAY’S GARAGE PUMP STATION

Present-Day Coastal Flood Risk While many of Stamford’s coastal neighborhoods are vulnerable to present-day coastal flooding, the hurricane protection barrier helps prevent coastal storm surge from penetrating inland. Today, the 10% annual chance flood extent is limited to Cove Island and the area surrounding Cummings Park and West Beach. The modeled flood extent expands under the more intense 1% annual chance storm condition, where roads, commercial property, and additional residential homes are subject to fringe flooding (where coastal flooding from Long Island Sound directly impacts areas along the waterfront) around the mouth of Stamford Harbor’s west branch, including coastal fringes of the Waterside neighborhood along the west bank of the Rippowam River. This includes several boat moorings, private residential structures, and Boccuzzi Park. Flood extents and pathways expand again under the modeled 0.2% annual chance storm conditions, as coastal floodwaters affect a greater number of private properties along the south and west margins of Shippan and Waterside. The flood extent of the 0.2% annual chance storm modeled by CIRCA is similar to the extent of flooding caused by Hurricane Sandy, which exceeded historic maximum water levels in Connecticut despite making landfall at low tide.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Future Coastal Flood Risk 20” of Sea Level Rise With the hurricane protection barrier closed, the most noticeable change relative to present-day storm conditions is that already flood-prone areas become susceptible to flooding associated with more frequent, less intense coastal storm events. With the addition of 20 inches of sea level rise, several blocks along the southern fringes of the Waterside and Cove neighborhoods demonstrate a greater degree of vulnerability to coastal flooding, as they fall within the extent of the future 10% annual chance flood event. Under these future sea level rise conditions, roughly two dozen additional homes in Halloween Basin would likewise be subjected to coastal flooding from the 10% annual chance storm. The flood extents of the future 1% and 0.2% annual chance storms + 20 inches of sea level rise expand slightly over present-day conditions, with additional areas of flooding shown along the eastern edge of Shippan to Cove Island, some southern portions of the Mill River, and inland areas of the East Side neighborhood. The June 2024 CIRCA report and subsequent updated modeling for coastal flooding and sea level rise in Stamford attribute this outcome to the continued efficacy of the closed hurricane protection barrier into the future, even under more severe storm conditions. Maps with the barrier left open can be found in Appendix A.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Future Coastal Flood Risk 40” of Sea Level Rise With a modeled increase of 40 inches of sea level rise and the hurricane protection barrier closed, the same low-lying coastal areas previously described remain vulnerable to flooding. Under these conditions, the Barrier would likely need to be closed on a more regular basis, as even high tides or minor storms could force water overland from Long Island Sound. By this point, residential structures on the southern edges of Waterside and Shippan Peninsula will likely face impacts from regular direct wave action resulting from the 10% annual chance storm + 40 inches of sea level rise, as will parking lots and industrial sites along the West Branch of Stamford Harbor, in addition to transportation routes such as Southfield Avenue.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

FEMA Flood Zones Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) identify areas of flood risk and complement CIRCA coastal modeling by showing historic and present-day flood hazards. According to FEMA FIRMs for Stamford, all of Cove Island and large portions of the southern- and eastern-facing shorelines in Waterside, Shippan Point, and Cove are classified as coastal highhazard VE (Velocity) zones. These areas are subject to fast-moving waves and flood depths exceeding three feet, requiring extensive building elevation or floodproofing measures. Other areas fall within the A/ AE/AO flood zones, which are at a high risk of being impacted by a 1% annual chance flood. These designations highlight that many of Stamford’s most popular parks, along with the surrounding residential neighborhoods, are at a high risk of being impacted by a 1% annual chance flood. Unlike CIRCA data, FEMA FIRMs also include riverine flood zones along the upper Mill River and areas where Holly Pond Inlet extends north across the I-95 overpass. However, because FEMA flood zones are based on historic flood data, they may not accurately represent future inundation as sea levels rise and storms affecting Stamford become more severe.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

CHAPTER 5: WHAT IS AT RISK?

CHAPTER 5

What is at Risk? Overview As part of the New York City metropolitan area and Connecticut’s second most populous city, Stamford is home to a number of social, cultural, and infrastructural assets critical to the region at large. These include one of the largest financial districts in the nation, as well as historic resources and regional transportation hubs. The next series of maps highlight what is at risk in terms of key municipal infrastructure, parks and open space, and social and cultural assets.

FLOODING AFFECTS A PARKING LOT AND BOAT RAMP IN BOCCUZZI PARK, 2018. SOURCE: ERIN MCKENNA

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Critical Facilities The ‘Tier I’ critical facilities mapped here provide essential public health and safety services during and in the immediate aftermath of the future 1% annual chance coastal storm. It is important that each of these locations remain operational and accessible. Each location’s vulnerability depends on its location relative to the extent of coastal flooding, the role played by the facility, and the contents stored onsite. Overall, few of these primary ‘Tier I’ facilities are directly exposed to coastal flooding with the hurricane protection barrier closed. ‘Tier II’ Support continuity of service is not required throughout the duration of an ongoing coastal flood. In ‘Tier II’ facilities however, these services should still be prioritized for restoration and recovery following such an event. ‘Tier II’ facilities includes the following locations:

•

Building One Community- 417 Shippan Ave, Stamford, CT 06902

•

Americares- 88 Hamilton Ave, Stamford, CT 06902

•

Pacific House- 597 Pacific St, Stamford, CT 06902

•

Inspirica- 141 Franklin St, Stamford, CT 06901

•

Charter Oak Communities- 22 Clinton Ave, Stamford, CT 06901

•

New Covenant Center- 174 Richmond Hill Ave, Stamford, CT 06902

•

Lathon Wider Community Center- 137 Henry St, Stamford, CT 06902

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Parks & Open Space After centuries of development, few of Stamford’s original wetlands remain, with much of the shoreline occupied by hardened bulkheads and erosion protection measures such as jetties. This has limited the extent to which Stamford’s coastal natural resources can help mitigate flood risks. In some locations, such as the Cummings Pond at Cummings Park, what was formerly tidal open water has degraded into a sediment-clogged wetland overrun with invasive species. According to the City’s Parks Strategic Plan, the most flood-prone coastal parks are Cove Island and Cummings Park, where tidal flooding is already beginning to affect parking lots. As coastal flooding in these areas continues to increase over time, the projected depth and duration of inundation are likely to increase, which will not only impact parking lots and other forms of hard infrastructure in parks and open spaces but may also outpace the rate at which remaining natural resources (e.g., coastal wetlands) in these areas can adapt.

City Boundary

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Local Ecology From the open water of Stamford Harbor to public beaches and intertidal habitat, Stamford’s coastal area has a variety of valuable ecosystems. These critical ecological assets host animal and plant life, sustain valuable industries, and maintain water and air quality in this region of Long Island Sound. These include private and public shellfish beds, which house mollusk populations that purify water, provide fish habitat, and feed fish colonies. Intertidal mud flats act as nutrient reservoirs for marine organisms as well as a sink for pollutants and toxins. Although many of Stamford’s coastal wetlands were lost to development over the past two centuries, the remaining wetlands fulfill vital ecological purposes by sequestering carbon, absorbing wave energy, and reducing erosion and runoff. Migratory birds also use estuaries and salt marshes to forage, nest, and seek refuge, feeding on unique vegetation, invertebrates, and fish that can be found where fresh and saltwater conditions meet. Riverine nutrients are carried downstream, collecting in coastal embayments and marshland before being washed out to sea to sustain marine organisms. Where possible, this project aims to incorporate strategies to preserve and enhance these ecologies so they can continue to benefit the surrounding area.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Stormwater Infrastructure Stamford’s Water Pollution Control Authority maintains four hurricane stormwater pump stations, approximately 25 miles of sanitary sewer lines, and 23 sewer pump stations. During storms, the hurricane pump stations move water from Harbor Point and the South End to Stamford Harbor, but many aging facilities are increasingly vulnerable to flooding. Within the project area, the Wastewater Treatment Plant is a critical asset that treats an average of 24 million gallons of wastewater daily for Stamford and Darien. While the hurricane protection barrier protects the facility during major storm events, sea level rise may still cause flooding around the plant when the barrier is open, creating potential public health risks if operations are disrupted. Stormwater outfalls along the Mill River and Stamford Harbor are also susceptible to coastal flooding, which can reduce drainage capacity and increase backflow and inflow into the stormwater and sanitary sewer systems.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Transportation Infrastructure Stamford is Southwest Connecticut’s largest transportation hub. The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), Amtrak, CT Rail, and CT Transit all converge at Stamford Station and the adjacent McKinney Transportation Center. The analysis shown on this page is limited to the impacts of coastal flooding. The combined influences of coastal flooding with storm water have additional flood impacts on Stamford’s transportation infrastructure, warranting investigation that is outside the scope of the present study. Chapter 6 includes a closer look at the combined impacts of storm water with coastal flooding on one critical part of the road network, the intersection of Shippan and Magee Avenues.

Rail The hurricane protection barrier shields Stamford Station, the train yard, and railroad tracks from direct coastal flooding under modeled conditions.

Bus Several CT Transit routes are vulnerable to coastal flooding and may experience service disruptions during or after storm events.

Roads Residential side roads and small segments of major commercial roads, such as Southfield Avenue, are affected by flooding in the present-day 1% chance storm event.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

At Risk Assets Present-Day 1% Annual Chance Flood Event

During the present-day 1% annual chance storm with the hurricane protection barrier closed, flooding primarily affects local roads, parking lots, and structures falling within residential, commercial, and industrial zones. Of these, the majority are situated in the South End and East Side neighborhoods to the west and north of Stamford Harbor’s east branch. Some low-lying road segments in Cove and Waterside are also affected, hampering bus transit service and local access. Few critical facilities are directly inundated in an event of this magnitude.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

At Risk Assets

1% Annual Chance Flood Event with 20” of Sea Level Rise As the flood extent associated with a 1% annual chance storm increases with future sea level rise, the variety of assets potentially at risk broadens. Under a 1% annual chance storm with 20 inches of sea level rise with the hurricane protection barrier closed, more extensive areas of open space and stormwater infrastructure—especially coastal outfalls—would be inundated.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

At Risk Assets

1% Annual Chance Flood Event with 40” of Sea Level Rise In the future 1% annual chance storm with 40 inches of sea level rise with the hurricane protection barrier closed, hundreds of homes along the coastal fringes of Waterside, Shippan, and Cove/East Side would be inundated. In these areas, low-lying businesses, open spaces, and roads outside the hurricane protection barrier would routinely face coastal flooding, changing the character of the City within its coastal zone.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

At Risk Assets

1% Annual Chance Flood Event with Increasing Sea Level Rise The graphs at right show the number of buildings expected to be inundated by major coastal storms over time due to the effects of sea level rise. As these data demonstrate, residential and commercial buildings are especially sensitive to sea level rise, with large increases in both relative and absolute terms of structures inundated by future storms of this magnitude.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Buildings (by Land Use) at Risk from 1% Annual Chance Flood + 0 Inches of Sea Level Rise CLOSED HURRICANE PROTECTION BARRIER

Buildings (by Land Use) at Risk from 1% Annual Chance Flood + 20 Inches of Sea Level Rise CLOSED HURRICANE PROTECTION BARRIER

Buildings (by Land Use) at Risk from 1% Annual Chance Flood + 40 Inches of Sea Level Rise CLOSED HURRICANE PROTECTION BARRIER

Buildings (by Land Use) at Risk from 1% Annual Chance Flood + 0 Inches of Sea Level Rise

Buildings (by Land Use) at Risk from 1% Annual Percent Flood + 20 Inches of Sea Level Rise

Buildings (by Land Use) at Risk from 1% Annual Chance Flood + 40 Inches of Sea Level Rise

OPEN HURRICANE PROTECTION BARRIER

Population Density & Race Population density is highest in downtown Stamford and in the West Side neighborhood, directly to the north of I-95. These areas contain most of the city’s multi-family housing and host a higher number of commuters. Supported by community development initiatives, the population of the South End has likewise grown rapidly with commercial, multi-use, and multi-family housing projects. By comparison, coastal neighborhoods such as Shippan and Water Side are primarily filled with single-family housing with correspondingly lower population density. Among Stamford’s coastal neighborhoods, there are greater numbers of nonwhite residents in Waterside (20% Black and 43% Latino) and Cove-East Side (12% Black, 48% Latino). Shippan is relatively homogenous at 82% white, and South End remains mixed demographically at 46% white, 11% Black, and 34% Latino. Note: This map depicts population density at the census block level, in which the total population of each census block is represented by dots, with one dot per five residents. These dots are not intended to represent the population of individual properties or small areas of the city.

ACS

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Social Vulnerability Index Vulnerability is the propensity to be adversely affected by hazards such as extreme weather due to higher degrees of exposure, sensitivity, and lack of adaptive capacity (i.e., the ability to cope or respond to a disruption when it does occur). Non-English speaking, young, elderly, homeless, or physically disabled people are more likely to need support to prepare, respond to, or recover from climate events like flooding and heat waves. Minority and elderly populations are also less likely to have equal access to financial and physical resources. Resilient Connecticut has developed a Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to aid in identifying populations that may be more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, adapted from two widely used social vulnerability resources: • •

University of South Carolina Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI)

Social vulnerability in Stamford is highest in the West Side, Waterside, East Side, and Cove.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Environmental Justice Areas Environmental Justice (EJ) is a similar composite measure of social vulnerability, with a particular emphasis on exposure to environmental harms that have been distributed unequally historically—such as air/water quality and green space access. Exposure to environmental harms can exacerbate underlying health issues, cause economic strain, or disrupt communities, making it even more challenging for certain areas to adapt to the stressors of climate change. In Stamford, census tracts designated as Environmental Justice communities broadly mirror neighborhoods indicated as Socially Vulnerable, with EJ census tracts particularly widespread in Harbor Point, West Side, Waterside, and East Side.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

CHAPTER 6: TAKING ACTION FOR RESILIENCE

CHAPTER 6

Taking Action for Resilience A More Resilient Stamford – Vision The vulnerabilities presented in Chapters 4 and 5 demonstrate the challenges brought about by climate change, which causes sea level rise that in turn increases the probability of coastal flooding in Stamford. The strategies presented in this chapter meet those challenges using a layered approach combining emergency preparedness improvements, infrastructure investments to reduce flood risk, forward-looking policy, and actions for businesses and homeowners to reduce flood risk to their properties. This chapter presents these prioritized actions to reduce coastal flood risk, improve emergency preparedness, and support adaptation by residents, businesses, and municipal departments. The vision for a more resilient Stamford includes stronger emergency preparedness, targeted infrastructure improvements, updated zoning, naturebased and hybrid adaptation strategies, and propertyscale flood mitigation. Together, these actions can help safeguard life, property, community assets, local ecology, and quality of life while allowing the City to adapt as flood risks change.

This layered approach supports the Coastal Resilience Plan’s broader purpose of improving the understanding of current and future coastal flood risks and establishing a practical, actionable road map to strengthen resilience. The first theme in this chapter, making Stamford safer before and during flood events, focuses on actions that improve life safety and emergency operations. These include evacuation routes, flood alerts, signage, critical infrastructure access, and other measures that help residents, emergency responders, and City departments make better decisions before and during coastal storms. The second theme, reducing flood risks over time through infrastructure, policy, and capacity-building, focuses on longer-term actions that can reduce future flood risk and damage. These include evaluating the hurricane barrier, improving drainage and tide gate systems, strengthening zoning and development standards, adapting municipal open spaces, and supporting private-property adaptation.

What to Expect in Chapter 6 Chapter 6 is organized around three Resilience Action Areas that reflect Stamford’s major coastal flood-risk conditions and the types of actions needed to address them. This approach recognizes that coastal flooding does not affect every part of the City in the same way. Some areas are shielded by the hurricane protection barrier, while some are exposed directly to Long Island Sound and the harbor. Others are important because they provide evacuation routes, emergency

access, or critical services during a storm. Organizing recommendations geographically and operationally helps connect each recommendation to the specific flood pathways, infrastructure systems, public spaces, roads, and neighborhoods they are intended to address. This framework also makes the plan easier to implement, because different types of actions require different lead agencies, timelines, funding sources, and levels of technical study.

Four core principles guide these recommendations 1. Life safety comes first. Stamford’s resilience investments should prioritize reliable access to evacuation routes, shelters, critical facilities, and emergency response corridors. A flood resilience strategy is only effective if residents can leave highrisk areas when needed, emergency responders can reach people safely, and essential services can continue operating during and after a storm. 2. Address present-day risks and plan for the future. The planning materials for this project use 20 inches of sea level rise as a mid-century planning horizon, generally associated with conditions around 2050, and 40 inches of sea level rise as a longer-term planning horizon, generally associated with conditions around 2100. These scenarios help Stamford avoid decisions that solve only today’s problems while leaving future residents, buildings, roads, parks, and infrastructure exposed to greater risk.

3. Use nature-based and hybrid solutions where feasible. Nature-based solutions use natural systems, such as wetlands, living shorelines, trees, floodable landscapes, and open space, to help absorb or reduce flood impacts. Hybrid solutions combine natural features with built infrastructure, such as berms, elevated paths, drainage improvements, or flood-resilient park facilities. These approaches can reduce flood risk while also improving habitat, stormwater management, recreation, public access, and neighborhood quality of life. 4. Coordinate related City initiatives. This is particularly important in low-lying areas where coastal flooding can interact with rainfall, drainage systems, and riverine flooding. The forthcoming Cummings Pond Ecological and Flood Resilience Plan will provide an important opportunity to align coastal flood recommendations with stormwater management, open space planning, habitat improvements, and neighborhood-scale design. Residents and property owners should also have clear information about options for privately owned parcels, while recognizing that larger municipal projects will require site-specific engineering, permitting, funding, maintenance planning, and community support before they can be implemented.

APARTMENT BUILDINGS ALONG STAMFORD’S COAST

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Resilience Action Areas The remainder of this chapter is organized around three Resilience Action Areas:

Resilience Action Area 1: Hurricane Protection Barrier and Areas Inside of the Barrier

Actions for supporting the continued functionality of the hurricane barrier, a crucial part of Stamford’s flood resilience strategy. There are still risks associated with the area inside the barrier and this action area focuses on understanding and reducing those risks including the consequences of potential barrier failure, delayed closure, flanking, or other conditions that could allow flooding to reach areas that are otherwise protected.

RESILIENCE ACTION AREA 1: HURRICANE PROTECTION BARRIER AND AREAS INSIDE THE BARRIER

Resilience Action Area 2: Flooding Outside of the Hurricane Protection Barrier

Both short-term and long-term actions in exposed shoreline areas, waterfront properties, low-lying neighborhoods, parks, roads, and municipal open spaces that are outside the primary barrier system. Because flood risk in this area is spread across both public and private land, the recommendations combine municipal actions, policy and zoning tools, tide gates, open space adaptation, and guidance for residents and property owners.

RESILIENCE ACTION AREA 3: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESILIENCE CORRIDORS

Resilience Action Area 3: Emergency Preparedness & Resilience Corridors

This action area focuses on the routes, facilities, and communication systems that Stamford depends on before, during, and after a flood event. These recommendations are especially important because they can improve life safety and mobility while larger capital projects, policy changes, and long-term adaptation strategies are being studied, designed, and funded.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

RESILIENCE ACTION AREA 2: FLOODING OUTSIDE THE HURRICANE PROTECTION BARRIER

Resilience Action Area 1 The Hurricane Barrier and Areas Inside the Barrier Resilience Action Area 1 focuses on the hurricane protection barrier and the areas inland of the barrier that benefit from this existing flood protection system. The barrier is one of Stamford’s most important coastal flood-risk reduction assets. It helps limit storm surge from entering portions of the East Branch of Stamford Harbor and adjacent low-lying areas, including parts of the South End and nearby waterfront districts. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) owns, operates, and maintains the navigable gates of the Hurricane barrier in the East Branch of Stamford Harbor. Related dikes, pump stations, and drainage systems owned and maintained by the City of Stamford also influence how the overall system performs during coastal storms. The presence of the hurricane protection barrier does not mean that areas inside the barrier are free from flood risk. Like all flood protection systems, the barrier reduces but does not eliminate risk.

DYKE LANE PUMP STATION

POTENTIAL EXTENSION OF HURRICANE BARRIER AT EAST TERMINUS

This remaining risk is often called residual risk: the risk that remains after a protective structure is in place. In Stamford, residual risk could result from future sea level rise, storms that exceed the system’s original design assumptions, delayed or incomplete barrier closure, stormwater drainage limitations when the barrier is closed, structural aging, or water moving around low points at the edges of the system.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

This last condition is known as flanking, which occurs when floodwater goes around a barrier rather than over or through it.

is needed, how the decision is communicated, and how closure affects people and uses upstream of the barrier.

The modeling prepared for this plan shows why both barrier-open and barrier-closed conditions should be evaluated. Under the 40-inch sea level rise planning horizon, future floodwaters may move farther inland, and in some locations may flank portions of the barrier system rather than being stopped by the barrier. The Connecticut Institute for Resilience and Climate Adaptation (CIRCA) flood modeling used for this plan is appropriate for planning-level analysis. However, the resolution of this data set is not sufficient for detailed design or construction. The CIRCA modeling is also focused on coastal flooding and does not represent stormwater or riverine flooding. For these reasons, the primary recommendation for this action area is to complete a Hurricane Barrier Resilience Study before advancing design, permitting, funding, or construction decisions.

The current frequency and duration of barrier closures exceeds the intent of the original barrier design, and this issue is expected to increase along with sea level rise. As future daily high tides approach elevations that are closer to present-day storm tides, the barrier may need to close more often, including during non-storm high tide conditions. Analyses of other hurricane protection barriers in New England have shown that closure frequency can eventually approach the number of daily high tides, which can create challenges for staffing, maintenance, vessel navigation, water quality, port operations, and interior drainage.

The Hurricane Barrier Resilience Study should include three related work elements: 1.) a closure analysis to understand how and when the barrier is and should be operated, 2.) a gap assessment to identify low points, tie-ins, pump station interfaces, and 3.) other potential pathways where floodwater could bypass the system; and detailed compound, physics-based flood modeling to understand the impacts of the layered flood risks in this area. Referred to collectively as the Hurricane Barrier Resilience Study, these analyses would help Stamford understand how the barrier performs today, how its performance may change with sea level rise, and where future maintenance, operational changes, or capital improvements may be needed.

Hurricane Barrier Gate Closure Analysis The closure analysis is an engineering and operational analysis intended to evaluate how and when the hurricane protection barrier is operated before and during coastal flood events. The analysis should review closure triggers, forecast lead times, decisionmaking roles, staffing needs, communications, and coordination among the City, the USACE, emergency management, utilities, marinas, waterfront property owners, and transportation agencies. The study should clarify who decides when the barrier closes, what information is used, how much warning time

100

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

The closure analysis should use Connecticut and national sea level rise projections, long-term tide records, storm surge information, and available USACE information about barrier closure thresholds and durations. It should estimate how often the gates would need to close under current and future conditions, how long those closures would last, and when closures may become operationally difficult or impractical.

The table above presents an example of the number of closures per year and length of time the gates would be closed per year for the hurricane barrier in New Bedford, MA under a range of different sea level rise projections. These closure periods were based on exceedance of a 3.48’ NAVD88 water surface elevation, when the US Army Corps of Engineers decides to close the barrier gates to avoid flooding in neighborhood areas in Fairhaven, MA (upstream of the Hurricane barrier in New Bedford Harbor).

The analysis should evaluate not only annual closure totals, but also when closures occur during the year and whether they cluster over multiple days or tidal cycles. This matters because repeated or prolonged closure can limit water exchange in the East Branch, affect vessel movement, and restrict gravity drainage from upland areas. The study should also identify practical decision thresholds, including when closures are needed for major storms, when closures may be needed for non-storm high tide conditions, and when additional flood mitigation measures may be needed because gate operations alone can no longer provide the desired level of protection without significant operational, use, or environmental impacts.

The figure above presents another example output from an example closure analysis. While average (yearly, monthly, daily) are helpful, the closure analysis also evaluates the length and distribution occurring throughout the year. Tides are primarily caused by the moon’s gravity and are generally more extreme during times of alignment between the sun and moon (full and new moons) and when the moon is slightly closer to the earth (perigee). The figure provides closure occurrences under intermediate (shown in blue) and intermediate-high (shown in orange) sea level rise scenarios.

101

Hurricane Barrier Gap Assessment The gap assessment should identify locations where floodwater could bypass, flank, or otherwise enter around the hurricane protection barrier system. A gap can include a low point at the end of a dike, a transition between different types of structures, a road or utility crossing, a pump station interface, a floodwall section, or another place where the barrier system ties into surrounding ground. The assessment should use field survey, topographic data, as-built drawings, inspection records, ownership information, and updated flood modeling to confirm whether each part of the system provides a continuous line of protection under both present-day and future flood conditions. While the hurricane protection barrier has provided decades of flood protection, changing coastal flood hazards associated with sea level rise, increasing storm surge elevations, and aging infrastructure warrant a comprehensive evaluation of the full system. The gap assessment should build on the closure analysis described above, which evaluates how gate

FLOODWALL SURROUNDED BY PRIVATE PROPERTIES.

102

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

operations affect the level of protection provided by the barrier. The gap assessment should focus on physical locations where additional evaluation is needed to confirm that the barrier can continue to provide its intended level of protection under both present-day and future coastal flood conditions.

Known Potential Future Gaps: Wallace Street Area Floodwall Assessment The floodwall located near Wallace Street is surrounded by private property. The City’s current GIS data do not indicate any easements that would provide the City or the Army Corps of Engineers access to the flood wall. Deeds and land records for the adjacent properties should be reviewed to verify such easements. If none exist, easements should be created to allow for inspection and maintenance of the flood wall.

The City should also undertake a structural and condition assessment to confirm that it remains capable of providing flood protection during presentday and future storm surge events. The evaluation should document the wall’s structural condition, identify signs of deterioration or settlement, assess foundation stability, and verify that the wall crest elevation remains sufficient relative to projected future design flood elevations. Where deficiencies are identified, the City should develop rehabilitation, modification, or replacement options. Dyke Lane Pump Station Flood Resilience Assessment The Dyke Lane Pump Station should be evaluated because it serves two important resilience functions. It is a stormwater drainage facility, and the pump station structure itself forms part of the continuous line of flood protection associated with the Hurricane barrier system. Because the building is integral to the barrier alignment, its flood protection capacity should be validated. The assessment should evaluate whether the building

envelope remains sufficiently flood-tight and should include walls, doors, utility penetrations, vents, pipe openings, and other potential leakage pathways. The review should also assess mechanical and electrical equipment, backup power systems, pumping capacity, operating reliability during flood events, floodproofing, access during storms, maintenance records, ownership responsibilities, and dependencies with the broader barrier system. If deficiencies are found, recommendations should be developed to improve the pump station’s ability to function as a reliable component of the Hurricane barrier under future climate conditions. West Terminus Assessment The western terminus of the barrier should be reviewed to confirm that it is not susceptible to flanking during extreme coastal flood events. This assessment should evaluate the composition, alignment, lateral extent, condition, and crest elevation of the terminal wall section along the West Branch. The evaluation should also confirm whether the barrier adequately ties into naturally high ground, other existing walls, or other protective features,

VIEW OF DYKE LANE PUMP STATION.

103

MODELED OVERLAND FLOODING AT EAST TERMINUS OF HURRICANE BARRIER.

CONCEPTUAL PROPOSED HURRICANE BARRIER EXTENSION.

and whether it can maintain an acceptable level of protection under future sea level rise conditions.

Overall Hurricane Protection Barrier Condition Assessment In addition to the specific locations described above, the City should consider a comprehensive engineering condition assessment for components of the barrier system beyond the East Branch barrier and gate system. This assessment should document the condition of earthen embankments, floodwalls, revetments, transitions between structural elements, and drainage features associated with the barrier system. The condition assessment should look for evidence of settlement, erosion, seepage, slope instability, concrete deterioration, corrosion, vegetation impacts, and other maintenance concerns that could affect long-term performance. It should also verify that crest elevations remain adequate relative to current and projected future design flood elevations.

East Terminus at Cummings Park The eastern terminus of the hurricane protection barrier, located near Cummings Park, should be assessed for potential flanking under future sea level rise and coastal storm conditions, before floodwaters ca nreach developed residential and commercial areas north of the system. The City should evaluate whether a barrier extension, tie-in to higher ground, naturalized berm, local floodwall, deployable barrier, living shoreline component, open space adaptation, or other hybrid approach could reduce this flanking risk. A hybrid approach combines built infrastructure with landscape or natural features. Developing a design to reduce the risk of flanking on the east terminus of the Hurricane barrier will require higher-resolution modeling, field survey, geotechnical review, environmental permitting, ownership coordination, benefit-cost analysis, and community engagement before it could move toward design.

104

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Maximum Water Depth (ft) 1% Annual Exceedance Probability Flood Event with 20 inches of Sea Level Rise (No Precipitation)

Collectively, these evaluations would provide the City with a clearer understanding of potential vulnerabilities within the existing hurricane protection barrier system and establish a technical basis for prioritizing future maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital improvement projects.

105

Detailed Physics-Based Compound Flood Modeling The City of Stamford faces flood risk from several sources. Coastal flooding caused by tides, storm surge, and waves moves inland from the Long Island Sound. Riverine flooding originates in rivers, streams, estuaries, and watershed flows. Stormwater flooding is caused by rain events that exceed the capacity of the drainage system. Flooding can be more severe when two or more types of flooding coincide. For example, elevated water levels at stormwater outfalls can reduce drainage capacity and cause backups in areas that might not otherwise flood. The combined influence of different flood types is called compound flooding. It is important for Stamford to evaluate the combined effects of riverine flooding, stormwater flooding, and coastal flooding together to accurately understand flood risk. These risks are expected to grow as sea levels rise and storm intensity increases under changing climate conditions, including both coastal storms and heavy rainfall events. Understanding compound flood risk is one of the key challenges for long-term flood management in Stamford. Creating computer models of compound flooding requires significant computing power due to the quantity of interconnected variables. Many traditional flood modeling approaches rely on simplified representations that prioritize computational efficiency over detailed simulation of compound flood processes. As a result, these models may misrepresent flood extent and depth in areas like Stamford with complex topography, intricate drainage networks, multiple flow pathways, and interacting flood types. Recent advances in computational power have enabled physics-based and probabilistic flood modeling approaches that more accurately represent anticipated compound flood risk.

Flood Event Types

To provide a comprehensive assessment of flood risk, modeling should include the following event types: •

•

106

Precipitation events that test the capacity of the existing stormwater system. These events should be coupled with dynamic river, harbor, branch, and outfall conditions, including the operation of outfall tide gates. This means the receiving waters of the harbor should not be treated as a single fixed elevation; instead, they should be modeled as rising and falling over time, as they do in actual storm and tide conditions. Precipitation events under future climate conditions, reflecting anticipated storm intensity

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

and duration. Analysis should also reflect the impacts of sea level rise on the water level of the Long Island Sound. These assumptions should be consistent with standard projections such as ATLAS 15 and projections from CIRCA. •

Coastal storm surge events. These should be evaluated to understand how coastal flooding may affect the shoreline, the harbor, the barrier system, stormwater outfalls, and low-lying inland areas under both present-day and future conditions.

Probabilistic Flood Modeling

Traditional flood modeling approaches typically simulate the impacts of a small number of design storms, such as the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event, which is defined based on historic rainfall data. A probabilistic analysis provides a more complete understanding of flood risk. This type of analysis uses repeated simulations to test many possible storm conditions. In this case, that could include thousands of rainfall scenarios that vary by total rainfall amount, how rainfall is distributed over time, storm duration, and the timing of the storm. Each of these factors can change where flooding occurs and how deep it becomes. By running many simulations, the model can produce probabilistic flood maps showing the likelihood of flooding across the city. These results can be expressed as the chance that a flood of a certain depth or extent could occur in any given year. This probabilistic approach can be applied to current conditions and future climate conditions. It can also be combined with changing coastal conditions, such as higher tide elevations and future coastal storms. This would allow Stamford to prioritize adaptation options and resilience measures using science-based information, helping support cost-effective design decisions and broader flood management planning.

Physics-Based Flood Modeling

Traditional one-dimensional stormwater models are often used to assess pipe systems, but they are not sufficient to capture the impact of surface topography on flood risk. Physics-based flood modeling is capable of revealing backups within the drainage system as well as surface flooding caused by limited drainage pathways, rainfall, coastal water levels, and low-lying areas where water may pond and drain slowly.

Advantages for Stamford

Detailed physics-based compound flood modeling has several advantages particularly relevant for the City of Stamford: EXAMPLES OF PROBABILISTIC COASTAL FLOOD MODELING FROM OTHER LOCATIONS IN NEW ENGLAND

107

•

108

It captures rainfall and flow dynamics across a high-resolution landscape. The model should use a detailed grid, on the order of approximately 10 to 20 feet, across the watershed. This “rain-ongrid” approach shows how rainfall moves over the landscape surface. This approach represents how flooding occurs more directly and is easier to understand than simplified drainage assumptions. It also reduces the need for sub-catchment delineation, time-of-concentration calculations, transformation methods, hydrologic routing selections, and assumed overland flow paths, all of which can depend on modeler judgment.

•

It directly connects precipitation events with changing coastal and river water levels. The model should couple the full rain-on-grid surface area with the one-dimensional underground stormwater pipe network and the twodimensional surface water areas. This allows the City to understand combined flood risk from rainfall, coastal flooding, river or estuary flooding, and stormwater system capacity at the same time.

•

It provides annual-exceedance probability results for both current and future climate conditions. This means Stamford can evaluate not only what may happen during a specific design storm, such as the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event, but also what may happen across a wide range of rainfall

amounts and storm durations. These results provide probability-based flood information across the city, helping identify problem areas and prioritize actions. The analysis can also identify locations where adaptation strategies may provide the greatest benefit for reducing integrated compound flooding. Specific storm events can still be extracted from the results when needed for design or planning purposes. •

It allows potential solutions to be tested directly in the model. Because the model includes twodimensional surface flow and one-dimensional subsurface stormwater conditions, potential resilience measures can be added to the model and evaluated. These could include stormwater storage areas, interceptor pipes, combinations of drainage improvements, nature-based approaches, or stormwater retention features. For example, if a stormwater pond is considered for a specific area, that pond can be placed directly into the model to assess how it changes surface water volumes, flow paths, and flood depths. This is more robust than simply changing a sub-catchment storage value in a basic model. Ultimately, this approach allows Stamford to compare a broader set of potential solutions and better understand which measures may provide the strongest flood-reduction benefits.

Hurricane Barrier Resilience Assessment Step

Estimated Cost

Closure Analysis

$16,040

Gap Analysis

$25,460

Citywide Compound Flood Modeling

$1,042,040

TOTAL

$1,083,540

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

109

Resilience Action Area 2

Flooding Outside the Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Action Area 2 focuses on shoreline, waterfront, and low-lying areas outside Stamford’s hurricane protection barrier. This action area includes portions of neighborhoods such as Shippan, Cove, and other coastal areas where public open space, private homes, businesses, marinas, and roads are exposed to coastal flooding. Because these areas are not inland of the barrier, they are vulnerable to flooding from multiple coastal and stormwater-related hazards: •

•

Sea level rise and higher tides. As sea levels rise, daily and seasonal high tides will reach higher elevations and push the water’s edge farther inland encroaching on developed properties and reducing the amount of coastal buffer. In some locations, low-lying stormwater outfalls may become partially or fully submerged in the harbor. When this occurs, harbor water can flow back into drainage pipes, reducing the system’s ability to discharge stormwater and increasing the potential for localized flooding. Coastal storms, storm surge, and waves. Storms can raise water levels above normal tide elevations and generate waves that push water into low-lying areas. As with high tides, elevated harbor water during storms can back up into drainage pipes and limit stormwater drainage. This is especially problematic when heavy rain is falling on land while coastal water levels are high. Storm-driven waves can also damage structures exposed to wave action and contribute to shoreline erosion.

Because flood risk outside the hurricane protection barrier is spread across both public and private land, the recommendations for this action area combine several types of tools. Some actions can be led by the City, such as zoning updates, tide gate evaluations, municipal open space adaptation, and long-term planning for high-risk areas. Other actions depend on private property owners, businesses, and waterfront users making site-specific decisions about how to elevate, floodproof, relocate, or otherwise adapt buildings and equipment. Policy tools are especially important in this action area because they can guide future construction and reinvestment before flood risk becomes more severe.

110

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

What Can Residents and Property Owners Do? Many of the recommendations in this plan focus on actions the City can lead, such as infrastructure improvements, emergency preparedness, policy updates, and municipal open space adaptation. However, privately owned homes, businesses, marinas, apartment buildings, and industrial properties are also an important part of Stamford’s coastal resilience strategy. The Stamford Environmental Protection Board combines offers numerous related resources for the purpose of flood prevention and responsible development. Using these and other resources as a starting point, this section provides a high-level overview of options that residents and property owners can consider to reduce flood risk and damage on their own parcels. It is intended as a starting point, not a substitute for site-specific engineering, architecture, permitting, insurance, or legal advice. The Coastal Resilience Plan uses a layered, risk-based approach within Stamford’s coastal zone. That means different properties may need different types of actions depending on their location, flood exposure, use, and building type. A single-family home outside the hurricane barrier may face different risks than a multiunit building inside the barrier, a marina that depends on waterfront access, or an industrial site with critical equipment near grade. The most appropriate strategy will depend on whether the property is inside or outside the hurricane protection system, whether flooding is shallow or deep, whether waves or fast-moving water are expected, whether the structure is residential or nonresidential, and whether the building can reasonably be elevated, floodproofed, modified, or relocated. Before selecting a retrofit strategy, property owners should understand the basic conditions of their building and/or site. Important information includes the building’s construction type, foundation type, lowest floor elevation, condition of the structure, and location of critical systems such as electrical panels, furnaces, air conditioning equipment, duct work, hot water heaters, and utility connections. Owners should also determine the Base Flood Elevation for their property. The Base Flood Elevation is the elevation that floodwater is expected to reach during the 1% (1 in 100) chance flood event used for floodplain

management and building standards. This is an important starting point because it can affect how high a building or critical equipment should be placed. Some property owners may already have an Elevation Certificate, which is a survey-based document that records key building elevations. An Elevation Certificate can be used to document floodplain management compliance and may also be used by a property owner to obtain flood insurance. If an Elevation Certificate is not available, a licensed surveyor is typically needed to establish the building’s lowest floor elevation and other relevant elevations before a major retrofit project. Propertylevel adaptation generally consists of the following categories: • Wet floodproofing, • Dry floodproofing, • Elevation, • Relocation, and • Backflow prevention. These strategies may be used individually or in combination, depending on the nature of the flood risk and the structure involved.

Wet Floodproofing

Wet floodproofing allows floodwater to enter and exit from lower areas of a building while minimizing damage. This approach is generally limited to nonhabitable spaces such as crawlspaces, garages, accessory structures, and certain basement or belowgrade areas. Wet floodproofing equips these areas with flood-resistant materials, flood openings or vents, drainable wall assemblies, cleanable surfaces, elevated utilities, and backflow prevention, with the intent to allow water to flow through a building without creating dangerous pressure on the structure or causing major damage. Where basement or

FLOOD VENTS IN OVERHEAD DOOR. SOURCE: OVERHEAD DOOR CO. OF THE MEADOWLANDS & NYC

crawlspace areas are below the Base Flood Elevation, additional measures such as filling or abandoning the space may be necessary. To meet flood insurance requirements, property owners should avoid converting flood-prone lower areas into habitable space. Property owners should consult local officials and insurance providers before undertaking retrofits, especially if one goal is to reduce flood insurance premiums.

Dry Floodproofing

Dry floodproofing uses barriers, shields, walls, and/or other measures to keep floodwater out of a building. Temporary flood shields deployed at doors and windows can be complemented by perimeter walls and waterproof coatings to resist the encroachment of water entry. Dry floodproofing is most appropriate for

DIAGRAM OF WET FLOODPROOFING OF THE FIRST FLOOR OF A BUILDING.

111

wave-driven, or erosive flooding, long-term options may include relocation.

Backflow prevention

Backflow prevention helps reduce the risk of sewage or drainage systems backing up into buildings during flood or heavy-rain events. These measures are most appropriate for properties that experience reverse flow through plumbing or drainage connections. These systems should be installed by qualified professionals and maintained regularly. DIAGRAM OF DRY FLOODPROOFING OF THE FIRST FLOOR OF A BUILDING.

The Design Flood Elevation is the elevation standard required for new buildings or buildings undergoing substantial renovation within the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. It is typically defined as the FEMA Base Flood Elevation plus 1 foot of freeboard as mandated by the Stamford Flood Prone Area Regulations.

FLOOD SHIELDS IN HOBOKEN, NJ. SOURCE: GARRISON FLOOD CONTROL

Commercial, waterfront-dependent, and industrial properties may require tailored adaptation strategies. Waterfront-dependent businesses, such as marinas, yacht clubs, beach clubs, and other shoreline uses, typically cannot simply relocate away from the water because their operations depend on coastal access. For these properties, adaptation may focus on protecting critical systems and maintaining operational continuity. Potential strategies include modular or flexible infrastructure, such as floating docks; elevating emergency generators, electrical systems, fuel systems, and other critical equipment; relocating valuable inventory and equipment to less flood-prone areas; and using wet or dry floodproofing where appropriate. Industrial properties should evaluate flood risks to buildings, equipment, stored materials, hazardous substances, access routes, and utility systems. Adaptation planning for these sites should consider both property damage and the potential for broader environmental, safety, or operational impacts.

Commercial, waterfront-dependent, and industrial properties should also prepare business continuity and operations plans that match their flood exposure and day-to-day use. For these sites, resilience is not only about protecting the building; it is also about keeping people safe, reducing downtime, protecting equipment and inventory, and preventing floodwaters from spreading fuel, chemicals, debris, or other materials into surrounding neighborhoods and waterways. Property owners should identify which parts of the site must remain near the water, such as docks, boat storage, marine services, loading areas, or waterfront access points, and which functions can be moved to higher ground or upper floors. Near-term actions may include elevating electrical panels, fuel systems, emergency generators, refrigeration, controls, records, and valuable inventory; using flood-resistant materials in lowerlevel work areas; installing deployable flood barriers where appropriate; and creating clear pre-storm procedures for securing loose materials, vehicles, boats, dumpsters, hazardous substances, and outdoor

ELEVATED HOME IN STAMFORD, CT. SOURCE: BANTON CONSTRUCTION CO

ELEVATED AC CONDENSER UNIT ELEVATED ABOVE DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION.

BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE. SOURCE: CHARLOTTE WATER.

shallow, low-velocity flooding and for buildings with structural systems capable of resisting flood forces, such as those built from concrete or masonry. By contrast, dry floodproofing should not be relied upon where flooding is deep, fast-moving, or wavedriven. It is generally not suitable for wood-frame structures and cannot be used to bring residential structures into compliance with National Flood Insurance Program or building code requirements. Property owners should confirm whether dry floodproofing is allowed for their building type and location before pursuing this strategy.

Elevation

Elevation is one of the most effective long-term approaches for reducing flood damage to residential structures and critical systems. Elevation may involve raising the living space of a building above the applicable Design Flood Elevation or elevating mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC systems, which reduces damage even where a full building elevation is not feasible.

Commercial, waterfront-dependent, and industrial properties

What is the Design Flood Elevation?

Common utility equipment to elevate include airconditioning compressors, indoor HVAC units, water heaters, freezers, electrical outlets, switches, electrical panels, and other service equipment. Equipment can be placed on sturdy, flood-resistant platforms or shelves. Where wood is used, pressure-treated lumber should be selected. Whenever possible, equipment should be elevated well above the Base Flood Elevation and designed with sea level rise in mind.

Relocation

Relocation may be appropriate where flood risks are severe, repetitive, or expected to worsen over time. Relocation can involve moving utilities or structures, out of the highest-risk areas. In some cases, relocation may be more cost-effective than repeated repairs or major reinvestment in a chronically exposed location. For properties facing deep, frequent, fast-moving,

112

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

113

equipment. For marinas and other water-dependent uses, flexible or modular systems such as floating docks, breakaway components, and utility connections designed for flooding can help reduce damage while allowing continued waterfront operations. For larger commercial and industrial sites, owners should also coordinate with the City on access routes, evacuation timing, employee communication, utility shutdown procedures, and post-storm reentry, because a building may be protected but still unusable if surrounding roads, power, drainage, or wastewater systems are disrupted. These measures align with the plan’s broader approach of pairing private property adaptation with City-led planning, policy, infrastructure, and emergency preparedness actions, while recognizing that waterfront and industrial sites often require site-specific engineering, permitting,

HARBOR POINT MARINA ON THE WEST BRANCH OF STAMFORD HARBOR. SOURCE: HARBOR POINT MARINAS

114

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

operations planning, and coordination with regulators and neighboring properties.

Summary

The table below provides a simple screening framework for matching flood conditions with potential adaptation approaches. It is not a design standard; it is intended to help property owners understand which strategies may be worth discussing with a qualified professional. Taken together, these private-property actions can reduce damage, improve safety, and support faster recovery, while larger municipal projects move through the additional engineering, permitting, funding, maintenance planning, and community coordination needed for implementation.

Flood Condition

Primary NearTerm Approach

Longer-Term Direction

Minor tidal or nuisance flooding

Protect utilities, install backflow prevention where appropriate, use deployable barriers, and improve drainage where feasible.

Monitor conditions and design future improvements with freeboard and sea level rise in mind.

Shallow, short-duration flooding

Elevate utilities, use flood-resistant materials, and consider dry floodproofing where structurally feasible and code-allowable.

Consider elevation or more permanent retrofit measures if flooding becomes more frequent or deeper.

Flood-prone crawlspace, garage, basement, or accessory structure

Wet floodproof non-living areas using flood openings, drainable materials, flood-resistant finishes, and elevated utilities.

Avoid converting flood-prone lower areas into living space.

Deep, frequent, fast-moving, wave-driven, or erosive flooding

Avoid relying on dry floodproofing alone; reduce damage where possible and protect life safety first.

Consider elevation, redevelopment on resilient foundations, acquisition, or relocation.

Chronic exposure under higher sea level rise scenarios

Use interim measures only and avoid major reinvestment without an adaptation plan.

Consider managed retreat, voluntary buyout, transfer of development potential, or longterm land-use transition.

115

Municipal Policy Strategies Planning and policy updates are one way the City can help to reduce the community’s future flood risk, and are important tools because today’s development decisions will shape Stamford’s coastal neighborhoods for decades. The City has a responsibility to create policies that require new construction and significant renovations to meet basic standards for safety and the wellbeing of the community. Like most municipalities in the United States, the City of Stamford pursues this goal in part through zoning regulations which were primarily written without consideration for the impacts of climate change. A building that is approved or substantially renovated now may still be standing in 2050 or beyond, when sea levels are expected to be higher and coastal flooding is likely to be more frequent, intense, and damaging. Flood resilience should therefore account not only for today’s conditions, but also for the conditions that buildings, roads, utilities, and neighborhoods are likely to face over their service life.

1% annual chance flood with 40 inches of SLR

116

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

117

This section includes recommendations for updating Stamford’s planning and policy framework to reflect its current understanding of future flood risk influenced by climate change.

constructed now to meet the demands of future conditions.

Why should Stamford’s present-day policies reflect future climate conditions?

Some of Stamford’s coastal areas are already experiencing more frequent and/or intense flooding than they had in the past. Based on analysis by the Connecticut Institute for Resilience and Climate Adaptation (CIRCA), the areas that are at a high risk of flooding will be expanding steadily in the future. Because buildings that are constructed or significantly renovated today will be part of the urban landscape for several decades, it will be important for buildings

2026 Home Reconstruction

For example, the timeline below illustrates a renovation project for a single-family home that is starting in 2026. Residential buildings have a design life of about 50 years (Berglund-Brown et al, “Lifetimes of Demolished Buildings in US and European Cities,” 2025). Therefore, a project renovated in 2026 is likely to be standing in the same place in the year 2050, at which point CIRCA predicts up to 20 inches of sea level rise. If that renovation was paid for with a 30-year mortgage, the building will be impacted by 20 inches of sea level rise before the owner finishes paying off the mortgage.

Paid for with 12-month construction loan

2027 Family moves in Construction loan converted to a 30-year mortgage 1% chance per year 26% chance of flooding in 30 years

CONCEPTUAL TIMELINE OF FLOOD RISK IN RELATION TO STRUCTURE DESIGN LIFE

118

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

The two main sets of regulations that work together to mitigate flood risk in Stamford’s built environment are the building code and the zoning code. Compliance with both zoning and building code is required for all new construction and many renovation projects. While both sets of rules include flood risk mitigation measures, they are insufficient to mitigate future flood risks. A summary of Stamford’s current flood risk mitigation requirements and their limitations follows. Building Code Construction projects in Stamford are required to meet Connecticut State Building Code. Section 1612 of the building code requires that buildings and structures in a “Special Flood Hazard Area” meet flood resilient construction requirements. Each municipality has the authority to define its “Special Flood Hazard Area.” Crucially, Stamford’s zoning code currently defines the “Special Flood Hazard Area” by reference to FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Map, which is based on past floods rather than future flood risk. The Connecticut State Building Code requirements for flood resilient construction refer to ASCE 24, a document written by the American Society of Civil Engineers. This document was updated in 2024 to reflect their updated understanding of flood risks

2050 ~20” of sea level rise expected

2057 Mortgage paid off

Stamford’s Current Policy Framework for Flood Risk Mitigation

2077 ~End of Building’s Design life

influenced by climate change and best practices for mitigating flood risk. The key changes in this update include: • • • • •

Elevation requirements are based on the type of structure, with additional elevation requirements for more critical structures Stricter requirements for dry floodproofing Updated requirements for floodresistant materials Stronger foundation and closure details Additional requirements for utilities and equipment

At the time of writing this report, the 2022 Connecticut State Building Code is in effect. The 2022 Connecticut State Building Code is based on the 2021 version of the International Building Code. Because the 2021 International Building Code refers to the old version of ASCE 24, construction projects seeking approval from the City of Stamford in 2026 do not need to comply with the current ASCE 24 and its climate-change-informed flood resilience requirements. The updated ASCE 24 is likely to come into effect throughout Connecticut next time the State updates its building code. The 2026 Connecticut State Building Code was expected to be approved in April 2026 and come into effect on July 1, but its adoption was delayed.

Stamford Building Code

2022 Connecticut State Building Code

Next Update: 2026 Connecticut State Building Code

ASCE 24 (published 2021)

ASCE 24 (published 2024)

119

Flood insurance and local zoning are related, but they are not the same. To participate in FEMA’s Community Rating System, which gives residents access to discounted flood insurance, FEMA’s A, AE, and VE zones have to be designated as Special Flood Hazard Areas. Stamford has the authority to expand the definition of the Special Flood Hazard Area beyond those zones identified by FEMA. Expanding Stamford’s definition of the Special Flood Hazard Area would not have any impact on which properties are required to have flood insurance. Zoning Code Section 9 of Stamford’s Zoning Code describes requirements for construction in the City’s coastal and flood-prone areas. Section 9A requires that any project seaward of the Coastal Area Management Boundary must go through Coastal Site Plan Review and comply with the State’s coastal requirements. Section 9A focuses on protecting coastal resources rather than mitigating flood impacts. Section 9B defines the “Special Flood Hazard Area” discussed above as those areas mapped as A, AE, and VE by FEMA on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. This section includes requirements that apply to the Special Flood Hazard Area to mitigate flood risk, including elevation requirements for utilities, critical facilities, storage of dangerous materials, and residential areas. Residential areas must be elevated at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation. The Base Flood Elevation is defined by FEMA’s mapped data for a flood that has a 1% (1 in 100) chance of occurring in any given year. However, because FEMA’s maps are based on historical flood data rather than future flood risk data, these flood risk mitigation measures do not apply to all properties that are likely to be impacted by future flooding. Critical facilities and dangerous material storage areas must be elevated above the depth of a flood that has a 0.2% (1 in 500) chance of happening in a given year. The code does not clearly state whether this requirement is based on present-day conditions or future flood conditions.

120

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

In addition, Stamford’s zoning code section 9.B.4 requires that all new subdivisions be “designed, located and constructed so that a any time during the occurrence of the base flood, all Building sites can be safely accessed and evacuated.” Safe access is critical for the site’s occupants and for the safety of emergency responders; however, the current code language does not specify if the roadways must be completely free of flooding, or if a few inches of water would be permissible. Key Policy Limitations Although Stamford’s current policy framework includes measures to reduce flood risk, those measures do not comprehensively address risk projected for future climate conditions. The area subject to flood-risk-reduction requirements are currently defined using historical flood data and therefore may not encompass locations vulnerable to future flooding. Similarly, elevation requirements for residential development, critical facilities, and the storage of dangerous materials are based on past flood conditions rather than projected future flood depths. Finally, the requirement to provide adequate access does not clarify whether access must remain safe and functional under current flood conditions or future flood conditions.

Near Term Planning and Policy Strategies

Updating Connecticut’s State Building Code, which will bring the current ASCE 24 standard into effect, is already in progress at the state level. Therefore, the updated ASCE 24 standard is likely to take effect through action at the state level sooner than Stamford would be able to require compliance with the current ASCE 24 at the local level. In anticipation of this change, the City of Stamford can take the following steps: • •

•

Educate City staff involved in building permit review about the forthcoming changes. Inform applicants with project entering the approval process about the anticipated new standards and encourage them to design accordingly. Notify Stamford’s development community about the upcoming changes and their implications.

Elsewhere in this report, we recommend that Stamford conduct physics-based flood modeling to identify the areas likely to be affected under a 40-inch sea level rise scenario (CIRCA’s sea level rise projection for 2100) as well as the likely flood depths in those areas. We also recommend that the City update its zoning regulations based on that analysis. However,

because the recommended modeling will take time to complete, Stamford can also consider near-term measures that can be implemented more quickly.

Recommendations at a Glance Near term

To incorporate predicted sea level rise into the zoning regulations in the near term, Stamford can amend Section 9B of the zoning code by increasing the elevation requirement from 1 foot above the Base Flood Elevation to 3 feet above the Base Flood Elevation. With this change, properties already located within the designated Special Flood Hazard Area would be elevated sufficiently to reduce flood risk under a 20-inch sea level rise scenario, which is the amount of sea level rise estimated by CIRCA for 2050. The Western Connecticut Council of Governments describes several examples of Connecticut municipalities that have enacted similar approaches in the publication, “Local Zoning Innovations for Coastal Flood Resiliency: Responding to a Changing Environment through Flexible Strategies,” published July 14, 2026. While this would be a useful short-term risk-reduction measure, it would be insufficient as a long-term solution. Buildings subject to this requirement would still be determined based on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, which relies on historical flood data rather than projections of future flood risk. Therefore, this updated requirement would not apply to all properties that are at a high risk of flooding in the coming years. Additionally, the elevation requirement would be based on a generalized estimate of future flood depths. CIRCA’s 20-inch sea level rise projection for 2050 is intended for statewide use, while actual sea level rise and flood impacts will vary by specific location. Finally, this near-term measure does not address site access during a flood event.

Medium Term Planning and Policy Strategies

As described earlier in Chapter 6, this report recommends that the City complete compound physics-based flood modeling to better understand the likely impacts of flooding in the future. After the recommended modeling is complete, Stamford can use that information as a basis for zoning requirements that more effectively mitigate future flood risk. We anticipate that these changes could be made in the next 5-8 years. The key changes include: •

•

Expand the regulated area. The Special Flood Hazard Area can include the existing FEMA A, AE, and VE zones as well as additional areas projected to flood based on flood modeling. Set elevation requirements using modeled flood depths. Required building

Recommended action. Increase the elevation requirement in Zoning Code Section 9B from 1 foot to 3 feet above the Base Flood Elevation. Prepare staff, applicants, and the development community for the updated ASCE 24 standard. Purpose. Reduce risk while detailed local flood modeling and comprehensive zoning changes are being developed.

Medium term

Recommended action. Perform a physicsbased model for a 1 percent annual-chance flood under a 40-inch sea-level-rise scenario, then use the results to revise Section 9B or create a Coastal Resilience Overlay Zone. Purpose. Align the regulated area, elevation standards, and access requirements with projected future conditions.

•

elevations can be based on the modeled flood elevations. The regulated area may be divided into districts so elevation standards can reflect area-specific conditions. Define safe access. The requirement to provide access should be based on modeled future flood risk and clarify that the property must be accessible via a completely dry route and should define which flood scenario must be used as a basis of design.

The recommended flood modeling will provide insights into the risk of flooding at a range of time horizons and sea level rise scenarios. Using this information, the City can gradually strengthen its flood-mitigation requirements as risks increase. Under a phased approach, Stamford could update its zoning regulations every five or ten years to reflect the next relevant flood scenario. For example, requirements adopted in 2030 could be based on projected flood conditions for 2080, and those requirements could be updated in 2035 to reflect projected conditions for 2085. The modeled flood scenario to be used as a basis for regulations is referred to hereafter as a “regulatory flood scenario.” The three key gaps described above can be addressed either by modifying the language in zoning code section 9B or by introducing a Climate Resilience Overlay Zone. Those options are described in more detail below.

121

Option 1: Revisions to Section 9B The City of Stamford can update their zoning code by publishing an official map delineating the area likely to be impacted by the regulatory flood scenario and making the following changes to the text of section 9B. •

•

Area: The definition of “Basis for Establishing Special Flood Hazard Areas” can be updated with a reference to the published map delineating the regulatory flood scenario. This change will expand the applicability of the requirements of section 9B as well as the flood resilient construction requirements in the Connecticut State Building Code. Elevation: Section 9B of Stamford’s zoning code touches on elevation requirements in several areas, all of which can be updated to refer to future flood risk. The definitions section can be updated so any terms (for example, Base Flood Elevation, Minimum Elevation Standard) that are based on a flood elevation are based on the regulatory flood scenario. The elevation requirement for critical facilities, utilities, and dangerous material storage should be more conservative than other areas. Access: Clarify that newly constructed or substantially improved projects must have a dry route between the site and a designated evacuation route in the regulatory flood scenario

Option 2: Coastal Resilience Overlay Zone Alternatively, section 9B could be left as it is, with an additional Coastal Resilience Overlay Zone established. Projects within the Overlay Zone would need to meet the following additional requirements: • •

•

122

Area: the Overlay Zone would be defined by a map illustrating the anticipated extent of flooding for the regulatory flood scenario. Elevation: Residential areas must be elevated to one foot above the modeled flood elevation of the regulatory flood scenario. The elevation requirement for critical facilities, utilities, and dangerous material storage should be more conservative than other areas. Access: Projects within the Overlay Zone must have a dry route between the site and a designated evacuation route in the regulatory flood scenario

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

•

The downside to creating a separate overlay zone is that it would add another layer of complexity for applicants, who would need to understand and meet the requirements of the Special Flood Hazard Area defined in section 9B as well as the Coastal Resilience Overlay Zone.

Voluntary Buyouts

In addition to updating the zoning code, Stamford can consider a voluntary buyout program. A voluntary buyout program gives owners of high-risk properties the choice to sell their homes to a local government, state agency, or land trust. Participation in these programs is entirely voluntary, and does not involve any government entity acquiring property through eminent domain. Past voluntary buyout programs have been funded through federal grants, typically with some local funding. After a property is purchased, the building is removed and the land is generally kept permanently as open space. The land may be restored as wetlands or natural floodplain, used to store floodwater, or developed for limited public uses such as trails or parks. The key principle is that participation is voluntary: property owners choose whether to apply, negotiate, and accept an offer. Buyouts can provide important benefits, but they also require careful planning and public support. The City would need to determine whether public investment in buyouts would benefit the broader Stamford community, including residents who live outside the highest-risk coastal areas. These benefits may include reduced emergency response costs, lower repetitive flood losses, new flood storage, expanded open space, improved habitat, and reduced long-term pressure to maintain infrastructure in areas where flood risk is increasing. At the same time, buyouts can be expensive, complex, and sensitive for property owners and neighborhoods. If the City of Stamford decides to pursue these measures, it is advisable to avoid an isolated property-by-property effort without a clear vision for what happens after acquisition. One way to complement acquisition and retreat from flooded areas is to develop a living plan for managed retreat and land stewardship so that buyouts, if pursued, support both the households that move and the neighborhoods that remain.

What Makes Sense for Stamford? Voluntary buyouts can be viewed as a last-resort, trigger-based part of Stamford’s broader flood resilience strategy, not as a general policy of purchasing coastal homes. They would be considered when major damage, repeated flooding, rebuilding restrictions, unsafe access, or long-term costs make continued rebuilding unreasonable—and only when a transparent public review shows that acquisition would be safer, fairer, and more beneficial to Stamford as a whole than continued repair or protection.

The planning and policy recommendations for Resilience Action Area 2 are intended to help Stamford reduce future flood damage before it occurs. Near-term zoning changes can improve the resilience of buildings being designed today, while a future Coastal Resilience Overlay Zone and voluntary buyout framework can help the City make more informed long-term decisions about where to protect, adapt, redevelop, or transition land uses over time.

Precedent Example: New Jersey’s Blue Acres Program New Jersey’s Blue Acres program is a well-known state-level voluntary buyout program for homes that have flooded repeatedly or face serious future flood risk. Owners choose whether to participate. After a sale is completed, the buildings are demolished and the land is preserved for flood storage and open space. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection provides homeowners with case-management support through the process. After Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy, Woodbridge Township used Blue Acres to purchase groups of homes in repeatedly flooded neighborhoods. Buying connected groups of properties allowed the Township to restore larger sections of floodplain rather than creating scattered, isolated vacant lots. The former residential land was incorporated into a broader plan that included wetlands, stormwater storage, native plants, wildlife habitat, public access, and recreation. Rutgers University later reported that restored areas in Woodbridge remained dry during the remnants of Hurricane Ida, while other vulnerable areas experienced serious flooding. The experience shows the value of combining property acquisition with a clear plan for restoring and managing the land. Key lessons for Stamford include planning before the next disaster, providing trusted staff to help homeowners, offering meaningful relocation support, prioritizing connected groups of properties where possible, and deciding how acquired land will be used before purchases begin.

PHASED RETREAT FROM A FLOODED LOT IN NEW JERSEY. SOURCE: BLUE ACRES

123

Outfall Protection Tidal backflow is an important source of flooding in Stamford’s low-lying shoreline and waterfront areas. During high tides, extreme tides, and coastal storms, harbor water can push inland through storm drainage pipes and outfalls. When water moves the wrong way through these pipes, it can surface through catch basins, manholes, and low points in streets, creating flooding in inland areas even before heavy rainfall is added to the system. If heavy rainfall occurs while the water level in the harbor is elevated, the submerged outfalls can also prevent stormwater from draining effectively, increasing the risk of localized flooding.

See enlargement on next page

Tide gates (e.g., flap gates, duckbill valves, check valves) offer a potential solution to this problem. Tide gates are one-way valves installed at or near the ends of drainage pipes. They allow stormwater to flow out of the drainage system while preventing harbor water from flowing back into it. Stamford currently has three tide gates, as shown on the map to the right. The map also identifies additional locations where new tide gates could be installed to reduce the frequency and severity of flooding during periods of high water levels in the harbor.

OUTFALL PROTECTION ENLARGEMENT

J Proposed Tide Gate Locations Existing Tide Gate Locations

Proposed Tide Gate Locations Existing Tide Gate Locations

124

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

125

DIAGRAM OF CONCRETE STRUCTURE WITH FLAP GATES.

OUTFALL PROTECTION ENLARGEMENT

Proposed Tide Gate Locations

Existing stormwater outfalls within the project area were evaluated by Fuss and O’Neill to identify locations where installation of tide gates could reduce tidal backflow through the storm drainage system. For the purposes of this analysis, only City-owned and mapped outfalls with a diameter of 18-inches or greater were evaluated. Each outfall was assessed for overall vulnerability using two criteria. The first criterion evaluated the susceptibility of the outfall to tidal backflow based on its elevation, noting outfalls where backflow could flood upstream structures or where stormwater pipes may convey coastal floodwater inland. The second criterion evaluated the potential consequences of backflow-related flooding. Tide gates are recommended for locations where flooding could affect residential neighborhoods, critical facilities, arterial roadways, critical infrastructure, and commercial/industrial areas. This analysis, informed by the observations of City staff on present-day tidally influenced flooding, led to the following recommendations for tide gate installation and improvements.

Tide Gate Types

We recommend in-pipe tide gates rather than those installed at the outfall for ease of maintenance.

On pipes up to 48” in diameter, we recommend an inline check valve such as the Checkmate in-line check valve by RedValve. This product is an in pipe solution which, at diameters larger than 24”, need to be installed by excavation and can be maintained longterm from a manhole. This flexible neoprene product is suitable for cleaning with a jet truck and inspection from the surface via manhole or CCTV. For sizes larger than 48” the cost of the excavation to install in-line check valves such as the Checkmate is comparable to installing a concrete structure with traditional flap gates. At larger sizes, metal flap gates, available in a variety of configurations, allow superior access and maintenance space while providing weight and ruggedness to the structure. Flap gate materials should be 316 stainless or with epoxy coatings to resist corrosion.

DIAGRAM OF IN-LINE CHECK VALVE. SOURCE: REDVALVE

127

Tide Gate ID (Location)

Description

Proposed Actions

Pipe Size & Material

Tide Gate Type

Construction Cost Ranges*

A (DIS-435)

These adjacent discharges outlet flows from the intersection of Jefferson St & Canal St as well as portions of S State St, Dock St, and John St. The existing storm network may serve as a flooding conduit to localized low points in the adjacent roadway network and lead to flooding occurring in minor events that may not otherwise see direct coastal flooding. Flooding has been observed at the existing inlet located at the northeast corner of Jefferson St & Dock St.

Install tide gate at the northeast corner of Jefferson St and Canal St

42”, material unknown

In-Line Check Valve

$60-65k

Install tide gate on the east side of Canal St, adjacent to rail yard

48:, material unknown

In-Line Check Valve

$90-100k

Existing

Proposed

B (DIS-68)

C (DIS-50)

While not directly discharging to Long Island Sound, this discharge outlets to an existing channel located within Cummings Park that can flood / back up during storm events. This drainage network can allow this backup to continue north leading to stormwater backflow in the system. Locations vulnerable to backflow include the pipe run through the residential properties located to the west of Van Buskirk Ave and the drainage system within East Ave.

Install tide gate at an accessible location close to discharge. Location should be considered in conjunction with proposed hurricane barrier extension

48” RCP

In-Line Check Valve

$55-60k

D (DIS-4)

The stormwater network in this location could serve as a conduit for floodwaters to the lowlying area along Ralsey Road.

Install tide gate at an accessible location close to discharge

48” RCP

In-Line Check Valve

$90-100k

E (DIS-19)

The stormwater network in this location could serve as a conduit for flooding of low-lying portions of Auldwood Road and Lanark Road. Outfall is subject to intrusion by sand, which can negatively impact performance of a tide gate.

Install tide gate on Ocean Drive North

36” RCP

In-Line Check Valve

$50-55k

F (DIS-6)

Existing low-lying outfall has known issues with backflow allowing tidal flows to enter the stormwater network, limiting capacity and impacting the existing pump station within Cummings Park.

Install tide gate at an accessible location close to discharge. Piping and headwall modifications may be necessary to install tidal controls.

30” pipe from 1930. Pipe at outfall appears to be 12” and in poor condition.

In-Line Check Valve

$40-50k

G (DIS-8)

Similar to DIS-6, this low-lying outfall has known issues with backflow allowing tidal flows to enter the stormwater network, limiting capacity and impacting the existing pump station within Cummings Park.

Install tide gate at an accessible location close to discharge. May be incorporated with rebuilding revetment.

84” corrugated metal

Concrete Structure with Flap Gates

$300-400k

H (DIS-927)

Tidal backflow in this area was evaluated as part of the Cummings Park compound flood modeling. Modeling demonstrated impacts to the functionality of the upstream drainage network in the neighborhood north of the Park, consistent with observed flooding in this area during large storm events. It may be appropriate to incorporate tidal control at the extension of the hurricane barrier west edge rather than at this discharge.

Install tide gate at an accessible location close to discharge or incorporated with hurricane barrier extension

48” RCP

In-Line Check Valve

$90-100k

I (DIS-962 Czescik marina)

This location alleviates drainage-related flooding at the intersection of Shippan Avenue and Magee Avenue, which is critical for evacuation of the Shippan neighborhood and is at a low elevation.

Assess condition and repair/maintain as needed . Modify as needed to allow at-grade inspections.

30” RCP

Existing duckbill tide gate

Cost dependent on outcome of inspections

J (DIS- 3 135 Downs Ave)

This existing tide gate prevents reverse pipe flow during storm events the existing upstream low points of the system located at the intersection of Downs Ave and Ralph Street and the intersection of Downs Aver and Whittaker Street.

Assess condition and repair/maintain as needed . Modify as needed to allow at-grade inspections.

36” RCP

Stainless steel inline check valve

K (Jefferson St. & Canal St. upstream of DIS 435)

This existing tide gate effectively mitigates tidally influenced flooding in the north west corner of the intersection, where a low elevation catch basin does not have recurring flooding at high tides.

Assess condition and repair/maintain as needed

Unknown

Red flap valve

*Conceptual, rough order of magnitude cost estimates include the approximate cost of materials, excavation, and installation for the proposed structures. The installations will likely necessitate additional site work such as replacement of old pipes, street and sidewalk repair, etc, the full extent of which is not known and is not included in these estimates. * The cost for design may be estimated as approximately 10% of the anticipated construction cost. 128

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

129

Open Space Toolkit Stamford’s system of coastal open space provides valuable public recreation, waterfront access, and habitat. Open space can also be used to reduce coastal risk to areas of the City outside the hurricane barrier by storing floodwater, attenuating waves, buffering erosion, and creating room for shorelines and wetlands to migrate as sea levels rise. Because many of Stamford’s waterfront open spaces are located in low-lying areas, they are also places where the City can demonstrate coastal adaptation strategies. This section provides a toolbox of adaptation strategies for municipal open spaces exposed to coastal flooding. The intent is to identify a set of approaches that can be refined through future design, engineering, permitting, and community engagement, which will be demonstrated through the related work in the Cummings Pond Flood and Ecological Resilience Plan. The strategies in this toolkit are organized into two categories: living with the water and moving vulnerable assets away from the water. Together, these approaches can help Stamford reduce flood damage while also improving ecology, stormwater management, recreation, public access, and long-term maintenance.

Flood Extent Closed Hurricane Barrier

130

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

131

Living with the Water

The first group of strategies focuses on living with the water. This means designing open spaces so that periodic flooding can occur in selected areas without causing major damage or requiring costly repairs. In shoreline areas, this may include enhancing or creating tidal wetlands, allowing space for marshes to migrate inland as sea levels rise, and using living shorelines along eroding or armored edges. The following tools can be used in areas of open space in Stamford where flooding is expected.

Protect, Expand, or Restore Tidal Wetlands and Marsh Migration Areas

Preserve existing tidal wetlands and identify adjacent low-lying land where marshes can migrate inland as sea levels rise. Tidal wetland restoration measures include restoring tidal exchange, removing fill or invasive vegetation, and regrading shorelines to expand wetland habitat and flood storage capacity.

CHESEAPEAKE BAY WETLAND RESTORATION. SOURCE: CHESAPEAKE BAY MAGAZINE.

IMAGE ON LEFT: FLOODING IN CUMMINGS PARK, JANUARY 13, 2024

132

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

133

Living shorelines and habitat enhancement along eroding or armored edges

Use native vegetation, fiber roll, or fill (stone, sand, shell, etc.) to stabilize eroding areas with low to moderate wave energy, such as sheltered coastlines or tributaries where altered topography or armoring have led to a loss of shoreline habitat. Living shorelines trap sediment, sequester carbon, and reduce erosion, and can serve a public recreational or educational function.

Naturalized berms and hybrid shoreline features that combine elevation, vegetation, habitat, and public access

Construct vegetated earthen landforms such as berms to cut off critical flood pathways and maintain public pedestrian access to and along the waterfront. Shape and plant these features to fit the open space landscape and, incorporate paths and overlooks where feasible. Provide culverts or other drainage controls as needed to maintain normal tidal exchange and prevent inland stormwater from being trapped behind the feature.

Floodable athletic fields, floodable paved sports facilities, and resilient recreational surfaces designed to tolerate periodic flooding and recover quickly

Design athletic fields, courts, lawns, and gathering spaces to provide temporary flood storage where temporary inundation will not create safety or water-quality risks. Use flood-tolerant surfaces and rapid-drainage systems. Define clear closure and cleanup procedures. Floodable sports fields can shelter subsurface stormwater infiltration chambers, which help quickly drain and store precipitation as it falls. Avoid placing critical utilities or other equipment in the lowest portions of these areas. Most appropriate for places where stormwater flooding is the primary concern.

FLOODABLE OPEN SPACE AT HUNTERS SOUTH WATERFRONT PARK. SOURCE: WEISS MANFREDI

134

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

135

Moving Assets Away From The Water Adopt resilient standards for landscaping, materials, utilities, and furnishings

Coastal open space should incorporate resilient design elements such as saltwater-tolerant plant palettes, materials, and lighting. Incorporate these requirements into the City’s design standards.

The second group of strategies focuses on moving vulnerable assets away from the water. Some open space elements are not well suited to repeated flooding, including restrooms, concessions, storage buildings, electrical systems, mechanical equipment, lighting controls, and certain recreational facilities. Where these assets are exposed, the City should evaluate whether they can be elevated, floodproofed, redesigned, or relocated to higher ground within the same area of open space. In some locations, access routes, pedestrian paths, promenades, embankments, or select recreational facilities may need to be raised so that people can continue to move through the landscape or reach important destinations during less severe flood events. However, elevation should be used carefully so that it does not block natural drainage, disconnect people from the waterfront, or create new impacts to wetlands and habitat.

Elevate access routes, pedestrian paths, promenades, embankments, and select recreational facilities where access continuity is needed

Raise access roads—including pedestrian paths—above the critical flood elevation to preserve access to important open space amenities. The degree of elevation depends on how critical the access is and may require being paired with other measures, such as tide gates or relocation of critical infrastructure. The design of elevated access routes should consider the drainage of the surrounding area, including the fact that adjacent areas will remain floodable.

Daylighting Streams

Daylighting buried streams in areas of open space, such as the one that flows under Cummings Pond Park, restores natural channels and floodplains, giving stormwater more space to spread, slow down, and infiltrate rather than overwhelming drainage pipes and nearby streets. Paired with wetlands and native vegetation, these corridors can reduce peak flows and erosion while improving water quality, wildlife habitat, and recreational access.

136

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

137

Elevate or floodproof support buildings and utility systems

To reduce the risk of flooding while avoiding the need to relocate, elevate non-livable structures with low occupancy such as restrooms, utility rooms, and storage buildings where permitted by code and FEMA requirements. Elevation of electric panels or mechanical equipment can be achieved using sturdy concrete or other floodproof construction.

Relocate vulnerable facilities away from the most exposed shoreline areas, prioritizing flood-compatible uses closer to the water

Move buildings and other high-value assets away from the most exposed shoreline areas where repeated repair or protection is not cost-effective. Use the vacated area for other applications that tolerate periodic flooding, such as recreation or habitat. Coordinate relocation with open space master plans, accessibility needs, utilities, and community priorities.

USING THE TOOLBOX A practical open space strategy will often combine both approaches. The most flood-exposed areas closest to the shoreline can be reserved for floodcompatible uses such as wetlands, living shorelines, habitat areas, floodable lawns, or flexible recreation. More vulnerable assets can be moved inland or elevated where feasible. This creates a layered landscape of open space: softer, more flood-tolerant areas near the water; recreational and stormwater storage areas in the middle; and critical park facilities located farther from the highest-risk shoreline edge. Cummings Pond and Cummings Park will be an important future example of how these tools can be applied at a site-specific scale. The Coastal Resilience Plan recognizes that low-lying areas can experience compounding flood impacts when coastal flooding, riverine flooding, and stormwater flooding occur

together, and the City is also evaluating stormwater flooding in the Cummings Pond watershed through the forthcoming Cummings Pond Ecological and Flood Resilience Plan. That related planning effort can test how municipal open space strategies, stormwater management, ecological restoration, and public recreation can work together in one connected landscape. Future design work should identify which strategies are appropriate for each municipal open space based on flood exposure, shoreline condition, habitat value, existing park uses, public access needs, maintenance capacity, ownership, permitting requirements, and community priorities. By treating parks and open spaces as part of Stamford’s resilience infrastructure, the City can reduce flood impacts while continuing to provide public spaces that support recreation,

SHOWN ON THIS PAGE: NATURAILZED BERM IN STRATFORD, CT. SOURCE: TOWN OF STRATFORD.

138

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

139

Resilience Action Area 3 Emergency Preparedness Resilience Action Area 3 focuses on actions that improve life safety, mobility, and emergency coordination immediately before, during, and after coastal flood events. This action area includes evacuation routes, critical roadway connections, flood-prone streets, critical facilities, and emergency response corridors. These systems are essential because they determine whether residents can leave exposed areas safely, whether emergency responders can reach people in need, and whether critical services can continue operating as flood conditions change. Many emergency preparedness actions can begin sooner than major capital projects. Installing evacuation route signs, improving public communication, coordinating transit operations, and identifying road closure triggers, can reduce risk while longer-term infrastructure, drainage, zoning, and policy measures are studied, designed, funded, and permitted. For this reason, emergency preparedness is a near-term resilience priority as well as a long-term operational need. The recommendations for this action area include evacuation routes, the Shippan Avenue concept design, a flood sensor network, and citywide signage, all under the theme of “Making Stamford Safer” before and during flood events.

140

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

141

Evacuation Routes & Modeled Flooding Evacuation routes are intended to be used before an oncoming coastal storm. When a serious coastal storm is forecast, City and emergency management officials may issue evacuation guidance or warnings that tell residents when to leave and which areas should evacuate. Residents should follow official emergency instructions, because evacuation timing depends on the forecast, expected storm surge, road conditions, and the ability to move people safely before roads become flooded or blocked. Hurricane evacuation zones are determined by the State of Connecticut based on flood and storm surge risk. Stamford includes both Zone A and Zone B evacuation areas.

Flood Extent Closed Hurricane Barrier

142

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

143

Zone A is low-lying coastal areas likely to be exposed during relatively moderate Category 1 and Category 2 hurricanes. Zone B is generally made up of areas at slightly higher elevations, many of which benefit from the hurricane protection barrier. Residents and properties in Zone B are more at risk during more severe Category 3 and Category 4 hurricanes. To identify evacuation routes that are likely to remain accessible leading up to a serious flood event, the City’s arterial and collector road network was reviewed in relation to hurricane evacuation zones, coastal flood modeling, and topographic data. Proposed evacuation routes were laid out to move people away from coastal and low-lying areas along north-south roadways toward I-95 access points, inland roads, and higher-elevation areas. The proposed routes are made up of arterial and collector streets that provide direct inland access while avoiding known or potential flood-risk points, including low-lying intersections, underpasses, and areas near rivers or drainage systems. Major north-south evacuation corridors include Southfield Avenue, Shippan/Magee Avenue, and Washington Boulevard.

side streets. The evacuation network therefore needs to serve both residents leaving exposed areas and emergency responders, transit providers, and City departments moving through the same corridors. Where possible, the routes include multiple parallel north-south options so that traffic is not concentrated on a single road. This redundancy is important because one flooded intersection, blocked underpass, or disabled vehicle can affect the performance of the entire evacuation system. Operational improvements should support the physical route network. Traffic signals along evacuation corridors can be timed to favor northbound movement when an evacuation is ordered. Permanent evacuation signage can help residents recognize routes before an emergency.

Dynamic signs and alerts can provide real-time information about detours, road closures, and flood depths. Bus routing and transit-assisted evacuation should also be coordinated with the evacuation network so residents without access to a personal vehicle have a safe way to reach shelters or higher ground. These measures should be paired with targeted roadway and drainage improvements where future engineering confirms a need, such as intersection modifications, signal upgrades, pavement markings, curb management, stormwater improvements, or safer pedestrian areas. Future evacuation planning should also account for compound flooding, where coastal storm surge, rainfall-driven drainage flooding, and riverine flooding occur at the same time or in close sequence. The

area around Cummings Pond is one location where additional compound flood modeling could help clarify whether routes depend on a single drainage system, where bridge overtopping risks may occur, and how evacuation timing should be adjusted under different storm scenarios. Future modeling should help confirm that evacuation routes do not depend on a single vulnerable drainage system, underpass, bridge, or low point, and should help the City refine evacuation timing as flood risk changes. Together, the proposed evacuation routes and emergency preparedness actions provide a practical near-term framework for improving safety and mobility during coastal flood events, while larger resilience projects continue to move through planning, design, funding, and implementation.

The proposed evacuation route network avoids known or modeled risk points where roadway flooding, low elevation, constrained geometry, or limited clearance could reduce reliability during a storm. Low-lying coastal areas susceptible to fringe flooding are avoided entirely. In these locations, coastal neighborhoods should leave the area before low-lying local roads become inundated, preventing access to the relatively safer primary evacuation routes. Further inland, Route 137 is not recommended as a primary inland route because of its low elevation and proximity to possible flooding of the Rippowam River, especially given the availability of Bedford Street as a nearby alternative. Evacuation routes should likewise avoid The Canal Street intersection at Jefferson Street and Dock Street because it is one of the lowestelevation intersections along the rail and Interstate 95 corridor. Evacuation routes also avoid the Elm Street underpass because of its limited width and height, as well as an elevation dip that could create access challenges during flood conditions. Collectively, these route decisions are intended to keep evacuation traffic on corridors that are more likely to remain usable before floodwaters arrive. Proposed routes were also selected to support access to and from critical facilities. Many important facilities, including emergency response, health and safety, municipal operations, schools, and infrastructure assets, are located near the evacuation routes of Washington Boulevard, Shippan Avenue, and nearby

144

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

FLOODED STREETS SURROUNDING A NEIGHBORHOOD IN STAMFORD DURING HURRICANE SANDY. SOURCE: CONNECTICUT NATIONAL GUARD.

145

Signage and Public Awareness A coordinated signage and public awareness system can help Stamford make flood preparedness more visible, understandable, and actionable. The recommended approach uses three tiers of signage: • • •

Tier 1: Permanent evacuation route signs for everyday route clarity Tier 2: Dynamic emergency signs for event-based warnings Tier 3: Flood awareness markers or monuments for long-term education

Together, these tools would help residents, commuters, visitors, emergency responders, transit providers, and City staff understand where to go, when conditions are changing, and why flood risk is expected to increase over time. Permanent evacuation route signs (Tier 1) could be installed continuously along designated coastal evacuation routes. These signs should be consistent, easy to recognize, and compatible with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or MUTCD, which provides standard guidance for roadway signs and traffic control devices. Permanent evacuation signs would help people become familiar with safer northbound routes before an emergency occurs. This is important because evacuation routes are intended to be used in advance of a coastal storm, when people still have time to leave exposed shoreline and low-lying areas. Clear wayfinding can also support emergency response, pedestrian movement, and transit operations by reinforcing the designated routes that lead toward higher ground, Interstate 95 access points, and inland connections. Dynamic emergency signage (Tier 2) could be used at key decision points where conditions may change during a flood event. Dynamic signs are changeable message signs or warning signs that can display real-time or event-specific information determined by the city. These signs should be considered at major evacuation route junctions, underpasses, bridges, municipal parking garages, entrances to public open spaces, shelters, and other locations where drivers, pedestrians, emergency responders, or transit operators may need to make quick route decisions. During a storm, dynamic signage could communicate road closures, flood depths, detours, evacuation instructions, and hazard warnings. When paired with the proposed flood sensor network and data dashboard, these signs could help translate real-time flood information into clear public instructions. Flood awareness and flood gauge monuments (Tier

146

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

MUTCD STANDARD SIGN EM1-1

3) would serve a different purpose. These publicfacing flood height markers, interpretive signs, and flood gauge monuments would help build longterm awareness of past flood levels, future flood projections, sea level rise, and the City’s resilience actions. Unlike emergency signs, these features are meant to be visible during normal conditions, when people have time to learn and prepare. They can help residents understand that coastal flood risk is not limited to rare storms, and that sea level rise can make flooding more frequent, deeper, and fartherreaching over time. Candidate locations include schools, libraries, the Stamford Transportation Center, community centers, waterfront parks, marinas, waterfront promenades, public open spaces, and other heavily used civic locations.

AUTOMATIC FLOOD WARNING SIGN. SOURCE: BRISBANE TIMES

Accessibility and outreach should be built into the signage program from the beginning. Messages should be simple, consistent, and readable under stressful conditions. Public-facing information should be available in multiple languages, including Spanish, and in formats that are accessible to people with disabilities. Signage should also be coordinated with City emergency communications, community organizations, schools, senior centers, transit providers, and neighborhood groups so that residents understand the system before a flood event occurs.

The signage system should be designed as part of Stamford’s broader emergency communications strategy, not as a stand-alone program. Permanent signs should align with the evacuation route network. Dynamic signs should be coordinated with road closure protocols, bus rerouting, emergency response operations, shelter activation, and public alerts. Flood awareness signs should connect to public education materials, City web pages, and project information so that residents can learn what actions they can take before a storm. Where appropriate, signs can include web links or QR codes that direct people to evacuation maps, flood preparedness resources, real-time alerts, shelter information, and private-property adaptation guidance.

HIGH WATER WARNING SYSTEM. SOURCE: TAPCO WATER SOLUTIONS

PUBLIC ART DEPICTING HIGH WATER MARKS IN WASHINGTON, DC. SOURCE: WAYSIDE STUDIO

147

Flood Awareness & Alert System Where appropriate, signs can include web links or QR codes that direct people to evacuation maps, flood preparedness resources, real-time alerts, shelter information, and private-property adaptation guidance. Accessibility and outreach should be built into the signage program from the beginning. Messages should be simple, consistent, and readable under stressful conditions. Public-facing information should be available in multiple languages, including Spanish, and in formats that are accessible to people with disabilities. Signage should also be coordinated with City emergency communications, community organizations, schools, senior centers, transit providers, and neighborhood groups so that residents understand the system before a flood event occurs. A tiered signage system would give Stamford a practical way to connect everyday preparedness, real-time emergency response, and long-term public education, helping people make safer decisions before and during coastal flood events.

Flood Awareness Signage

DRAFT FLOOD AWARENESS SIGNAGE PLAN (SUBJECT TO CHANGE) Flood Awareness + Gauge Monuments Dynamic Emergency Signage

Evacuation Routes with Signs

148

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

149

Flood Information and Alert System Flood Sensors

A flood information and alert system would give Stamford better real-time information before and during coastal flood events. Today, many flood decisions depend on forecasts, field observations, and reports from residents, by City staff. These sources are important, but they can be difficult to coordinate during a fast-moving storm. A connected system of flood sensors, data tools, warning signs, and operating procedures would help the City see where flooding is happening, understand where flooding is likely to occur next, and communicate safer routes and conditions more quickly. The first step is to install a network of flood sensors in locations where the information would directly support emergency operations. Coastal sensors should be installed in the water to track tide levels, storm surge, and flood depths along Stamford Harbor, coves, drainage outfalls, and other shoreline locations. The final locations of these flood sensors have not yet been determined.

FLOOD SENSOR LOCATIONS Flood Extent Closed Hurricane Barrier

Legend Existing Sensor

Proposed Flood Sensor Existing Flood Sensor

Proposed Sensor

150

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

151

Overland sensors should be installed on dry land, especially along flood-prone streets, evacuation routes, underpasses, bridges, and access routes to critical facilities. These overland sensors detect when water begins to cover a road or public space. Together, the two types of sensors would help distinguish between water rising from the shoreline and water collecting on land because of rainfall, blocked drainage, or tidal backflow through storm drains. Sensor data should be combined with weather forecasts, tide information, coastal flood modeling, and stormwater modeling. This would allow the City to improve both nowcasting and forecasting. Nowcasting means understanding what is happening right now or in the next few hours, using real-time information. Forecasting looks farther ahead and estimates what may happen before or during a storm. Both are needed. During a coastal storm, coastal flooding, rainfall, river flooding, and stormwater flooding can overlap, especially in low-lying areas. A flood information system can help connect these related risks so that emergency decisions are based on the best available information at the time.

Data Dashboard

The City should create a web-based data dashboard to organize this information in one place. A dashboard is an online tool that displays current conditions, such as sensor readings, flood depth, tide levels, road status, alerts, and relevant model outputs. For City staff, the dashboard would provide a shared operating picture during flood events, meaning that the multiple departments involved in flood response could all refer to the same information as conditions change. Over time, a public-facing version could also provide simplified information for residents, such as road closures, evacuation route status, shelter information, and flood alerts. A web-based dashboard is one of the key uses of real-time sensor data, including support for bus rerouting, emergency response vehicles, flashing signs, and flood forecasting ahead of storms.

Operational Integration

The dashboard should be designed as an operations tool, not just a map. Sensor or forecast thresholds should be established in advance so that the City knows what action to take when water reaches certain levels. For example, a sensor reading at a low-lying roadway could trigger field verification, a road closure, a bus detour, a change in evacuation routing, activation of a flashing warning sign, or a public alert. These thresholds should be coordinated with emergency management protocols including police and fire operations, transit routing, school dismissal and shelter planning, and City communications. This will help avoid delays during a storm, when staff have limited time to interpret information and decide what to do. A flood information and alert system should also support the City’s proposed evacuation route network. The evacuation route maps developed for this plan identify north-south routes from coastal evacuation zones toward Interstate 95 and inland roads, while avoiding known low points and areas of high flood risk. Real-time sensors and dashboard information can help the City confirm whether these routes remain usable as a storm develops. If a key intersection, underpass, or roadway segment begins to flood, City staff can update route guidance, close unsafe roads, reroute buses and emergency vehicles, and issue targeted public messages.

From Flood Sensor to Action

CLEAR THRESHOLDS

How real-time information supports emergency decisions

Real-time flood information is most useful when it connects directly to clear decisions and assigned response roles.

Sensor Detects Flooding

Dashboard Updates

City Verifies Condition

Action Is Triggered

Emergency Response Adjusts

Road, tide, or surge conditions change

City staff see real-time information

Field staff or cameras confirm what is happening

Road closure, bus reroute, dynamic sign, or public alert

Responders, transit, shelters, and communications adapt

DETECT

DISPLAY

VERIFY

THRESHOLD

ADJUST

Clear thresholds help the City decide when to close roads, reroute buses, activate signs, issue alerts, and adjust emergency response.

TRANSLATING REAL-TIME FLOOD SENSOR DATA INTO ACTION. Stamford Coastal Resilience Plan - Chapter 7

Long-term success will depend on clear responsibilities for operating and maintaining the system. The City should identify which department or partner is responsible for sensor ownership, installation, calibration, maintenance, data quality, troubleshooting, cybersecurity, dashboard administration, and public communications. These responsibilities should be assigned before the system is needed in an emergency, and the City should conduct periodic tests to confirm that sensors, dashboard displays, signs, alerts, and staff protocols work together. By connecting sensors, forecasts, dashboards, signage, and operating procedures, Stamford can improve realtime decision-making during flood events and provide clearer, faster information to the people and services that depend on safe access.

EXAMPLE OF A REAL-TIME FLOOD SENSOR DATA DASHBOARD. SOURCE: NYC FLOODNET

152

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

A FLOOD SENSOR INSTALLED ON A PUBLIC STREET. SOURCE: WOODS HOLE GROUP

153

Critical Infrastructure Evaluation Critical infrastructure includes the facilities, systems, services, and operational assets that Stamford depends on before, during, and after coastal flood events. In this plan, critical infrastructure includes not only buildings, but also the roads that connect to them, the power and communications systems that support them, the equipment they rely on, and the staff and operating procedures needed to keep them functioning. Critical facilities are directly tied to life safety, evacuation, emergency response, transportation, sheltering, public health, and recovery. The purpose of this evaluation is to help Stamford identify which critical infrastructure assets may need more detailed study, coordination, or capital investment as coastal flood risks increase. A facility does not need to be directly flooded to be disrupted.

Flood Extent Closed Hurricane Barrier

154

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

155

For example, a hospital, fire station, shelter, wastewater facility, or transportation hub may remain physically dry but still become difficult to use if nearby roads flood, power is lost, communications fail, backup fuel is unavailable, or staff and emergency vehicles cannot reach the site. For that reason, this evaluation looks beyond mapped flood exposure and considers whether each facility can continue operating under realistic storm conditions. The evaluation is organized by infrastructure sector and identifies both sector-wide resilience needs and facility-specific recommendations for prioritized facilities in the study area. The sectors reviewed include healthcare, transportation, emergency response, electrical power, emergency shelters, wastewater, municipal operations, and flood management. Priority assets include facilities such as Stamford Hospital, long-term care and dialysis facilities, Stamford Transportation Center, fire and police facilities, Eversource substations, Stamford High School as a shelter, wastewater pump stations, the Stamford Water Pollution Control Facility, municipal fleet and solid waste facilities, and the Stamford Hurricane barrier. Detailed sector and site-specific recommendations are provided in Appendix B.

Evaluation Framework

For each sector and asset, the evaluation uses a consistent framework. The supporting matrix (found in Appendix B) identifies the facility or asset name, its primary resilience role, key resilience concerns, operational needs, recommended actions, potential partners, and data or modeling needed for future decision-making. This structure is intended to make the evaluation useful for implementation. It allows the City to compare different types of assets, understand common vulnerabilities, and identify which next steps require engineering, operations planning, interagency coordination, grant funding, or inclusion in the City’s capital planning process. This is a planning-level evaluation, not a detailed engineering assessment. It should be used to set priorities and guide next steps, but it should be followed by more detailed facility-specific evaluations for high-priority assets. Future evaluations should use updated coastal flood modeling, stormwater modeling, compound flood modeling, access-route analysis, and utility inventories.

Cross-Sector Takeaways and Common Resilience Needs

Facility access is often as important as facility protection. Many critical facilities may be able to withstand flooding at the building level but still

156

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

become isolated if surrounding roads, evacuation routes, bridges, underpasses, or deployment corridors flood. This is especially important for healthcare facilities, emergency response facilities, shelters, transportation facilities, wastewater facilities, and municipal operations sites. Future evaluations should therefore assess not only whether a facility is exposed to floodwater, but also whether staff, patients, emergency vehicles, buses, repair crews, and supply deliveries can safely reach the facility before, during, and after a storm. The evacuation route planning in this chapter already emphasizes the importance of keeping critical facilities accessible and using multiple north-south routes to move people toward safer areas. Power, fuel, communications, and control systems are recurring vulnerabilities across nearly every sector. Many critical facilities depend on backup generators, electrical switchgear, fuel tanks, emergency panels, communications equipment, pumps, controls, and data systems. Switchgear is the equipment that controls and distributes electrical power within a facility. If these systems are located in basements, lowlying service rooms, exposed outdoor areas, or floodprone utility spaces, a facility can lose function even if the main structure remains standing. These systems should be elevated, flood proofed, waterproofed, supplied with backup capacity, or relocated where needed. Facility-specific evaluations should also identify how long backup power can operate, how fuel will be delivered during a storm, and whether communications systems have redundancy.

closure decisions, bus rerouting, shelter operations, wastewater operations, public-facing travel messages, and facility status monitoring. More detailed compound flood modeling is needed before some recommendations can move into design or construction. Current planning-level flood information is useful for identifying broad areas of concern, but critical infrastructure decisions require a more detailed understanding of flood depth, timing, duration, access-route impacts, utility exposure, and cascading consequences. Cascading consequences occur when disruption in one system causes problems in another; for example, loss of power can affect wastewater pumps, communications, traffic signals, shelter operations, medical care, and emergency

response. Future modeling should help the City understand not only where water may go, but also when facilities may lose access, how long disruption may last, and which systems are most likely to affect one another. Overall, the critical infrastructure evaluation provides a starting point for prioritizing future assessments, capital improvements, emergency operations planning, and coordination with facility owners and partner agencies. The detailed appendix should be used as a working tool to guide next steps by sector and by facility, while Chapter 7 carries these recommendations forward into phasing, funding, governance, and implementation planning.

Operational continuity requires redundancy. Redundancy means having a backup option when the primary facility, route, system, or procedure is unavailable. Stamford should identify alternate staging areas for emergency response, backup command locations, alternate harbor launch sites, alternate fueling and maintenance sites, and alternate debris-management locations. This is especially important for fire, police, emergency medical services, and healthcare access. If one facility or route is compromised, the City should already know where operations can shift and how staff will communicate that change. Critical facilities should be integrated into Stamford’s future flood information and alert system. The plan recommends coastal sensors, overland flood sensors, a web-based data dashboard, and flood warning signs to improve real-time decision-making during flood events. Critical infrastructure should be included in that system so City staff can understand facility access, nearby flood depths, road status, and operational risks as conditions change. Sensor data should support evacuation routing, emergency deployment, road

STAMFORD WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY. SOURCE: CITY OF STAMFORD

157

Shippan Corridor Vulnerability Assessment

The intersection of Shippan Avenue and Magee Avenue is a critical planning priority because Shippan Avenue serves as a primary evacuation route for the surrounding coastal neighborhoods. At an elevation of approximately 8.5 feet NAVD88, the intersection is the lowest point along the Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue evacuation corridor. The drainage pipes below this intersection serve a large area to the south, with runoff from Shippan Avenue and Harbor Avenue flowing toward this low-lying intersection. From there, stormwater is conveyed northward through the drainage system before discharging through outfalls along the East Branch of Stamford Harbor. The effectiveness of this drainage system depends on conditions in the harbor. During high-water events such as a storm surge or high tides, the outfalls can become partially or fully submerged, restricting the discharge of stormwater and reducing the effectiveness of the drainage network. Water from the harbor can also backflow through the stormwater system where existing outfalls are not capped with tide gates. When backflow occurs, it emerges from street drains, causing saltwater to pool on roadways even in the absence of significant rainfall. When high water events in the harbor coincide with rainfall, both tidal water from the harbor and stormwater collect on the roadway in this intersection. A tide gate at the Czesick Marina prevents backflow in that location;

however, two outfalls to the north, shown on the map to the right, are hydraulically connected to the inlets of the Shippan Avenue and Magee Avenue intersection. Because those two outfalls lack tidal control, these conditions contribute to repeated issues with flooding at the intersection. Similar flooding has been reported along nearby low-lying streets, including at the entrance to Cummings Park. This situation is exacerbated by issues with the pipe network. Several pipes below the intersection are undersized and/or damaged, which causes stormwater to move through the system inefficiently. In addition. stormwater from south of the intersection follows a circuitous route before exiting into the harbor: it flows north through the Shippan/Magee intersection, then makes a series of turns around the transfer station before finally reaching an outfall. This long and circuitous route reduces the system’s capacity to manage stormwater. Given Shippan Avenue’s importance as an evacuation route, flooding in this intersection could hamper emergency access and evacuation efforts in the lead up to or during a major flood event. To address these issues, the proposed concept described on the following pages recommends improvements to transportation infrastructure and the stormwater system to enhance drainage capacity, prevent backflow, facilitate evacuation, and temporarily store stormwater.

TRANSFER STATION

FLOODING AT SHIPPAN/MAGEE INTERSECTION CAUSED BY PRECIPITATION DURING A KING TIDE. SOURCE: TYLER THEDER.

158

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

159

Recommended Improvements

Tide gates proposed earlier in Chapter 6 for outfalls north of the intersection would eliminate the influx of harbor water into the Shippan Avenue and Magee Avenue intersection. However, if tide gates are closed during a precipitation event, stormwater would be unable to exit the system and would accumulate on roadways and in the neighborhood. While tide gates are closed, there are two ways to manage stormwater: pumping the water out of pipes at an elevation above the water level of the harbor, and creating space to temporarily store stormwater on land.

existing four-way intersection can be converted to a roundabout, which would expedite evacuation by improving year-round safety and preventing traffic backup at this intersection—especially in the event that stoplights were to lose power due to power outages during a major storm. The Resilience Corridor plan for this area also incorporates green stormwater infrastructure and floodable athletic fields, described in the Open Space Toolbox.

Even with the proposed conveyance and backflowprevention measures in place, stormwater must still be managed during high water events in Stamford Harbor, when the tide gates automatically close and temporarily prevent the system from discharging to the harbor. To provide additional storage during these periods, green and hybrid stormwater infrastructure could be installed beneath and around nearby athletic fields. These systems would reduce peak discharge rates and retain stormwater safely on site until the tide gates reopen to release stormwater out to the harbor. In addition, a stormwater pump station could be constructed near the existing outfall at Czescik Marina (DIS-962) as a means of removing stormwater that accumulates when gravity drainage is unavailable. These interventions could be paired with features in Czescik Marina Park such as a raised plaza, picnic grove/gathering space, and pedestrian ways along forest and nature walks. The related Cummings Pond Ecological and Flood Resilience Plan provides another important opportunity to broaden and coordinate these concepts with broader stormwater, ecological, park, and public-access improvements in the area. Combining green infrastructure with multi-use landscapes would support community well-being and civic pride, with this area of the waterfront serving as a recreational destination within the City and a critical piece of risk reduction infrastructure.

VIEW LOOKING NORTH ALONG MAGEE AVE FROM THE INTERSECTION WITH SHIPPAN AVE. SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS.

This concept should be advanced through future engineering, drainage modeling, traffic analysis, cost estimating, permitting review, and community engagement to confirm the most effective combination of flood reduction, evacuation, safety, and open-space improvements for the Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue corridor. Elevating the full length of Shippan Avenue above the projected future 1% annual chance flood elevation was considered as a means of preventing roadway flooding; however, the approach would be prohibitively costly and could worsen drainage impacts on adjacent properties. Instead, the

160

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

161

Section View of Shippan Avenue Flood Prevention This cross-section depicts the concept designs proposed to mitigate flooding and maintain Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue as a viable evacuation route. This concept takes advantage of existing parks and green space, with multiple green and hybrid infrastructure solutions—including bioretention basins and floodable athletic fields—intended to capture stormwater when it does back up when tide gates are closed. In addition, rerouting stormwater pipes and installing additional tide gates along Stamford Harbor would help prevent coastal flooding from entering the street network from below ground. ROUNDABOUT WITH GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN HONOLULU, HI. SOURCE: CITY OF HONOLULU.

162

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDES TEMPORARY STORAGE IN PORTLAND, OR. SOURCE: CITY OF PORTLAND

RESILIENCITY STORMWATER PARK IN HOBOKEN, NJ. PHOTO BY NADEJ HOCINI

163

Recommended Pipe Network Improvements

In addition, modifications to the grey stormwater infrastructure at the intersection are proposed to improve the capacity of the drainage system. The diagram to the right illustrates the following changes: • •

Replacing and upsizing old and damaged drainage pipes Redirecting stormwater out through the Czescik Marina outfall rather than further north by the transfer station

Existing stormwater pipes would be upsized through the intersection, with a new drainage connection made from catch basins on Shippan Avenue along the south side of the intersection to Harbor Drive. Meanwhile, the existing stormwater main extending north from the intersection along Magee Avenue would be capped and sealed. This reconfiguration would provide a more direct route for stormwater to reach the harbor, allowing runoff to bypass portions of the existing system, which directs water north along Magee Avenue. Accelerating the removal of stormwater from this low-lying intersection would help reduce the depth and duration of roadway flooding during rainfall events. Addition of a roundabout at this intersection would enhance evacuation. Meanwhile, proposed drainage improvements should be performed at the same time as intersection reconfigurement to minimize cost and construction-related disturbances. However, future outreach and discussions between the City Traffic Department and the broader public will take place to determine whether a roundabout is desirable in this location.

164

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

165

Concept-Level Estimate of Probable Costs for Recommended Improvements: Shippan Ave and Magee Ave Intersection Work Item

Planning-Level Cost Ranges

Roundabout Improvements

$1.7 - $3.5M

Bioretention Basins

$4.2 - $9M

Tree Plantings

$70-$150k

Drainage Improvements

$105-$225k

Stormwater Pump Station

$550k - $1.2M

This estimate includes:

Site mobilization and preparation, materials, landscaping, and contingencies (-30% to +50%) for the conversion of the Shippan Avenue-Magee Avenue Intersection to a roundabout, along with related green stormwater infrastructure and drainage upgrades to mitigate flooding in the area.

This estimate does not include:

Additional tide gates north of the existing intersection. The estimate also does not include open space and transportation upgrades beyond those listed above, such as bike lanes, pedestrian walking paths, or floodable athletic fields.

166

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Conclusion Chapter 6 brings the Coastal Resilience Plan from risk assessment to action, establishing that coastal flood resilience in Stamford will require a layered set of strategies rather than a single project or one-time investment. Some actions are focused on improving safety before and during flood events, such as evacuation routes, flood sensors, signage, emergency communications, and critical infrastructure access. Others are focused on reducing flood damage over time through infrastructure evaluation, tide gates, zoning updates, municipal open space adaptation, private-property guidance, and long-term planning tools. Together, these recommendations form a practical resilience framework for City departments, partner agencies, residents, businesses, and property owners. The three Resilience Action Areas provide the organizing structure for this work. The recommendations for the hurricane protection barrier and areas inside the barrier focus on understanding residual risk, including barrier closure, future sea level rise, potential flanking, structural condition, and the need for more detailed modeling. The recommendations for flooding outside the barrier address the more dispersed risks facing shoreline neighborhoods, waterfront properties, municipal open spaces, drainage outfalls, and low-lying areas exposed to tidal backflow and sea level rise. The emergency preparedness and resilience corridor recommendations focus on the routes, facilities, alerts, signage, and operational systems Stamford depends on during coastal flood events.

A central takeaway from Chapter 6 is that Stamford can begin acting now while also preparing for more complex longterm decisions. Near-term actions such as formalizing evacuation routes, installing clearer signage, piloting flood sensors, verifying tide gate conditions, preparing zoning updates, and sharing private-property adaptation resources can improve readiness and reduce risk before major capital projects are built. At the same time, larger efforts — including the Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Study, the Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue concept, future tide gate design, municipal open space adaptation, compound flood modeling, and a potential Coastal Resilience Overlay Zone — will require additional study, design, permitting, funding, operations planning, and community engagement before implementation. Chapter 6 therefore ends with a set of preliminary recommended actions, but not with a final construction program, which will require further concept development and funding allocations. The next step is to determine how these actions should be sequenced, who should lead them, what information is still needed, how they may be funded, and how the City can track progress over time. Chapter 7 builds on this chapter by converting the recommendations into a pathway for implementation, including phasing, responsibilities, dependencies, funding considerations, and near-term priorities for moving Stamford’s coastal resilience work forward.

167

168

Reccommendation

Description

Action Area

Scale

Lead & Partner Entities

Time Frame

Dependencies

Cost

Equity Issues

Closure analysis

Understand when and for what reasons the hurricane barrier closes

Hurricane Barrier

USACE; City emergency management, engineering, and operations

Near term

Coordination with USACE; operating records; storm and tide thresholds

Low

None

Gap assessment

Identify locations where floodwater could bypass, flank, overtop, or otherwise enter around the barrier system.

Hurricane Barrier

City, USACE, engineering consultant

Near term

Current survey and elevation data; barrier condition information; sealevel-rise scenarios

Moderate

Prioritize gaps that could affect vulnerable neighborhoods, evacuation routes, and critical facilities

Detailed compound-flood modeling

Model rainfall, drainage, coastal surge, tide levels, and barrier conditions to identify present and future flood pathways.

Citywide, watershed

City engineering and planning; USACE; regional and state partners

Near to mid term

None

Moderate to high

Use results to identify disproportionate impacts and guide equitable project prioritization.

Private-property measures

Support building retrofits, utility protection, elevation, wet or dry floodproofing where permitted, and voluntary relocation or acquisition.

Parcel / building

Property owners; City permitting and planning; insurers; technical-assistance providers

Ongoing

Property-specific risk assessment; code and floodplain compliance; owner financing and participation

Varies by property but moderate

Prioritize technical and financial assistance for lower-income owners, renters, and repetitive-loss properties.

Land-use and building requirements

Update zoning, development review, elevation standards, redevelopment requirements, and voluntary acquisition policies to reduce future exposure.

Citywide policy

City planning, building, legal, and engineering departments

Near to mid term

Updated flood-risk information; legal review; public process; coordination with state and federal requirements

Low to moderate

Avoid displacement and pair stricter standards with affordability, relocation, and technical-assistance measures.

Outfall protection and tide valves

Inspect, repair, replace, or add backflow-prevention devices at vulnerable drainage outfalls.

Coastal outfalls, drainage system

City engineering and public works; utility owners; environmental regulators

Near to mid term

Outfall inventory; condition assessment; hydraulic analysis; environmental permits; maintenance plan

Moderate to high

Prioritize systems serving frequently flooded neighborhoods, key access routes, and critical facilities.

Open-space and naturebased strategies

Use tidal wetlands, living shorelines, green stormwater infrastructure, floodable open space, natural berms, and temporary storage to manage water.

Site / corridor / shoreline

City parks, engineering, and planning, conservation partners; regulators

Mid to long term

Site suitability; land control; hydrologic and ecological studies; permitting; maintenance

Moderate to high

Protect public access and avoid shifting flood risk; prioritize benefits in underserved neighborhoods.

Signage and public awareness

Improve evacuation, floodrisk, and barrier-status signage and provide clear, multilingual public information before and during events.

Citywide / neighborhood

City emergency management and communications; police, fire, and public works; community partners

Near term

Consistent messaging; evacuation-route planning; accessibility and language review; maintenance responsibility

Low

Use multilingual, accessible formats and targeted outreach for populations with limited digital access.

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Likely Funding

169

CHAPTER 7: PATHWAY FOR IMPLEMENTATION

CHAPTER 7

Implementation Plan Purpose of Chapter 7 Chapter 6 identifies the coastal resilience actions Stamford can take to reduce flood risk, improve emergency preparedness, and support adaptation. Chapter 7 explains how the City can begin moving those recommendations from planning into action. This chapter is intended to organize the recommendations by timing, responsibility, funding readiness, and practical next steps. It helps City staff, decision-makers, partner agencies, and the public understand what can begin soon, what needs more study or design, and what will require longer-term work on funding, permitting, coordination, and public engagement. Implementation will need to happen in phases. Some actions can begin soon after the plan is complete, such as establishing a resilience implementation working group, formalizing evacuation routes, advancing flood sensors and dynamic signage, preparing near-term zoning updates, and verifying the condition of existing tide gates. Other actions will require additional technical study, engineering design, permitting, funding, public engagement, and coordination with outside agencies before they can move forward.

172

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

This implementation pathway should be treated as a flexible guide, not a fixed construction schedule. Coastal resilience planning must respond to changing conditions including new flood modeling, updated climate projections, completed studies, funding opportunities, community priorities, and lessons learned from future storms. As projects advance, the City may need to adjust the order of actions, refine project scopes, add partners, update costs, or revisit priorities. For that reason, Chapter 7 should be reviewed and updated regularly. Chapter 7 is Stamford’s practical implementation guide: a clear, public-facing framework for sequencing actions, assigning responsibility, preparing for funding, and keeping coastal resilience work moving forward over time. Chapter 7 is intended to serve several audiences. City staff can use it to track leads, partners, funding, timelines, maintenance, and next steps. Residents and businesses can use it to understand what may happen first, what will take longer, and how the City will continue to communicate about implementation. Partner agencies and facility owners can use it to identify where coordination may be needed for infrastructure, emergency access, facilities, funding, and operations.

173

Who Uses Chapter 7? A practical guide for City staff, the public, and implementation partners

Chapter 7 serves different audiences. Use this guide to find the timing, roles, funding, and next steps most relevant to you.

City Staff Use Chapter 7 to track leads, partners, funding, timelines, maintenance, and next steps. What to look for: Assign leads and track dependencies. Prepare scopes, budget needs, and O&M responsibilities.

Chapter 6 Resilience Action Area

How It Carries Forward in Chapter 7

Related Implementation Action Pathways

Resilience Action Area 1: The Hurricane Protection Barrier and Areas Inside the Barrier

Carries forward through actions that evaluate the Stamford Hurricane Protection Barrier, assess residual risk, identify potential gaps or flanking pathways, and determine whether future barrierrelated improvements should advance to design, funding, and construction.

Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience; Critical Infrastructure and Municipal Assets; Emergency Preparedness

Resilience Action Area 2: Flooding Outside the Hurricane Protection Barrier

Carries forward through actions that address shoreline and low-lying areas outside the primary barrier system, including tidal backflow, drainage outfalls, municipal open space adaptation, privateproperty guidance, and future land use and zoning tools.

Tide Gates and Drainage; Planning and Policy; Critical Infrastructure and Municipal Assets

Resilience Action Area 3: Emergency Preparedness and Resilience Corridors

Carries forward through actions that improve life safety, evacuation, mobility, flood alerts, signage, critical facility access, and the Shippan Avenue/ Magee Avenue corridor. These actions help the City manage flood events while longer-term infrastructure and policy measures advance.

Emergency Preparedness; Shippan Avenue/ Magee Avenue; Critical Infrastructure and Municipal Assets

Cross-Cutting / Citywide Implementation

Some Chapter 7 actions support all three Resilience Action Areas, including funding readiness, public communication, operations and maintenance, progress tracking, and adaptive management.

Citywide / Ongoing; supports all pathways

Residents and Businesses Use Chapter 7 to understand what happens first, what takes longer, and how to stay informed. What to look for: See which immediate priorities can start soon. Follow public updates and future decisions.

Partner Agencies and Facility Owners Use Chapter 7 to identify where coordination is needed for infrastructure, emergency access, facilities, and funding. What to look for: Coordinate around facilities, access, utilities, and data. Support grants, maintenance, and emergency roles.

174

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

175

How the Frameworks Connect Chapter 6 organizes recommendations into three Resilience Action Areas to show where Stamford’s major coastal flood-risk conditions occur and why different types of actions are needed in different places. Chapter 7 uses a related but more implementation-focused structure: Implementation Action Pathways. These pathways group actions by how the City can sequence, fund, coordinate, maintain, and update them over time.

Implementation Priorities What guides Chapter 7 actions and sequencing

Priorities help Stamford decide what moves first, what needs more study or design, and how early actions improve safety while larger projects move forward.

In simple terms, the Resilience Action Areas explain where and why recommendations are needed, while the Implementation Action Pathways explain how those recommendations can move forward.

Prioritize Life Safety & Emergency Access

Advance evacuation routes, alerts, signage, shelters, critical facility access, and responder mobility before and during flood events.

Start With Actions That Unlock Others

Prepare scopes, studies, data, cost estimates, partners, and grant-ready next steps before larger design or construction.

Coordinate Across Departments

Use a resilience implementation working group to assign leads, align partners, track funding, and connect projects to operations.

Reduce Future Damage

Use policy, infrastructure, and stewardship to address today’s risk and the 20-inch / 40-inch sea level rise planning horizons.

Prioritize Equity & Community Benefit

Consider who benefits and who may need additional support before, during, and after flood events.

Implementation priorities make the Coastal Resilience Plan easier to understand, track, and hold accountable to the community.

176

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

177

Implementation Priorities Setting implementation priorities helps Stamford organize a complex set of recommendations into a clear sequence of actions. Because the City cannot study, design, fund, build, and maintain every project at once, priorities help clarify what should move first, why it matters, and how early actions can support larger long-term decisions. For the public, this section helps explain which actions are intended to improve safety and access in the near term, which actions will reduce flood damage over time, and how the City will make practical decisions about staffing, partnerships, grants, and public investment. Implementation priorities also make the Coastal Resilience Plan easier to track and more accountable to the community. Stamford’s implementation priorities begin with life safety and emergency access. Early actions should help residents leave exposed coastal areas safely before a storm and help emergency responders continue to reach people, facilities, and neighborhoods during changing flood conditions. Evacuation routes, alerts, signage, transit coordination, shelter access, and critical facility access are therefore near-term priorities. Some high-priority actions are not construction projects themselves, but steps that unlock later work. The Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Study, tide gate verification and design, flood sensor deployment, Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue feasibility work,

zoning updates, and critical infrastructure inventory all provide information the City will need before larger design, permitting, funding, or construction decisions can be made. Implementation should also reduce future damage through policy, infrastructure, and long-term planning. This includes evaluating the Stamford Hurricane Protection Barrier, advancing tide gate and drainage improvements, strengthening zoning and design standards, adapting municipal open spaces, and guiding safer private investment over time. These actions should continue to account for present-day risk as well as the 20-inch and 40-inch sea level rise planning horizons used in the plan. Equity and community benefit should also guide implementation. As projects move forward, the City should use the vulnerability information from Chapter 5 to help prioritize actions that improve safety for residents with fewer resources to adapt on their own, including renters, older adults, medically vulnerable residents, transit-dependent households, lowerincome residents, and residents with limited English proficiency. This does not mean every project must address every need, but it does mean that equity, access, and community benefit should be considered when sequencing projects, preparing grants, designing outreach, and evaluating public investment.

Immediate Priorities: What Happens First? First 12-24 months: move quickly on practical actions that improve safety and unlock future work.

These immediate priorities do not solve every flood-risk issue at once. They are first moves that help Stamford reduce near-term risk and prepare larger projects for funding, design, and implementation.

Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Study WHAT IT IS Evaluates HPB closure, gaps, flanking, and future flood performance. WHY IT MATTERS Identifies what must be fixed before major barrier improvements advance. FIRST CITY STEP Prepare a grant-ready scope; begin gap and closure work if full study funding lags.

Tide Gate Program WHAT IT IS Verifies, repairs, and installs priority backflow prevention devices. WHY IT MATTERS Reduces harbor water backing into storm drains at low-lying outfalls. FIRST CITY STEP Add tide gates to GIS; verify and repair existing gates; install straightforward priority gates first.

Flood Sensors, Dashboard & Dynamic Signage WHAT IT IS Tracks flood conditions and displays real-time information for City staff. WHY IT MATTERS Supports closures, bus rerouting, emergency response, evacuation guidance, and public alerts. FIRST CITY STEP Fund sensors, dashboard users, protocols, and dynamic sign sites. These immediate priorities improve safety now and provide the information needed to design, fund, and maintain larger resilience investments.

178

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

179

Immediate Priorities: What Happens First? Within the implementation timeline, the first 12 to 24 months should be treated as Stamford’s immediate start-up period. These early actions are not intended to solve every flood-risk issue at once. Instead, they should help the City move quickly on actions that are practical, useful for near-term safety, and important for unlocking future work.

Implementation Action Pathways Six coordinated workstreams for turning recommendations into action

Chapter 7 groups related recommendations into workstreams so the City can sequence, fund, coordinate, maintain, and update actions over time. Each pathway identifies a focus, first step, and implementation role.

Three immediate priorities should move forward as soon as possible: • • •

Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Study Tide Gate Program Flood Sensors, Dashboard, and Dynamic Signage

The Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Study should be advanced as a high-priority technical study. Ideally, the City should seek funding to complete detailed modeling, closure analysis, and gap assessment together. If full funding is not immediately available, the gap assessment and closure analysis may be able to begin first while the City continues to pursue funding for detailed modeling. The tide gate program should also move quickly where site conditions support straightforward backflow prevention. Tide gates can directly reduce tidal backflow where harbor water moves backward through storm drainage pipes. The City should verify existing tide gates, add them to City mapping and maintenance systems, and move priority tide gate installations forward as soon as site conditions allow. Flood sensors, a data dashboard, and dynamic flood signage should also be funded early. These tools can improve safety before and during flood events by helping City staff understand where flooding is occurring, where roads may need to close, where buses or emergency vehicles may need to reroute, and where public warnings are needed.

Emergency Preparedness

FOCUS

Hurricane Protection Barrier (HPB) Resilience FOCUS

Improve life safety before and during flood events. FIRST STEP

Tide Gates and Drainage

FOCUS

Understand HPB performance and residual risk. FIRST STEP

Reduce tidal backflow through storm drainage systems. FIRST STEP

Formalize routes, signage, sensors, dashboard, and alerts.

Scope and fund closure analysis, gap assessment, and detailed modeling.

Verify existing tide gates and install priority gates where feasible.

SUPPORTS

Evacuation decisions, critical facility access, transit coordination, and public messaging.

HPB-open/closed scenarios, low points, tieins, flanking risks, and pump station needs.

GIS tracking, maintenance protocols, storage and pumping checks, and site feasibility.

Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue

FOCUS

Improve a critical evacuation and drainage location. FIRST STEP

Planning and Policy

FOCUS

Guide safer development and long-term risk reduction. FIRST STEP

Critical Infrastructure and Municipal Assets FOCUS

Protect essential facilities, access, utilities, and public assets. FIRST STEP

Define feasibility scope and coordinate with Cummings Pond planning.

Advance BFE +3 zoning amendment and overlay zone groundwork.

Begin inventory and prioritize facilities for detailed assessment.

SUPPORTS

Tide gates, storage, pumping, green infrastructure, traffic safety, and evacuation reliability.

Resilient development standards, future flood modeling, and private-property guidance.

Access routes, backup power, fuel, communications, utilities, redundancy, and open space assets.

These connected pathways advance through phasing, funding, coordination, maintenance, and adaptive management. Use the implementation table for timing, leads, partners, funding examples, and operations and maintenance needs.

180

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

181

Implementation Action Pathways

Integrated Implementation Timeline The implementation timeline is intended to help

To make the implementation plan easier to follow, Chapter 7 groups related actions into six Implementation Action Pathways. These pathways are not separate plans or new recommendations. They are a practical way to organize the Chapter 6 recommendations into workstreams that can be scoped, funded, assigned, coordinated, maintained, and updated over time.

in a clear, manageable sequence. It is not a fixed Long-Term Actions: 5–10+ Years construction schedule. Instead, it identifies what the Long-term implementation should focus on major City can begin now, what requires additional study capital improvements, long-term policy tools, and or design, and what will need longer-term funding, Timeframes are intended to guide sequencing and should be updated as new data, funding, projects, policy changes, and storm experience emerge. ongoing City operations. These actions will generally permitting, coordination, and public support. require completed studies, design, permitting, The timeline is organized into three general funding, public engagement, and clear maintenance timeframes: responsibilities before they can be implemented.

The six pathways are: • • • • • •

Emergency Preparedness Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Tide Gates and Drainage Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue Planning and Policy Critical Infrastructure and Municipal Assets

Each pathway includes actions that may occur across different timeframes. Some actions can begin immediately, while others require additional study, design, permitting, funding, public engagement, or interagency coordination. The implementation table and appendices should be used to connect each pathway to timing, lead entities, key partners, funding examples, dependencies, and maintenance needs.

Implementation Timeline feasibility, design, estimating, and public Flexible guidecost - not a fixed schedule decision-making.

move from recommendations to action A flexible sequence for moving recommendations from planningStamford to action

Near-Term

Medium-Term

Long-Term

0-2 Years

2-5 Years Near-Term Actions: 0–2 Years

5-10+ Years

Organize responsibilities, improve safety, and prepare projects for funding. CO

Establish implementation working group

Formalize evacuation routes

Begin permanent route signage

Fund sensors, dashboard, signage

HPB

Secure funding and start HPB resilience study

In the near term, Stamford should focus on actions that improve safety, organizeand Citymove responsibilities, Construct larger improvements, adopt Complete studies, expand systems, and prepare larger projects for funding. This includeslong-term tools, and maintain systems. priority projects toward design. advancing the three immediate priorities: the Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Study, tide Complete study signage. Construct HPB improvements if HPB gates, and HPB floodresilience sensors/dynamic HPB supported Complete installation of tide TG Medium-Term Actions: 2–5gates Years Install priority tide gates TG Medium-term implementation should focus on Expand flood sensor network EP completing technical studies, expanding preparedness Implement Shippan/Magee systems, and moving priority projects toward SM improvements Link sensors to emergency actions EP

Advance Shippan/Magee feasibility

Adopt Coastal Resilience Overlay

Model future overlay zone

Upgrade priority critical facilities

Install priority tide gates

Draft overlay zoning language

Implement open space adaptation

Define Shippan/Magee feasibility scope

Assess priority critical facilities

Maintain resilience systems

Develop open space concepts

Revisit priorities every 2-3 years

Prepare Base Flood Elevation +3 zoning amendment

Continue public engagement

Begin critical infrastructure inventory

Prepare two to four grant scopes

Start with immediate priority actions

Move priorities through design

Legend: Implementation Pathways Emergency Preparedness

Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience

Critical Infrastructure + Municipal Assets

Tide Gates and Drainage

Implement, maintain, and update

Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue

Planning and Policy

Citywide / Ongoing

Note: Timeframes are flexible; the City should revisit priorities every 2-3 years or after major storms, new modeling, funding awards, policy changes, or completed projects.

182

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

183

Resilience Working Group The recommendations in this plan cross departmental boundaries, so implementation will require ongoing coordination across City departments and outside partners. Within the City, coastal resilience actions will involve planning, zoning, engineering, emergency management, public works, transportation, environmental protection, parks and open space, public safety, grants staff, communications, and the Water Pollution Control Authority. Several recommendations also depend on coordination with outside partners, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, state agencies, utilities, public transit providers, healthcare operators, schools, private property owners, waterfront businesses, marinas, and community organizations. A resilience implementation working group would help keep these efforts organized. The group should assign leads, track progress, coordinate technical studies, prepare funding applications, identify maintenance responsibilities, and support clear public updates. It should also help determine when projects require City leadership decisions, public engagement, partner coordination, or additional technical information before moving forward. This working group should not be viewed as a new layer of bureaucracy. Its purpose is to make implementation easier to manage. A clear coordinator, regular check-ins, simple tracking tools, and early partner coordination will help move recommendations from planning into grants, studies, designs, construction projects, policy changes, and long-term operations.

Resilience Implementation Working Group Coordinating Chapter 7 actions across City departments, agencies, and partners

Chapter 7 recommends a working group to assign leads, track progress, coordinate technical studies, prepare funding, and share public updates.

Working Group Coordinator Keeps implementation moving: schedules meetings, tracks assignments, coordinates handoffs, and prepares progress updates for City leadership.

Core Working Group Members 1-2 representatives from relevant City functions, ideally including project leads or department heads. Planning & Zoning Engineering Public Works / Roads Emergency Management Transportation

Key output:

184

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Parks / Open Space Environmental Protection Public Safety WPCA District representatives

Support Resources

External Coordination

City staff who support the group as needed for decisions, funding, communication, data, legal coordination, and budget planning.

Partners are brought in when actions affect regional assets, funding, operations, or private property.

Mayor's Office / City leadership Grants administration Communications Legal GIS / data support

USACE CT & federal agencies Utilities Transit providers

Finance / budget

Schools & healthcare operators Facility owners Waterfront businesses Community organizations

lead assignments, implementation tracking, grant-ready scopes, operations responsibilities, and clear public updates.

185

Funding and Grant Readiness Grants will be important to implementation, but they should not be the City’s only funding strategy. Some actions, such as ongoing maintenance, are not likely to be grant funded. In addition, most grant funding sources require a local funding contribution. These costs should be incorporated into the City’s capital improvement program, annual operating budgets, asset management systems, and maintenance planning. Stamford may also consider developing dedicated sources of local funding for resilience projects.

Dedicated Funding Sources Dedicated local revenue can help Stamford move resilience projects from grant-dependent planning into sustained implementation. Tax increment financing begins with a defined district and a baseline property value. As redevelopment or other improvements increase assessed values, the municipality dedicates some or all of the resulting increase in property-tax revenue—the “tax increment”—to eligible projects within the district. The revenue may be spent as it is collected or pledged to repay bonds that finance improvements up front. Tax increment financing generally does not require a higher tax rate, but it redirects future revenue growth that might otherwise support the general fund. It is therefore most effective where new development or substantial appreciation is reasonably expected and where public resilience investments can help protect or stimulate that growth. Resiliency improvement districts are a newer, climatefocused variation of this approach. Connecticut Public Act 25-33, adopted in 2025, authorizes municipalities to establish these districts to finance capital projects addressing climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience. Funding may include incremental propertytax revenue, benefit assessments on properties receiving particular advantages, bonds, grants, and other sources. A district requires a master plan, financial plan, consistency review, and public hearing. This structure could be particularly useful in coastal commercial, industrial, mixed-use, or transit-oriented areas where coordinated flood protection, drainage, access, and environmental improvements would benefit multiple properties. A stormwater authority operates more like a public utility. Connecticut municipalities may establish

186

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

an authority and levy dedicated fees, subject to legislative approval. Fees typically reflect factors such as impervious surface area and runoff or pollution potential, with credits available for properties that manage stormwater onsite. Unlike tax increment financing, this approach can generate predictable, recurring revenue for system maintenance, regulatory compliance, drainage upgrades, green infrastructure, capital projects, and debt repayment. Used together, these tools could provide both districtspecific capital financing and a stable citywide source for long-term operations and maintenance. Their detailed design would require financial modeling, legal review, affordability protections, and transparent public engagement.

Grant Funding Funding readiness should be treated as one of Stamford’s first implementation tasks. Chapter 6 identifies a range of actions that vary in scale, cost, complexity, and readiness. Some actions can move forward relatively quickly, while others require additional modeling, feasibility analysis, design, permitting, public engagement, or agency coordination. The purpose of this section is to help Stamford match each recommendation to the right type of funding and prepare priority projects before grant opportunities are announced. Because grant programs, deadlines, eligibility, and match requirements change over time, the City should treat the examples below as a starting point rather than a fixed funding list. Stamford should update its funding strategy annually and confirm current requirements with each state or federal agency before applying. Different types of projects require different types of funding. Stamford should avoid waiting until a project is “construction ready” before thinking about grants. Many of the most important near-term actions are planning, design, and readiness steps that can make later capital projects more competitive. Actions such as the Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Study, tide gate design, and critical infrastructure assessments, may require planning or design funds before they are ready for construction. Larger improvements, such as barrier-related upgrades, stormwater storage, pumping, roadway improvements, municipal open space adaptation, and

Budget Category

What it Supports

Example Actions

Staff coordination / administration

Internal coordination, tracking, public updates, grant preparation

Implementation working group, action tracking table, public communication

Planning / feasibility

Studies, modeling, early scoping, policy work

Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Study, compound flood modeling, Coastal Resilience Overlay analysis

Design / engineering

Technical design, survey, permitting, cost estimates

Tide gate design, Shippan/Magee feasibility and preliminary design, critical facility assessments

Capital construction

Built improvements

Tide gates, pumps, stormwater storage, roadway improvements, open space adaptation

Operations and maintenance

Long-term care and functionality

Sensor, tide gate, sign, and green infrastructure maintenance; dashboard administration

Local match / leverage funds

Required City contribution for grants

Match for CT DEEP, CT DEMHS/FEMA, CTDOT, USACE, NOAA, or other funding opportunities

critical facility upgrades, will likely need to be phased through future capital budgets, grants, bonds, or other financing tools. The CT DEEP Climate Resilience Fund should be one of the first state programs Stamford tracks because it supports planning, design, and matching funds for construction to help Connecticut communities build resilience and leverage federal funds and because Stamford has a successful track record with this funding source. For federal mitigation funding, the City should coordinate early with the Connecticut Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security, or CT DEMHS, which solicits and applies for eligible projects under FEMA mitigation programs in Connecticut.

Immediate Funding Priorities In the first 12 to 24 months, Stamford should prioritize funding for three priority immediate actions: the Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Study, the tide gate program, and the flood sensor, dashboard, and dynamic signage system. These actions should move first because they either reduce near-term risk directly or provide the technical foundation for larger future investments. The Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Study should be positioned for a combination of state resilience funding, federal technical assistance, and

FEMA mitigation funding. The City should seek funding for the full study package, including detailed modeling, closure analysis, and gap assessment. However, if full funding is not immediately available, the gap assessment and closure analysis may be able to begin first. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or USACE, should be an early partner because USACE owns, operates, and maintains the navigable gates of the Stamford Hurricane Protection Barrier. FEMA BRIC, when available, may also be a strong fit for barrierrelated risk reduction planning or future capital improvements because the program supports hazard mitigation projects that reduce disaster and natural hazard risk. The tide gate program should be advanced quickly where site conditions support straightforward backflow prevention. Tide gates are a relatively focused and affordable intervention compared with larger capital projects, Potential funding sources include the CT DEEP Climate Resilience Fund, FEMA BRIC, FEMA HMGP after a presidentially declared disaster, and the CT Clean Water Fund if tide gates are tied to stormwater, wastewater, drainage, or water quality improvements. The Clean Water Fund is CT DEEP’s mechanism for providing financial assistance to municipalities for wastewater needs, and CT DEEP also identifies Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants as a potential source for projects that address stormwater runoff and water quality impacts.

187

Project Stage

Best-Fit Funding Examples

Potential Stamford Applications

Planning, modeling, feasibility, and policy development

CT DEEP Climate Resilience Fund; CIRCA municipal resilience funding when available; FEMA Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC, when open; FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance through CT DEMHS; NFWF National Coastal Resilience Fund; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Floodplain Management Services and Planning Assistance to States

Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Study; closure analysis; gap assessment; compound flood modeling; Shippan Avenue/ Magee Avenue feasibility; Coastal Resilience Overlay Zone; critical infrastructure inventory

CT DEEP Climate Resilience Fund; FEMA BRIC or Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, or HMGP; NFWF National Coastal Resilience Fund; CT Clean Water Fund; U.S. DOT PROTECT; U.S. DOT Safe Streets and Roads for All, or SS4A; NOAA coastal resilience grants, Stormwater Authority, Resilience Improvement District

Tide gate design; stormwater storage and pumping feasibility; flood sensor and dynamic signage design; Shippan/Magee intersection design; open space resilience design

Design and engineering

Construction and capital improvements

Operations, maintenance, and emergency management capacity

CT DEEP Climate Resilience Fund; FEMA BRIC, HMGP, and Flood Mitigation Assistance, or FMA; NFWF National Coastal Resilience Fund; CT Clean Water Fund / Clean Water State Revolving Fund; U.S. DOT PROTECT; CT Local Capital Improvement Program, or LoCIP; CTDOT Local Transportation Capital Improvement Program, or LOTCIP; municipal bonds or local capital funds, Stormwater Authority, Resilience Improvement District

Tide gate installation; drainage improvements; pumps; critical facility resilience upgrades; evacuation route and roadway improvements; open space resilience projects; selected barrierrelated improvements

Local operating budgets; capital asset management budgets; FEMA Emergency Management Performance Grant, or EMPG, through CT DEMHS where eligible; local stormwater or utility funding mechanisms where legally and politically feasible, Stormwater Authority, Resilience Improvement District

Sensor maintenance; dashboard administration; dynamic signage operations; tide gate inspection and cleaning; pump maintenance; emergency exercises; open space stewardship

The flood sensor, dashboard, and dynamic signage system should also be funded early. These tools can improve safety before and during flood events by helping City staff understand where flooding is occurring, where roads may need to close, where buses or emergency vehicles may need to reroute, and where public warnings are needed. Chapter 6 recommends flood sensors, a web-based dashboard, and dynamic emergency signage as part of the City’s emergency preparedness strategy. Potential funding sources include the CT DEEP Climate Resilience Fund, FEMA BRIC or HMGP, FEMA EMPG for eligible

188

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

emergency management capacity and preparedness activities, U.S. DOT PROTECT for transportation resilience and evacuation-related infrastructure, and U.S. DOT SS4A where signage, roadway redesign, or intersection improvements also advance roadway safety. PROTECT supports planning and construction projects that improve surface transportation and community resilience to natural disasters, while SS4A supports local initiatives to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries.

Funding Readiness Funnel How recommendations become fundable projects

Prepare projects before funding windows open. Each step moves a recommendation toward a fundable study, design, project, or operating need.

Recommendation Identified in the Coastal Resilience Plan.

Scope of Work Define the problem, task, location, and next step.

Cost Estimate Prepare planning-level or design-level costs.

Partners + Local Match Confirm roles, support, and required City contribution.

Grant Application Match the project to the right funding source.

Design / Construction / Operations Advance the project and plan for long-term care.

Preparing scopes, costs, partners, and match needs before grant windows open helps Stamford move quickly when funding becomes available. Use this funnel to connect each priority action to the right funding path.

189

Additional Funding Matches by Recommendation Type

Before Grants Are Announced

For evacuation routes, roadway improvements, and the Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue corridor, Stamford should look at transportation and resilience funding together. U.S. DOT PROTECT may be appropriate for evacuation route reliability, at-risk coastal transportation infrastructure, and resilience improvements. U.S. DOT SS4A may be appropriate for safety-related elements of the Shippan/Magee concept, such as a roundabout, pedestrian and bicycle safety, traffic calming, and safer intersection operations. CTDOT LOTCIP may also be a potential state source for local transportation projects of regional significance, while LoCIP can support eligible local capital improvements such as roads, bridges, and public buildings.

Stamford should maintain a short list of study-ready, design-ready, and construction-ready projects. For each priority project, the City should prepare a scope of work, planning-level cost estimate, benefit statement, equity narrative, partner letters, maintenance considerations, local match strategy, and a clear explanation of how the project advances the Coastal Resilience Plan. A local match is the portion of project funding that the City or another partner may need to contribute in order to receive outside funding.

For municipal open space, living shorelines, habitat restoration, and floodable park landscapes, Stamford should consider CT DEEP Climate Resilience Fund, NOAA coastal habitat restoration and resilience grants, NFWF National Coastal Resilience Fund, NFWF Long Island Sound Futures Fund, CT DEEP Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants, CT DEEP Open Space and Watershed Land Acquisition funding, and CT Recreational Trails funding where access routes, trails, or waterfront paths are part of the project. NOAA’s habitat restoration and coastal resilience grants are intended to support habitat restoration and coastal resilience projects, while CT DEEP’s Open Space and Watershed Land Acquisition program provides financial assistance to municipalities and conservation partners to acquire land for open space. For critical infrastructure and wastewater-related resilience, Stamford should evaluate FEMA HMGP,

190

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

FEMA BRIC, CT DEEP Climate Resilience Fund, and the CT Clean Water Fund / Clean Water State Revolving Fund, especially where projects involve wastewater facilities, pump stations, drainage, backup power, or floodproofing of essential systems. FEMA HMGP is available after a presidentially declared disaster and supports mitigation that reduces future disaster losses, while the Clean Water Fund supports municipal wastewater infrastructure needs. Alternatively, establishing a local stormwater authority would provide a dedicated source of revenue for wastewater infrastructure investments. For voluntary buyouts or long-term acquisition, Stamford should treat funding as a separate, longterm strategy. Chapter 6 notes that buyouts should only be explored with strong public support, clear funding sources, equity considerations, and a longterm land stewardship plan. Potential federal sources include FEMA FMA, FEMA Swift Current where disaster-linked eligibility applies, FEMA HMGP after a disaster, and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Emergency Watershed Protection Program buyouts or floodplain easements. FEMA FMA is specifically focused on reducing repetitive flood damage to buildings insured through the National Flood Insurance Program, while NRCS Emergency Watershed Protection buyouts and floodplain easements are designed to help protect lives and property from flooding or erosion after natural disasters. In addition, a Resilience Improvement District could generate dedicated funding for a voluntary buyout program.

Early grant-ready scopes should be developed for two to four priority actions, with the three immediate priorities at the top of the list: • •

•

Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Study: use the information provided in this report to apply for grant funding Tide Gate Program: verify existing tide gates and clarify repair or replacement needs; use the information provided in this report to apply for grant funding Flood Sensor, Dashboard, and Dynamic Signage System: iuse the information provided in this report to apply for grants to fund flood sensor deployment Shippan Avenue and Magee Avenue Intersection: continue public engagement on roadway layout

Where useful, the City should bundle related actions into stronger funding packages. Evacuation route improvements could be paired with flood sensors, dynamic signage, and critical facility access. Tide gates

could be paired with stormwater storage, pumping feasibility, and green stormwater infrastructure. Municipal open space adaptation could be paired with habitat restoration, public access, flood storage, trails, and stormwater benefits. The Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue concept could be packaged as a combined flood resilience, evacuation, drainage, traffic safety, and public-realm project. Bundling related benefits can make funding applications stronger because it shows that a project will solve more than one problem and provide broader public value. Finally, Stamford should maintain an annual grant calendar and assign a City lead for each priority funding opportunity. The resilience implementation working group should use this calendar to track upcoming grant programs; identify local match needs; confirm partner roles; and determine which recommendations are ready to advance. Because different projects will be ready for funding at different times, the City should organize its next steps as a rolling Project Readiness Pipeline (see Appendix D for an Initial Project Readiness Pipeline). This pipeline can help Stamford distinguish between projects that are ready for study, projects that are ready for design, and projects that may be ready for construction or early implementation once final checks, permits, procurement, and funding are in place. By preparing this pipeline before funding windows open, Stamford will be better positioned to move quickly on priority immediate actions and convert the Coastal Resilience Plan into funded studies, designs, construction projects, policies, and long-term operations.

191

Operations, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management Stamford’s resilience actions will only be effective if they are maintained, tested, and updated over time. Chapter 6 recommends several practical near-term actions, including tide gates, flood sensors, dynamic emergency signage, and a shared data dashboard. These systems can improve safety and reduce risk, but they are not “install and forget” projects. The City should plan for operations and maintenance at the beginning of each project, before new assets are installed or expanded. Tide gates must be inspected and cleaned. Sensors must be calibrated and checked. Signs and dashboards must be kept current. Pumps, stormwater storage areas, and green stormwater infrastructure must be maintained so they function during storms. Existing and proposed assets should be tracked in City systems, such as GIS or asset management tools, where feasible. Resilience projects should also be connected directly to Stamford’s emergency operations. Flood sensors and forecast thresholds can help inform road closures, detours, bus rerouting, dynamic signage, evacuation route management, shelter operations, public alerts, and emergency response decisions. To make these systems useful during an event, the City should define who monitors the information, who verifies field conditions, who communicates with the public, and who makes operational decisions. Critical facility status should also be incorporated into emergency planning over time. A facility may remain physically functional but still become difficult to use if access roads flood, power is lost, fuel is unavailable, communications fail, or staff and emergency vehicles cannot reach the site. Emergency plans should therefore track both facility conditions and access-route conditions for healthcare facilities, shelters, emergency response facilities, wastewater infrastructure, municipal operations sites, transportation facilities, and other priority assets. Stamford should also use periodic tabletop exercises to test how these systems work together. A tabletop exercise is a discussion-based emergency drill where City departments and key partners walk through a realistic storm scenario and test roles, decisions, communications, and procedures before

192

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Operations and Adaptive Management Loop Maintain, monitor, respond, and update as conditions change

A simple operating loop helps Stamford keep tide gates, sensors, dashboards, signs, pumps, and open space features ready for flood events.

Plan for O&M

Assign owner, budget, inspection schedule, data protocols, and post-storm procedures before installation.

Update Priorities

Clean, calibrate, test, repair, and log asset condition before storm seasons.

Revise priorities after storms, new modeling, funding awards, policy changes, or completed projects.

Track Progress Report studies, grants, signs, sensors, tide gates, facilities, and projects advanced each year.

Inspect + Maintain

Monitor Conditions Use sensors, forecasts, field checks, and dashboard data to watch roads, tides, and facility access.

Trigger Actions Use thresholds to close roads, reroute buses, activate signs, issue alerts, and adjust response.

Adaptive management keeps the plan and related actions useful over time. Revisit the pathway every 2-3 years, and sooner after major storms, new data, funding awards, policy changes, or completed projects.

193

an actual event occurs. These exercises can identify gaps in staffing, data, maintenance, technology, or communications before the next major storm. Adaptive management is essential because coastal flood risk will change as sea levels rise, storms occur, infrastructure ages, projects are completed, and new modeling becomes available. Stamford should revisit the implementation pathway every two to three years, and sooner after major storms, major funding awards, new flood modeling, adopted policy changes, or completion of major projects. Progress tracking should remain simple and publicfacing. Useful measures could include studies completed, grants submitted and awarded, tide gates inspected or installed, sensors operating, signs installed, critical facilities assessed, emergency exercises completed, projects advanced to design or construction, and public guidance materials published or updated. By planning for maintenance, connecting resilience projects to emergency operations, and updating priorities as conditions change, Stamford can keep Chapter 7 as a living implementation pathway rather than a one-time list of recommendations.

Chapter 7 Summary: Moving from Plan to Implementation Stamford’s Coastal Resilience Plan should be treated as a living roadmap, not a one-time report. Coastal flood risk will continue to change as sea levels rise, storms occur, new modeling becomes available, infrastructure ages, and funding opportunities shift. The plan provides a clear starting point for action, but implementation should remain flexible so the City can update priorities as conditions, data, community needs, and project readiness evolve. Chapter 6 identifies the actions needed to reduce risk across Stamford’s coastal neighborhoods. Chapter 7 explains how the City can begin sequencing, funding, coordinating, maintaining, and updating those actions over time. The immediate priorities — the Hurricane Protection Barrier Resilience Study, tide gates, and flood sensors/dynamic signage — can help Stamford improve safety and build the technical foundation for future design, permitting, and capital investment. Successful implementation will require sustained coordination across City departments and outside partners. Clear leadership, regular check-ins, grant readiness, public communication, and long-term maintenance planning will help turn recommendations into funded studies, designs, construction projects, policy updates, and ongoing operations. Stamford does not need to wait for every study, design, or funding source to be complete before beginning implementation. The City can start now by advancing the most actionable near-term priorities, preparing projects for grants, assigning responsibilities, and building resilience into routine planning, operations, maintenance, and capital improvement decisions. Resilience will be built step by step through practical actions taken today and sustained commitment over time. Each study, sign, sensor, tide gate, policy update, open space improvement, and public conversation can help the City become safer, more prepared, and better able to adapt to changing coastal conditions. By working together across departments, neighborhoods, agencies, and property lines, Stamford can turn the Coastal Resilience Plan into lasting progress through continued action, partnership, and shared stewardship.

From Plan to Action Turning Recommendations into Implementation

Chapter 6 Recommendations 1

What Stamford can do to reduce risk Starts from the action areas and recommendations developed in Chapter 6.

Implementation Priorities 2

What should move first Highlights life safety, immediate priorities, grant readiness, and community benefit.

Action Pathways 3

How related actions are grouped Organizes work by implementation topic so City departments can coordinate.

Funding Readiness How projects become grant-ready Prepares scopes, costs, partners, benefits, and local match needs.

Operations and Maintenance 5

How systems keep working Assigns inspection, repair, testing, and long-term care responsibilities.

Adaptive Updates 6

How priorities evolve over time Revisits priorities after storms, new data, funding, or completed projects.

Chapter 7 is a flexible guide for sequencing, funding, coordinating, maintaining, and updating resilience actions.

194

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

195

APPENDIX A: OPEN HURRICANE PROTECTION BARRIER MAPS

Present-Day Coastal Flood Risk Open Hurricane Protection Barrier While the majority of this report focuses on evaluating flood risk with the Stamford Hurricane Protection Barrier closed, it is also worth considering flood events with the barrier open to track how this vital coastal defense mechanism shapes Stamford’s coastline — as well as to understand the barrier’s effectiveness at reducing flood risk as the climate changes and sea levels rise. The following series of maps displays flood extents for present and future storm events with the hurricane protection barrier open. As this map demonstrates, the South End neighborhood and industrial areas of the Stamford Harbor waterfront would be highly vulnerable to a present-day 1% annual chance storm in the absence of the hurricane protection barrier.

198

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

199

Future Coastal Flood Risk 20” of Sea Level Rise Open Hurricane Protection Barrier In a future storm scenario with 20 inches of sea level rise, deep flood pathways worsen throughout Stamford’s coastal neighborhoods. As expected, this effect is especially pronounced in the South End and the residential areas surrounding Cummings Park, which rely upon the hurricane protection barrier to mitigate periodic coastal flooding from storm surges.

200

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

201

Future Coastal Flood Risk 40” of Sea Level Rise Open Hurricane Protection Barrier In a more distant future storm event with 40 inches of sea level rise, the difference in flood extents with the hurricane protection barrier open and closed is minimal. This can be attributed to the fact that the barrier can be expected to be overtopped in future storms with sea level rise, limiting its effectiveness even if the barrier gates at the entrance of Stamford’s East Harbor were to be left permanently closed. It is even possible that the hurricane protection barrier would exacerbate the impacts of flooding by trapping storm surge water behind the barrier before it is able to flow back out to sea.

202

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

203

APPENDIX B: CRITICAL FACILITIES TABLE

Healthcare Sector Sector role: Life-safety care, evacuation support, medically vulnerable population continuity.

•

Reduce risk for access routes, not just buildings. During coastal flood events, the failure point is often the road network. Stamford should identify “medical lifeline corridors” connecting critical healthcare facilities to evacuation routes. Stamford would identify medical lifeline corridors by mapping the most reliable transportation routes connecting hospitals, dialysis centers, nursing homes, emergency shelters, EMS facilities, and other critical healthcare providers. Routes would then be evaluated based on: Current and future coastal and stormwater flood risk; Road elevation and likelihood of inundation; Traffic capacity and congestion; Redundancy (availability of alternate routes); and the ability to support emergency vehicles during disasters. Then install flood sensors, dynamic signage, emergency signal timing, and preplanned detours along those corridors.

•

Elevate or floodproof critical utilities. Use dry floodproofing, deployable barriers, watertight doors, backflow prevention, and redundant equipment. Facilities should evaluate and protect all critical utilities which could include: generators, switchgear, transformers, emergency panels, IT rooms, boilers, chillers, fuel tanks, oxygen systems, pharmacy refrigeration, elevators, and medical records systems.

Highest priority next step: Create facility resilience inventory and protect medical lifeline corridors. Sector-wide recommended actions:

206

•

Create a Stamford healthcare critical facilities resilience inventory. For each facility, identify the following: flood zone and projected future flood exposure, elevation of critical systems, emergency power capacity, backup fuel duration, ambulance access routes, patient evacuation needs, shelter-in-place capacity, dependencies on water, wastewater, communications, and suppliers

•

Establish healthcare resilience performance standards. Require resilience planning in zoning and development review for new or expanded healthcare facilities in high-risk, flood-exposed areas. Healthcare facilities serving vulnerable populations should face higher resilience expectations than ordinary commercial uses.

•

Continue coordinating healthcare resilience planning. Healthcare resilience and disaster planning is likely already in place in partnership with the CT Healthcare Coalition and/or Stamford Health. This group should meet before hurricane season, review facility readiness, update contact lists, test communications, and conduct tabletop exercises. Precedent for this type of group is in the Boston Healthcare Preparedness Coalition.

Facility/ Asset

Primary Resilience Role

Key Resilience Concerns

Resilience Goals/Needs

Recommended Actions

Potential Partners

Data/ Modeling Needed

ARK Healthcare & Rehabilitation at St. Camillus

Long-term care / rehabilitation lifesafety ancho

Patient evacuation complexity; shelter-inplace needs; backup power and medical utility continuity; access route reliability

Maintain life-safety care; prevent isolation; protect utilities; avoid preventable evacuation; enable phased evacuation; plan beyond current FEMA maps

Inventory flood exposure, critical systems elevations, generator capacity, fuel duration, ambulance routes, patient evacuation needs, shelter-in-place capacity, and water/wastewater/ communications dependencies. Apply higher resilience expectations because vulnerable populations are served.

Facility owner/operator; Stamford Emergency Management; Health and Human Services; EMS; utilities

Future coastal/ stormwater flood depth; access route vulnerability; critical utilities inventory

Cassena Care Center

Long-term care / medically vulnerable resident support

Mobility-limited population; continuity of medication, oxygen, staffing, and access routes

Maintain life-safety care; support shelter-in-place; protect medical utilities; coordinate transportation for evacuation

Complete facility-specific coastal flood and accessroute vulnerability assessment. Establish evacuation agreements, backup power/fuel plans, redundant communications, and accessible patient transfer routes.

Facility owner/operator; Stamford Emergency Management; Health and Human Services; EMS

Patient evacuation logistics; backup power duration; flood-safe ambulance routes

DaVita Dialysis Center

Dialysis continuity and medically dependent outpatient care

Service interruption can create regional medical consequences; patients may require transport to alternate dialysis sites

Maintain dialysis continuity; protect power and water; prevent access failure; coordinate patient transportation

Map dialysis-dependent patient catchment; identify alternate dialysis sites; protect water/power systems; plan for transport support and communications before storms.

Facility owner/ operator; Health and Human Services; EMS; transportation providers; utilities

Water and power dependencies; patient transport routes; alternate provider capacity

Stamford Hospital

Major healthcare and emergency care anchor

High consequence of failure; critical utilities and road access must function during flood events

Maintain emergency and inpatient care; protect critical utilities; preserve ambulance access; support community recovery

Stamford Hospital has already invested in an emergency preparedness strategy that includes utility redundancy, emergency/backup power, and flood mitigation planning and coordination with Stamfrod Emergency Management and community partners. Additional recommendations include assessing hospital lifeline corridors and floodproofed entrances/service areas. Include in healthcare resilience working group if additional convening occurs beyond that associated with the CT Healthcare Coalition.

Stamford Health; Stamford Emergency Management; EMS; Eversource; Transportation, Traffic, and Parking

Roadway access modeling; utility interdependency assessment; emergency power/ fuel duration

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

207

Transportation Facilities Sector role: Regional mobility, evacuation, roadway clearance, transportation recovery. Highest priority next step: Assess facility and route vulnerability and integrate with smart evacuation systems. Sector-wide recommended actions:

208

•

Conduct comprehensive flood vulnerability assessments for both facilities and all evacuation routes. These assessments should evaluate things like: flood depths at critical locations, utility vulnerability, access route vulnerability, future sea-level rise and stormwater flooding impacts. This is best performed after the City has completed more comprehensive compound (coastal and stormwater) flood modeling for all of these areas.

•

Install Real-Time Flood Monitoring at Transportation facilities. Integrate both facilities into a citywide smart evacuation and transportation resilience system using flood sensors, dynamic signage, and real-time operational dashboards.

Facility/Asset

Primary Resilience Role

Key Resilience Concerns

Resilience Goals/Needs

Recommended Actions

Potential Partners

Data/ Modeling Needed

Stamford Transportation Center

Regional rail/bus hub and evacuation mobility node

Flooding around station approaches may disrupt evacuation, commuter movement, transit continuity, and recovery

Maintain transportation readiness; regional connectivity; evacuation support; equipment protection; rapid recovery; workforce operations

Conduct flood vulnerability assessment for station, access routes, utilities, bus circulation, and multimodal evacuation operations. Integrate with real-time flood monitoring and public-facing travel messaging.

Transportation operators; Stamford Emergency Management; CTDOT; Metro-North; CTtransit

Flood depths at station approaches; utility vulnerability; bus and rail continuity planning

Stamford Transportation, Traffic, and Parking

Long-term care / medically vulnerable resident support

Facility or access-route failure would slow citywide road recovery and emergency operations

Maintain operational readiness; protect equipment; enable rapid network recovery; maintain workforce operations

Assess flood exposure of facility and deployment routes. Protect equipment, communications, fuel systems, and integrate into citywide dashboard for road status and emergency response.

Transportation, Traffic, and Parking; Emergency Management

Access route vulnerability; staging area needs; equipment/fuel exposure

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

209

Emergency Response Facilities Sector role: Fire, rescue, police, harbor response, deployment, emergency communications.

•

Conduct comprehensive flood vulnerability assessments for all facilities and evacuation routes. These assessments should evaluate things like: flood depths at critical locations, utility vulnerability, access route vulnerability, future sea-level rise and stormwater flooding impacts. This is best performed after the City has completed more comprehensive compound (coastal and stormwater) flood modeling for all of these areas.

•

Integrate all emergency response facilities into a citywide flood sensor system and monitoring dashboard.

Highest priority next step: Assess station and deployment-route vulnerability; create redundant staging sites. Sector-wide recommended actions: •

210

Create redundant command, deployment, and staging locations for fire, EMS, police, and harbor operations.

Facility/Asset

Primary Resilience Role

Key Resilience Concerns

Resilience Goals/ Needs

Recommended Actions

Potential Partners

Data/Modeling Needed

Station #2 - South End Fire Rescue

Fire/rescue deployment for South End and coastal areas

Potential flood exposure and constrained response routes in coastal neighborhoods

Maintain response operations; accessibility; protect apparatus; maintain communications

Conduct station and deploymentroute vulnerability assessment; protect generators, communications, fuel, and apparatus; identify alternate staging location for severe flood scenarios.

Fire Department; Emergency Management; Transportation, Traffic, and Parking

Station flood depth; access-route reliability; apparatus relocation triggers

Station #5 Woodside Fire Station

Fire/rescue redundancy and inland support capacity

This site is especially floodprone given its location adjacent to the Rippowam River. May serve as backup deployment/ staging location if coastal facilities are compromised.

Maintain response operations; protect equipment; support redundant deployment

Evaluate role as inland staging node; ensure backup power, communications, and road access during coastal events. Consider evaluating resilience alternatives before other locations given its riole in the emergency response network and tendency for riverine flooding.

Fire Department; Emergency Management

Suitability for surge staffing and staging; access from coastal neighborhoods

Fire Dept. Maintenance

Maintenance support for emergency response fleet/equipment

Loss of maintenance function can affect readiness and recovery

Protect specialized equipment; maintain repair capability; maintain communications

Protect critical tools, parts, electrical systems, and equipment. Establish backup repair/staging procedures.

Fire Department; Fleet/ Maintenance; Transportation, Traffic, and Parking

Equipment inventory; flood elevation; backup site feasibility

Station #4 - East Side/Shippan Fire

Fire/rescue service for East Side/Shippan evacuation-sensitive area

Shippan/coastal response routes may degrade or isolate areas quickly

Maintain deployment capability; access; equipment protection

Assess Shippan/East Side response corridors. Install flood monitoring and dynamic routing to preserve response access where feasible.

Fire Department; Emergency Management; Transportation, Traffic, and Parking

Flood depth and timing on deployment corridors; alternate routing

Station #1 Central Fire Station (HQ)

Central command and emergency response coordination

Command continuity and communications are critical during citywide flood response

Maintain continuous operations; communications; equipment deployment

Protect command/communications systems, backup power, and fuel. Establish redundant command location if HQ or routes are compromised.

Fire Department; Emergency Management; IT/ Communications

Command continuity assessment; generator/fuel duration; redundant site plan

Police Station Harbor Unit

Marine response, harbor rescue, maritime evacuation support

Must operate within coastal hazard zone; dock and launch infrastructure may be exposed

Maintain marine emergency response; protect boats/ equipment; maintain harbor access and communications

Assess dock/launch vulnerability, surge impacts, and alternate launch sites. Install coastal monitoring and integrate harbor status into emergency dashboard.

Police Harbor Unit; Emergency Management; Harbor Management; Transportation, Traffic, and Parking

Dock/launch vulnerability; alternate launch site inventory; tide/surge monitoring

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

211

Electrical Power Facilities Sector role: Lifeline electric service supporting all other critical facilities.

•

Protect critical substations and electrical equipment to future flood elevations rather than current flood conditions. Potential actions could include floodwalls, site grading, equipment elevation, or waterproof enclosures

•

Develop microgrids and distributed energy systems supporting hospitals, emergency response facilities,

Highest priority next step: Map and prioritize substations by flood exposure and consequence of failure Sector-wide recommended actions: •

Install real-time flood monitoring at electrical facilities.

•

Map and prioritize all substations based on flood exposure and community consequence of failure.

Facility/Asset

Primary Resilience Role

Key Resilience Concerns

Resilience Goals/Needs

Recommended Actions

Potential Partners

Data/ Modeling Needed

Eversource substation(s)

Electrical service for critical infrastructure and community recovery

Substation failure can cascade to healthcare, shelters, wastewater, transportation, communications, and emergency response

Maintain electrical service during flood events; prevent secondary failures; reduce restoration time

Map/prioritize substations based on flood exposure and consequence of failure. Protect critical substations to future flood elevations using floodwalls, grading, elevation, waterproof enclosures, and monitoring.

Eversource; Stamford Emergency Management; Planning; Transportation, Traffic, and Parking

Facility locations; service territories; critical customer dependencies; future flood elevations

Emergency Shelters Sector role: Emergency sheltering, vulnerable population support, recovery hub. Highest priority next step: Assess stormwater/access vulnerability and upgrade power resilience. Sector-wide recommended actions:

212

•

Assess future flood exposure and access-route vulnerability to stormwater flooding for Stamford High School.

•

Upgrade emergency power systems and evaluate development of a shelter microgrid.

•

Expand the facility’s ability to support medically vulnerable and functional-needs populations.

•

Integrate shelter operations into Stamford’s future flood monitoring dashboard.

Facility/Asset

Primary Resilience Role

Key Resilience Concerns

Resilience Goals/Needs

Recommended Actions

Potential Partners

Data/ Modeling Needed

Stamford High School

Primary emergency shelter / potential resilience hub

Not identified as coastal flood-exposed, but may be impacted by stormwater flooding and accessroute disruption

Maintain shelter operations; safe access; protect life-safety systems; support vulnerable populations; remain viable under future climate conditions

Assess future stormwater flood exposure and access routes. Upgrade emergency power, evaluate shelter microgrid, expand support for functional-needs populations, and integrate into future flood monitoring dashboard.

Board of Education; Emergency Management; Health and Human Services; Facilities; Eversource

Stormwater modeling; access route assessment; generator and shelter capacity review

Westhill High Schoolr

Currently under construction by may replace Stamford High School as an emergency shelter

Not identified as coastal flood-exposed, but may be impacted by stormwater flooding and accessroute disruption

Maintain shelter operations; safe access; protect life-safety systems; support vulnerable populations; remain viable under future climate conditions

Identify evacuation and access routes from the coastal zone to the high school, explore the actions needed to equip and designate Westhill High School as an Emergency Shelter once construction is complete

Board of Education; Emergency Management; Health and Human Services; Facilities; Eversource

Stormwater modeling; access route assessment; generator and shelter capacity review

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

213

Wastewater Facilities Sector role: Health and Human Services, environmental protection, wastewater collection and treatment continuity. Highest priority next step: Assess treatment center and pump stations; protect electrical/control systems Sector-wide recommended actions:

214

•

Conduct comprehensive flood vulnerability assessments for facilities. These assessments should evaluate things like: flood depths at critical locations, utility vulnerability, access point vulnerability, future sea-level rise and stormwater flooding impacts. This is best performed after the City has more comprehensive compound modeling complete for all of these areas.

•

Protect critical operations and infrastructure. Protect electrical systems, controls, generators, and communications infrastructure at both the treatment plant and critical pump stations. Consider expanding backup power and fuel resilience for all high-priority wastewater facilities.

•

Install real-time flood monitoring and integrate wastewater infrastructure into Stamford’s future flood monitoring dashboard.

•

Develop a long-term capital improvement strategy focused on climate adaptation and operational continuity.

Facility/Asset

Primary Resilience Role

Key Resilience Concerns

Resilience Goals/Needs

Recommended Actions

Potential Partners

Data/ Modeling Needed

Wastewater Pump Stations

Wastewater conveyance and overflow prevention

Often located in lowlying areas; failure can cause overflows, backups, and Health and Human Services impacts

Maintain wastewater service; prevent Health and Human Services emergencies; protect waterways; operate under future climate conditions

Conduct flood vulnerability assessments for critical pump stations. Protect electrical systems, controls, generators, and communications. Expand backup power/fuel and install real-time monitoring.

WPCA; Transportation, Traffic, and Parking; Emergency Management; utilities

Station-by-station flood exposure; service area consequence; backup power coverage

Stamford Water Pollution Control Facility

Treatment operations and environmental protection for Long Island Sound/local waterways

Facility flooding or power loss can disrupt treatment and recovery operations

Maintain continuous service; prevent Health and Human Services emergencies; protect Long Island Sound and local waterways

Conduct future conditions flood assessment; protect treatment plant electrical/control systems and communications; expand backup power/fuel resilience; integrate into monitoring dashboard; develop climate adaptation CIP strategy.

WPCA; Transportation, Traffic, and Parking; Emergency Management; CTDEEP

Process equipment vulnerability; access route analysis; capital improvement needs

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

215

Municipal Operations Facilities Sector role: Debris management, fleet maintenance, fueling, municipal recovery operations. Highest priority next step: Develop alternate debris/fueling/maintenance locations and assess flood vulnerability. Sector-wide recommended actions: •

Develop alternate debris management, fueling, and maintenance locations to reduce single points of failure.

•

Conduct comprehensive flood vulnerability assessments for facilities. These assessments should evaluate things like: flood depths at critical locations, utility vulnerability, access route vulnerability, future sea-level rise and stormwater flooding impacts. This is best performed after the City has more comprehensive compound modeling complete for all of these areas.

•

Protect critical operations and infrastructure. Protect fuel systems, electrical systems, communications equipment, and critical operational assets from future flood conditions. If not feasible, consider relocation.

•

Install real-time flood monitoring and integrate facilities into Stamford’s future flood monitoring dashboard.

Facility/Asset

Primary Resilience Role

Key Resilience Concerns

Resilience Goals/Needs

Recommended Actions

Potential Partners

Data/ Modeling Needed

Stamford Transfer Station and Solid Waste

Debris and waste management during recovery

Failure limits debris removal and slows neighborhood/ roadway recovery

Maintain municipal operations; protect equipment; support rapid recovery; adapt or consider relocation

Develop alternate debris management locations. Conduct flood/access vulnerability assessment. Protect electrical/communications systems and operational assets from future flood conditions; consider relocation if protection is infeasible.

Solid Waste; Transportation, Traffic, and Parking; Emergency Management; contractors

Debris surge capacity; site/ access flood modeling; alternate site screening

Flood Management Facilities Sector role: Storm surge protection and coastal flood risk reduction. Highest priority next step: Complete barrier-specific future conditions assessment and adaptation plan. Sector-wide recommended actions: •

216

See the section on ‘Resilience Action Area 1’ in Chapter 6 of the plan for specific recommendations related to the hurricane barrier.

Facility/Asset

Primary Resilience Role

Key Resilience Concerns

Resilience Goals/Needs

Recommended Actions

Potential Partners

Data/ Modeling Needed

Stamford Hurricane Protection Barrier

Existing storm surge protection system

Long-term performance may be affected by sea-level rise, overtopping, mechanical reliability, interior drainage, and compound flooding

Maintain effective storm surge protection; reliability during extreme events; adapt to sea-level rise; reduce residual riskn

See Resilience Action Area 1 in Chapter 6 for specific recommendations related to the hurricane protection barrier

City; USACE; Emergency Management; Transportation, Traffic, and Parking; CT DEEP, WPCA

See Resilience Action Area 1 in Chapter 6 for specific recommendations related to the hurricane protection barrier

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

217

APPENDIX C: INTEGRATED IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

Integrated Implementation Timeline and Detailed Action Descriptions Near-Term Actions: 0–2 Years In the near term, Stamford should focus on actions that improve safety, organize City initiatives/ responsibilities, and prepare larger projects for funding. The City should also move the three catalytic priorities — the Hurricane Barrier Resilience Study, tide gates, and flood sensors/dynamic signage — as quickly as possible.

Citywide Implementation Set-Up Lead: City administration / resilience implementation working group Key partners: Planning and zoning, engineering, emergency management, Transportation, Traffic, Parking, parks and open space, environmental protection, public safety, grants administration, communications, and WPCA.

•

Emergency Preparedness Pathway

Lead: Emergency management, Transportation, Traffic, and Parking Key partners: Police, fire, emergency medical services, transit providers, schools, shelter operators, communications staff, critical facility operators, and community organizations. • • •

•

Establish the resilience implementation working group. Assign a lead department or staff lead for each implementation pathway. Create a simple implementation tracking table that identifies lead entities, key partners, next steps, dependencies, funding needs, and current status (or build off of the table developed through this project). Use the first working group meetings to confirm the first set of catalytic actions:

• •

•

220

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

and public engagement needs. Provide plain-language public updates that explain what the City is doing first, what is being studied, and what will require future funding or public decisions.

•

Finalize and formalize coastal evacuation routes. Begin installing permanent evacuation route signage along designated routes. Seek funding as soon as possible for flood sensors, a staff-facing data dashboard, and dynamic flood signage. Finalize locations for dynamic emergency signage at key decision points, such as underpasses, bridges, major intersections, municipal parking garages, shelter approaches, and entrances to public open spaces. Launch the first phase of the flood sensor and dashboard system focused on floodprone roads, evacuation routes, underpasses, and access routes to critical facilities. Coordinate evacuation planning with transit, schools, shelters, public safety, Transportation, Traffic, Parking, and City communications. Use evacuation routes, signage, sensors, and the dashboard as early public-facing actions that improve life safety while larger capital projects are still being studied and designed.

Hurricane Barrier Resilience Study scope and funding strategy.

•

Tide gate verification, repair, and priority installation.

•

Flood sensor, dashboard, and dynamic signage funding and implementation.

Evacuation route formalization and signage.

Hurricane Barrier Resilience Pathway

Critical infrastructure inventory.

Near-term zoning amendment.

Lead: Engineering / City Water Pollution Control Authority

Use regular check-ins to track progress, funding opportunities, technical studies,

Key partners: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, emergency management, Transportation, Traffic, Parking, WPCA, utilities, waterfront property owners,

221

marinas, and technical consultants. • • •

•

Formalize scope and seek funding for the Hurricane Barrier Resilience Study as a high-priority near-term action. Pursue funding for the full study package, including detailed modeling, closure analysis, and gap assessment. If full funding is not immediately available, begin the closure analysis and gap assessment first while continuing to seek funding for detailed modeling. Prepare the study scope in a format that can be used for grant applications, consultant procurement, and coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Compile available drawings, inspection records, operations protocols, survey needs, LiDAR, and information on related structures such as the Dyke Lane Pump Station. Coordinate early with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which owns, operates, and maintains the navigable gates of the Stamford Hurricane Barrier in the East Branch of Stamford Harbor.

require more detailed drainage analysis.

Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue Pathway Lead: Engineering and transportation

Key partners: Emergency management, Transportation, Traffic, Parking, parks and open space, the Cummings Pond planning team, environmental protection, nearby residents, businesses, property owners, and community stakeholders. • • • •

•

Tide Gate and Drainage Pathway Lead: Engineering, Transportation, Traffic, and Parking Key partners: GIS staff, environmental protection, operations and maintenance staff, WPCA where relevant, parks and open space staff where drainage work affects municipal land, and technical consultants.

• • • • •

• •

222

Treat tide gates as a near-term installation priority where site conditions support straightforward backflow prevention. Verify the location, condition, accessibility, ownership, and maintenance needs of the three existing tide gates. Repair, replace, or modify existing tide gates as needed to improve function and access. Add all existing and proposed tide gates to the City’s GIS so they can be tracked and maintained. Prioritize proposed tide gate locations for near-term design and installation, especially where outfalls are publicly owned, accessible, and susceptible to tidal backflow. Document who is responsible for inspection, cleaning, repair, and post-storm review before additional tide gates are installed. Use the tide gate inventory and feasibility review to identify which locations can move quickly to installation and which locations

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

•

Define the next phase of feasibility work for the Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue concept. Coordinate this work with the forthcoming Cummings Pond Ecological and Flood Resilience Plan. Confirm that the first two years focus on feasibility, data needs, and coordination and only later Identify the data needed to evaluate tide gates, stormwater storage, pumping, green stormwater infrastructure, traffic operations, evacuation function, and community engagement needs. • Confirm how this work can support both evacuation reliability and everyday transportation safety. Use early tide gate and sensor/signage implementation to support this corridor where feasible, while the larger intersection and open-space concept is studied.

Critical Infrastructure and Municipal Assets Pathway Lead: Emergency management, Transportation, Traffic, and Parking Key partners: Engineering, WPCA, utilities, healthcare providers, schools, shelter operators, transportation providers, facility owners, parks and open space staff, public safety, and communications staff. • •

•

Begin the critical infrastructure resilience inventory. Confirm priority facilities and systems by sector, including healthcare, emergency response, shelters, transportation, wastewater, municipal operations, and other critical services. Use the inventory to identify which facilities need immediate follow-up because of access-route exposure, backup power needs, fuel supply, communications, utility systems, or operational dependencies. Identify municipal parks and open spaces that may be candidates for future flood storage, shoreline resilience, habitat, recreation, or public access improvements. Evaluate critical facilities not only by whether they may flood, but also by whether they can continue operating if access routes, power, fuel, communications, or supporting systems are disrupted.

Planning and Policy Pathway

Funding Readiness

Lead: Planning and zoning

Lead: Grants staff and the resilience implementation working group

Key partners: Legal staff, building officials, environmental protection, emergency management, engineering, public engagement staff, property owners, residents, businesses, and community organizations. •

•

• •

Prepare the near-term zoning amendment to increase applicable elevation requirements from Base Flood Elevation plus 1 foot to Base Flood Elevation plus 3 feet. Prepare a short public explanation of what the BFE +3 amendment would do, what it would not do, and how it relates to flood insurance, building code requirements, and future sea level rise. Begin the technical and legal groundwork for a future Coastal Resilience Overlay Zone. Make clear that near-term zoning updates are intended to reduce future risk while longerterm policy tools are studied and developed.

Key partners: Lead departments for each implementation pathway, finance/budget staff, City leadership, state and federal agencies, utilities, facility owners, community partners, and technical consultants. • • •

Develop a grant calendar. Identify likely local match needs. Prepare near-term grant-ready scopes for the three catalytic priorities: Hurricane Barrier Resilience Study. Tide gate verification, repair, design, and priority installation. Flood sensor, dashboard, and dynamic signage implementation.

•

Prepare additional project scopes for evacuation route signage, the critical infrastructure resilience inventory,

•

• •

the Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue feasibility analysis, and the near-term zoning amendment as appropriate. For each priority scope, identify the lead department, project purpose, immediate next step, planning-level cost, likely partners, local match needs, community benefits, equity considerations, and relationship to the Coastal Resilience Plan. Begin partner coordination early for projects that require state, federal, utility, transit, private-owner, or community involvement. Use the implementation tracking table as the City’s working tool for grant readiness, capital planning, and public progress reporting.

Public Communication and Engagement Lead: Communications staff and the resilience implementation working group Key partners: All action pathway leads, community organizations, neighborhood groups, schools, business groups, waterfront users, and public-facing City departments. •

To keep the public informed, the City should consider publishing a short annual or biennial resilience progress update. This update could summarize completed studies, grants submitted and awarded, projects advanced, signs installed, sensors operating, tide gates inspected or installed, facilities assessed, and next steps for the coming year. A simple public-facing update can help residents understand progress without requiring a complex new reporting system.

Together, these near-term actions should function as Stamford’s first implementation work plan. The City should move quickly on the Hurricane Barrier Resilience Study, tide gates, flood sensors, and dynamic signage because these actions either reduce near-term risk directly or provide the technical foundation for future investment.

Medium-Term Actions: 2–5 Years Medium-term implementation should focus on completing technical studies, expanding preparedness systems, and moving priority projects toward feasibility, design, cost estimating, and public decision-making.

Emergency Preparedness Pathway Lead: Emergency management, Transportation,

223

Traffic, and Parking

•

Key partners: Police, fire, emergency medical services, transit providers, schools, shelter operators, communications staff, and critical facility operators.

•

• •

•

Expand the flood sensor network after the first phase is installed and tested. Connect sensor information to road closure decisions, dynamic signage, bus rerouting, evacuation management, shelter operations, critical facility access, and public alerts. Develop standard operating procedures for how City departments will use the dashboard during flood events. Clarify who monitors the system, who verifies field conditions, who issues public messages, and how information is shared across departments. Continue coordinating emergency preparedness improvements with the evacuation route network and critical facility access needs.

Hurricane Barrier Resilience Pathway Lead: Engineering / City project lead Key partners: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, emergency management, Transportation, Traffic, Parking, WPCA, utilities, waterfront property owners, marinas, and technical consultants. • •

•

Complete the Hurricane Barrier Resilience Study, including detailed flood modeling, closure analysis, and gap assessment. If the closure analysis and gap assessment began earlier, integrate those findings into the detailed modeling and final study recommendations. Use the study to understand how the barrier may perform under current and future conditions, including sea level rise, possible flanking, drainage constraints, and operational needs. Identify which barrier-related improvements should move into concept development, cost estimating, design, permitting, or future capital planning.

Tide Gate and Drainage Pathway

•

• • •

Complete feasibility studies for proposed tide gate locations that require more detailed evaluation. Install additional priority tide gates where feasibility work confirms they are appropriate and where maintenance access is secured. Evaluate tide gates together with drainage conditions, stormwater storage, pumping needs, green stormwater infrastructure, maintenance access, downstream water levels, and operations planning. Prepare planning-level cost estimates for remaining priority tide gate and drainage projects. Confirm long-term inspection, cleaning, repair, and replacement responsibilities before new tide gates are installed. Use feasibility findings to determine which tide gates should advance to design and which locations may require alternative drainage or storage strategies.

Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue Pathway Lead: Engineering and transportation Key partners: Transportation, Traffic, Parking, Emergency Management, parks and open space, the Cummings Pond planning team, environmental protection, nearby residents, businesses, property owners, and community stakeholders. • •

•

Advance the concept into engineering feasibility. Evaluate drainage modeling, tide gate feasibility, stormwater storage, potential pumping, traffic operations, and community input. Study whether a roundabout or other intersection improvement could support evacuation, emergency access, pedestrian safety, and everyday traffic safety. Continue coordinating with Cummings Pond planning because this area may experience overlapping coastal, stormwater, and riverine flood conditions. Engage residents, businesses, property owners, and park users before advancing design decisions.

Lead: Engineering, Transportation, Traffic, and Parking Key partners: Environmental protection, GIS staff, operations and maintenance staff, WPCA where relevant, parks and open space staff where relevant, and technical consultants.

224

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Planning and Policy Pathway Lead: Planning and zoning

Key partners: Legal staff, building officials, environmental protection, engineering, technical

consultants, property owners, residents, businesses, and community stakeholders. • • • • •

•

Complete higher-resolution modeling needed to support a future Coastal Resilience Overlay Zone. Draft Coastal Resilience Overlay Zone language. Evaluate resilient redevelopment standards for new construction and substantial renovation. Explore whether a future voluntary buyout or acquisition program would be appropriate in certain high-risk areas. Treat buyouts as a long-term, voluntary tool that would require public support, funding, equity review, and a longterm land stewardship plan. Continue developing public-facing guidance so residents and property owners understand which actions are City-led, which actions apply to private parcels, and which ideas require future decisions.

Critical Infrastructure and Municipal Assets Pathway Lead: Emergency management, Transportation, Traffic, and Parking Key partners: Engineering, WPCA, utilities, healthcare providers, schools, shelters, transportation providers, facility owners, parks and open space staff, public safety, and communications staff. • • •

• •

Complete detailed assessments for priority critical facilities and access routes. Evaluate facility access, backup power, fuel supply, communications, utility systems, and operational redundancy. Identify parks and open spaces where flood storage, living shorelines, habitat, recreation, and public access can be combined through future design work. Coordinate open space strategies with Cummings Pond and Cummings Park planning. Identify which municipal assets should be incorporated into the flood sensor network and dashboard over time.

Public Communication and Engagement Lead: Communications staff and the resilience implementation working group

Key partners: All action pathway leads, community organizations, neighborhood groups, schools, business groups, waterfront users, and public-facing City departments.

• • • •

Provide regular updates on studies underway, projects moving toward design, and decisions that will require public input. Use plain-language materials, multilingual outreach, and accessible formats. Clearly distinguish between recommended actions, projects under study, funded projects, and projects that still require future decisions. Continue coordinating public communication with emergency messaging, zoning discussions, capital project planning, and private-property adaptation guidance.

Long-Term Actions: 5–10+ Years Long-term implementation should focus on major capital improvements, long-term policy tools, and ongoing City operations. These actions will generally require completed studies, design, permitting, funding, public engagement, and clear maintenance responsibilities before they can be implemented.

Emergency Preparedness Pathway Lead: Emergency management, Transportation, Traffic, Parking, and communications Key partners: Police, fire, emergency medical services, transit providers, schools, shelter operators, critical facility operators, and community organizations. • • • •

Continue updating evacuation routes, public messaging, signage, and dashboard protocols as flood risk changes. Maintain and upgrade permanent signs, dynamic signs, flood sensors, and dashboard systems. Integrate flood monitoring and emergency operations into routine preparedness exercises. Continue testing evacuation, shelter, transit, and critical facility coordination before future storm seasons.

Hurricane Barrier Resilience Pathway Lead: City / engineering project lead Key partners: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Transportation, Traffic, Parking, Emergency Management, WPCA, utilities, waterfront property owners, transportation agencies, state and federal agencies, and technical consultants. •

If supported by the Hurricane Barrier Resilience Study, design, permit, fund, and construct priority improvements related to

225

•

the hurricane barrier, pump stations, tieins, low points, gaps, or flanking risks. Confirm that any major barrier-related improvements are supported by detailed modeling, survey, engineering, ownership coordination, permitting review, and benefit-cost analysis. Integrate barrier-related improvements into emergency operations, closure protocols, and long-term maintenance planning.

Tide Gate and Drainage Pathway

Key partners: Legal staff, building officials, environmental protection, engineering, City leadership, residents, property owners, businesses, developers, and community stakeholders. •

• •

Lead: Engineering, Transportation, Traffic, and Parking Key partners: Environmental protection, operations and maintenance staff, WPCA where relevant, parks and open space staff where relevant, and technical consultants. • • • •

Continue constructing priority tide gates and related stormwater improvements where feasibility work confirms they are appropriate. Pair tide gates with stormwater storage, pumping, green stormwater infrastructure, or drainage upgrades where needed. Maintain a routine inspection, cleaning, repair, replacement, and post-storm review program. Update the tide gate inventory and maintenance protocols as new assets are installed or existing assets are repaired or replaced.

•

Lead: Emergency management, Transportation, Traffic, Parking, and facility owners Key partners: Engineering, WPCA, utilities, healthcare providers, schools, transportation providers, parks and open space staff, public safety, communications staff, and state or federal funding partners. •

Lead: Engineering and transportation

•

• •

If feasibility work confirms a preferred approach, advance the Shippan Avenue/ Magee Avenue project into design, permitting, funding, and construction. Implement the project as a combined flood resilience, evacuation, traffic safety, and public-realm improvement. Coordinate long-term maintenance responsibilities for drainage, green stormwater infrastructure, roadway features, signage, and open space improvements.

Planning and Policy Pathway Lead: Planning and zoning

226

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

•

or completion of major projects. Track simple progress measures, such as studies completed, grants submitted, grants awarded, tide gates installed, signs installed, sensors operating, tide gates inspected, facilities assessed, and projects advanced to design, permitting, or construction. Use these updates to keep Chapter 7 functioning as a living implementation pathway rather than a one-time list of recommendations.

Critical Infrastructure and Municipal Assets Pathway

Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue Pathway Key partners: Transportation, Traffic, Parking, emergency management, parks and open space, environmental protection, community stakeholders, nearby property owners, businesses, and potential funding partners.

Adopt and administer the Coastal Resilience Overlay Zone if supported by modeling, legal review, public engagement, and City decision-making. Apply resilient redevelopment standards to guide safer investment in flood-exposed areas. Continue evaluating voluntary buyout, acquisition, or land-use transition tools where repeated flooding or future exposure makes reinvestment difficult. Keep long-term policy tools flexible enough to respond to new modeling, market conditions, funding opportunities, community priorities, and lessons learned from future storms.

•

• •

Upgrade priority critical facilities over time to improve flood protection, backup power, communications, access, and operational continuity. Implement municipal open space adaptation projects, such as living shorelines, floodable recreation areas, elevated access routes, naturalized berms, and relocation or floodproofing of vulnerable park assets. Integrate critical facilities and municipal assets into the flood sensor network and dashboard over time. Continue evaluating access-route reliability as flood conditions and facility needs change.

Ongoing Adaptive Management

Lead: Resilience implementation working group Key partners: All pathway leads, City leadership, external partner agencies, facility owners, community stakeholders, and funding partners. •

Revisit implementation priorities every two to three years, or after major storms, new flood modeling, new funding opportunities, adopted policy changes,

227

APPENDIX D: INITIAL PROJECT READINESS PIPELINE

Initial Project Readiness Pipeline Study-ready projects are actions that are ready to be scoped, funded, and advanced through planning, modeling, feasibility analysis, or policy development.

Construction-ready or early implementation candidates are actions that may be able to move quickly once final site checks, permitting, procurement, and funding are complete. •

•

• • •

Hurricane Barrier Resilience Study, including closure analysis, gap assessment, and detailed modeling. The gap assessment and closure analysis may be able to move first while funding is pursued for the full study package. Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue feasibility study, including tide gates, stormwater storage, pumping, green stormwater infrastructure, traffic operations, and coordination with the Cummings Pond planning process. Critical infrastructure resilience inventory and priority facility assessments, including access routes, backup power, fuel, communications, utilities, and operational continuity. Coastal Resilience Overlay Zone technical and legal analysis, including higher-resolution flood modeling and draft zoning language. Compound flood modeling and flood forecasting roadmap, especially where coastal, stormwater, and riverine flooding overlap. Municipal open space resilience concept planning, including living shorelines, flood storage, habitat, recreation, and Cummings Pond/Cummings Park coordination.

•

• •

Repair, replacement, or modification of existing tide gates, including improved access for inspection and maintenance. Installation of straightforward priority tide gates at publicly owned, accessible outfalls where backflow risk is confirmed and major drainage conflicts are not expected. First phase flood sensors and stafffacing dashboard, focused on floodprone roads, evacuation routes, underpasses, and critical facility access. Dynamic flood warning signage at priority decision points, such as underpasses, evacuation route junctions, bridges, and flood-prone roadway segments. Permanent evacuation route signage along formalized coastal evacuation routes. Near-term critical facility operational improvements, such as equipment protection, backup power planning, backflow prevention, and access-route coordination where no major construction is required.

Design-ready projects are actions that can move toward engineering, procurement, or detailed design once locations, partners, and basic technical requirements are confirmed. •

• •

•

230

STAMFORD COASTAL RESILIENCE PLAN

Flood sensor, dashboard, and dynamic signage pilot, including sensor locations, dashboard users, warning thresholds, maintenance needs, and operating protocols. Permanent evacuation route signage package, including final route confirmation, sign locations, and MUTCD-compatible sign design. Priority tide gate design package, including repair or replacement of existing tide gates and design of additional tide gates at feasible public outfalls. Shippan Avenue/Magee Avenue preliminary design, if the feasibility phase confirms the preferred package of drainage, pumping, storage, traffic, and public-realm improvements. Priority municipal open space adaptation designs, where flood storage, living shoreline, or floodable recreation opportunities are confirmed.

231