On the agenda: Summit meeting — data center (Jul 28)

1. 7/28/26 - Attachments Added To CAPS Resolution ID#12392 Adopt Union County MultiJurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
Documents:
CAPS - HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN RES ID 12392 W ATT.PDF

7/28/26 Note: Links within this document were
no longer functioning. Documents associated with
the links are attached.
To view same, go to Page 3 of this document.

11.C.1

CAPS (R) #1
Resolution (ID # 12392)
July 28, 2026

ADOPT UNION COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION
PLAN

WHEREAS the City recognizes the threat that natural hazards pose to people and property
within City of Summit; and
WHEREAS the County of Union has prepared a multi-hazard mitigation plan, hereby known as
Union County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2026, in accordance with federal and
state laws, including the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as
amended; the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended; and the National Dam Safety
Program Act, as amended; and New Jersey P.L. 2023, CHAPTER 313 approved January 16,
2024; and
WHEREAS the Union County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2026, identifies
current and future natural hazard risks, and assesses the vulnerability of facilities, infrastructure,
and populations, and defines mitigation goals and actions to reduce or eliminate long term risk to
people and property in the City from the impacts of future natural hazards and disasters; and
WHEREAS adoption by the City demonstrates its commitment to hazard mitigation and
achieving the goals outlined in the Union County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
2026.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SUMMIT, COUNTY OF UNION, NEW JERSEY:
That it does hereby adopt the Union County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2026.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that while content related to the City may require revisions to meet the
plan approval requirements, changes occurring after adoption will not require the City to readopt any further iterations of the plan. Subsequent plan updates following the approval period
for this plan will require separate adoption resolutions.
Dated: July 28, 2026
I, Rosalia M. Licatese, City Clerk of the City of Summit, do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was duly adopted by the Common Council of said City at a regular meeting held on
Tuesday evening, July 28, 2026.

City Clerk
…
Page 1
Packet Pg. 19

11.C.1

DCS - Engineering Division
R - Capital Projects & Community Services
www.cityofsummit.org
Meeting: 07/28/26 07:30 PM

RESOLUTION (ID # 12392)
TO:

Mayor and Common Council

FROM:

Aaron Schrager, Director - Division of Engineering & Public Works

DATE:

January 21, 2026

DOC ID: 12392

SUMMARY
During 2025, the municipalities in Union County participated with the Union County Office of
Emergency Management to complete their five (5) year update to their Multi‐Jurisdictional Natural
Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Plan identifies actions, plans or projects by municipality for
consideration and possible implementation using future FEMA mitigation grants as they become
available. The County intends to adopt in on xxxx.
For the City to qualify for FEMA mitigation grants as they become available, the City, along
with all the other participating jurisdictions within the County, must formally adopt the
FEMA‐approved Union County Multi‐Jurisdictional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan by
resolution.
The Adoption Resolution does not incur any cost to the City for participation in this program. It
does however ensure that as future mitigation grants become available the City is eligible to
apply for and potentially be awarded FEMA mitigation grants. The plan is a living document
and can be revised at any time. The document is large and can be accessed here.
https://eFTP.mbakerintl.com/message/ARIJGK75UQpb8jRivtUV3o
I have reviewed the Plan and recommend that the City adopt it by resolution.

Page 2
Packet Pg. 20

18 – CITY OF SUMMIT
PLANNING TEAM AND PARTICIPATION
Name
Aaron Schrager

Title
Director of Community Services

Kirolos Salama
Elizabeth Fagan
Lyndsay Knight – Neglia Group
Tammie Baldwin
Augusto Dal’Maso
Michael Caputo

Assistant Engineer
Mayor
City Planner
City Administrator
Land Use Manager
DPW Superintendent

Participation
Primary Contact, Steering Committee KickOff Meeting, Municipal Workshop 1,
Municipal Meeting
Municipal Meeting
Coordination, Input and Review
Municipal Meeting
Coordination, Input and Review
Coordination, Input and Review
Coordination, Input and Review

COMMUNITY OVERVIEW
Overview
The City of Summit has a total area of 6.046 square miles and is located in the Watchung Mountains in the northwest
corner of Union County, New Jersey. Summit is not a coastal community.

Land Use, Development, & Growth
This paragraph describes the key land use types and any key land use changes based on MOD-IV, New Jersey’s property
tax data. Summit is primarily a residential community, with the MOD-IV dataset showing that residential (including
apartment) use constituted the largest category in 2022, accounting for 62% of the total land use, and covering 1,908.5
acres of land. Civic/public (tax exempt) and commercial uses also accounted for significant portions, comprising 24% and
9% respectively of the total land use in the same year. From 2016 to 2022, civic/public (tax exempt) land use increased
from 697 to 726.4 acres, and vacant land decreased from 58.9 to 22.2 acres.
According to NJDEP’s Land Use/Land Cover dataset categories for 2015 and 2020, the area classified as urban occupied the
largest share, making up nearly 83% of the area in 2020. The forest category followed, accounting for 15% of the total land
area.
Land Use Type
Agriculture
Barren Land
Forest
Urban
Water
Wetlands

Total Acres (2015)

Total Acres (2020)

Percent Change

1.1
16
568.3
3201.8
38.8
35.2

1.1
30.6
562.6
3192.8
38.8
35.2

<1%
91%
-1%
<1%
<1%
<1%

Recent Major Development and Infrastructure from 2021 to Present
Primarily redevelopment of business and corporate districts, but there are no large-scale development that added a large
number of units.
Known or Anticipated Major Development and Infrastructure in the Next Five (5) Years
The township is pretty built out, so no large-scale developments are coming. A few redevelopments are happening. The
old firehouse is one of them as the firehouse has to move simply due to age. Tyrconnell Housing will add 28 new units.
This is Morris and River Road. This area does not flood.
UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026
APPENDICES VOL I – 18 CITY OF SUMMIT

Demographics & Vulnerable Population
The City of Summit has an estimated population of 22,555, of which 5.9% is estimated as under age 5, and 12.8% is
estimated to be over age 65. The city’s population remained consistent over ACS survey periods between 2013-2017 and
2018-2022, with an estimated 1.8% change during this time. There are five block groups within Summit which have been
identified as overburdened (OBC), all meeting criteria of vulnerability for Minority populations. There are no portions of
the city which meet criteria for designation as CDRZ or CEJST communities.
Demographics Summary
Total Population (2018-2022 ACS 5-year Estimates)
Population Change since 2017
Percent of Population Age < 5
Percent of Population > 65

22,555
1.81%
5.86%
12.82%

HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
One of the first steps in developing a risk assessment is for participating municipalities to review and prioritize the hazards
that can affect them. This was done based on how often a hazard has occurred, how significant effects have been in the
past, the difficulty and cost of recovering from such events. Jurisdictions ranked the list of hazards as high, medium, low,
or no concern. The following include the city’s hazard ranking. The full risk assessment for each hazard is located in Section
4.0.
High
Erosion – Hurricane/Nor’easter/Coastal Storm
Flood
Severe Storm – Winter Weather (Includes Ice
Storms)

Medium
Natural Hazards
High Wind – Straight-line Winds
High Wind – Tornado
Severe Storm – Lightning
Wildfire

Low
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake/Geological
Extreme Temperature - Heat
Hail
Landslide (Non-Seismic)

Human-made Hazards
Cyber Attack
Economic Collapse
Hazmat Release – Fixed Site
Pandemic
Terrorism

Animal Disease
Hazmat Release - Transportation
Nuclear Hazard
Power Failure
Civil Unrest

Storm surge – hurricane/nor’easter/tropical storm was ranked as N/A.

Hazard Ranking Explanation
Flooding remains the highest hazard of concern within the city. The majority of this flooding is just flooded basements
brought on by haphazard home renovations. The stormwater infrastructure cannot sustain that amount of water. Hazmat
release – the fixed site is medium due to a genetics research lab that has a lot of liquid nitrogen on-site. Power failure is
low due to animal disruption but for operations, there are generators mostly everywhere. While there are dams within the
city, they have just been replaced. Storm surge is not applicable because the water is not tidal.

Significant Hazard Events Since Last Plan Update
On the Fourth of July in 2023, summer storms caused severe flooding in Salt Brook. Manhole covers were coming up on
Myrtle Avenue and Tulip Street and roads were closed and underwater. Flooding got to this level mostly because the pipes
within the city are not big enough for the amount of water they receive. In August 2024 there was another storm with

UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026
APPENDICES VOL I – 18 CITY OF SUMMIT

about five inches of rain in two hours. There have been underground electrical fires downtown as water gets into the pipes
and the circuits short.

RISK ASSESSMENT
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Statistics
Summit City
118

Number of Policies In-Force:
Total Losses:

409

Total Payments:

$8,907,251.13

Number of RL Properties:

0

Number of Mitigated RL Properties:

0

RL – Total Losses:

0

RL – Total Paid:

0

Number of SRL Properties:

52

Number of Mitigated SRL Properties:

0

SRL – Total Losses:

139

SRL – Total Paid:

$4,826,032.76

Vulnerability of the Built Environment
The jurisdictional boundaries of Summit are defined by water bodies; on the north, the Passaic River, flowing in southwesterly direction; in the south, Surprise Lake and Bryant Brook, which flows in north-easterly direction. None of them
constitute a direct flood hazard. In addition to the streams named above, the City of Summit has four significant areas of
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Three of them are the unnamed tributaries of the Passaic River itself, on the north side
of the main Conrail line intersecting the area; the fourth SFHA belongs to Salt Brook, which flows from the central Summit
area, south of Conrail line, in westerly direction, into the neighboring City of New Providence. Flooding in City of Summit
most often occurs during extreme rain events. These can be simply intense inland storms, tropical cyclones (including
hurricanes and their remnants), and sometimes nor’easters
Approximately 5.1 percent of the total area of the City of Summit lies within the 1% annual chance floodplain as defined
by FEMA. An additional 0 percent of the area of the municipality is in the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
About 94.7 percent of Summit is considered developed. Of the developed parcels of the town, 4.4 percent fall at least
partially within the 1% annual chance floodplain and 0 percent are at least partially within the 0.2% annual chance
floodplain. This illustrates that the developed area of the municipality is generally in line with overall flood risk.
Developed Parcels
Exposed Land Area

Percentage in 1% Floodplain
4.4%
5.1%

Percentage in 0.2% Floodplain
-

During the planning process, the City of Summit identified critical facilities which function as community lifelines. These
facilities provide the most fundamental services in the community that, when stabilized, enable all other aspects of society
to function. The municipality identified 65 total facilities. Of these facilities, none are within the floodplain.

Community Lifelines and Critical Facilities

Percentage in 1% Floodplain
-

UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026
APPENDICES VOL I – 18 CITY OF SUMMIT

Percentage in 0.2% Floodplain
-

UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026
APPENDICES VOL I – 18 CITY OF SUMMIT

UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026
APPENDICES VOL I – 18 CITY OF SUMMIT

UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026
APPENDICES VOL I – 18 CITY OF SUMMIT

CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
Planning and Regulatory Capabilities
The City of Summit has the following additional Planning & Regulatory capabilities:
Plan and Regulation

Yes

Master Plan
Capital Improvement Plan
Local Emergency Operations
Plan/Continuity of Operations Plan
Floodplain Development Ordinance
Floodplain Management Plan
Stormwater Management Ordinance
Stormwater Management Plan
Watershed Management Plan
Sheltering Plan
Evacuation Plan
Substantial Damage/Improved
Structures Response
Repetitive Loss Plan
Disaster Debris Management Plan
Tracking elevation certificates and/or
Letter of Map Change
Post-Disaster Recovery Plan
Current/recent redevelopment plans or
studies
Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Climate Adaptation Plan
Other Plans that discuss hazard
mitigation
Other ordinance and regulation that
mitigate the impacts of natural hazards

X
X

No

Date of Last
Update
2016
2024

How does this support hazard mitigation?

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Administrative and Technical Capabilities
The City of Summit has the following Administrative and Technical capabilities:
Position
Floodplain Administrator
Grant Writer
Staff trained to support mitigation
Existing mutual aid or technical
assistance agreements to support
hazard mitigation projects
Non-governmental organizations/other
partners that work with the
municipality on mitigation projects
Organizations that work with socially
vulnerable or underserved populations

Yes
X
X
X

No

Explanation
Currently the City Engineer
Contracted out

X

X

X

Education and Outreach Capabilities
The City of Summit has the following Education and Outreach capabilities:
Education and Outreach Capability
Communicate natural and humanbased hazards to the public
StormReady
Firewise USA

Yes
X

No

Explanation

X
X

UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026
APPENDICES VOL I – 18 CITY OF SUMMIT

Education and Outreach Capability
Severe Weather Awareness Week
Community Rating System (CRS)

Yes

No
X
X

Explanation

Financial Capabilities
Within the last five years, the City of Summit has used the following financial capabilities to implement hazard mitigation
activities:
Financial Capability
FEMA BRIC
FEMA FMA
FEMA Public Assistance
FEMA HMGP
Non-FEMA Federal Funding Programs
Other FEMA resources
NJ Infrastructure Bank
Other state municipal assistance or
grant programs
Evaluation process on the prioritization
of risk reduction projects against other
local activities
Other ongoing efforts to build
additional financial capabilities

Yes

No
X
X

X
X

Explanation

EMAA grants
X
X

X
X
X

X

UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026
APPENDICES VOL I – 18 CITY OF SUMMIT

MITIGATION STRATEGY
Overview and Progress Since Last Update
Since the last update, the City has completed construction of its new firehouse which also houses the City’s OEM and its Emergency Operations Center (EOC). This
modern facility will greatly assist the City’s ability to serve the public in times of major incident activation. Looking to the future, the City intends to put a priority
on upgrading its infrastructure to accommodate the intense microburst storms that seem to be increasing in frequency and greatly impact the existing
infrastructure. This will be done through physical improvements as well consideration of policy and planning changes to assist in more resilient development.

Completed or Removed Actions
$100,000.00

Action
Status
Completed

Summit DPW

$250,000.00

Withdrawn

Flood, Erosion–
Hurricane/Nor’easter/C
oastal Storm

Engineering

$4,000,000.00

Withdrawn

Improve
drainage/conveyance
along Plymouth Road,
Memorial Field House,
Laurel Avenue,
Community Pool, Waldron
Avenue, Kent Place
Boulevard, Edgemont
Avenue, W End Avenue.

Flood

Engineering

$1,000,000.00

Completed

West End Sanitary Sewer
Pump Station and holding
tank to prevent sewage
backups during rainfall
events.

Flood

Engineering

$1,000,000.00

Withdrawn

Action

Name

Description

Hazards Addressed

18-01

Purchase and Install a
Backup Generator for
the Department of
Public Works.
Perform Site Work and
Install an Equalization
Tank at the
Department of Public
Works.
Upgrade and Improve
Channelization of the
Salt Brook/West End
Brook.

Backup generator for the
Department of Public
Works.

Flood, Severe Storm–
Winter Weather (Ice
Storm), Severe Storm –
Lightning
Flood

Upgrade and improve
channelization of the Salt
Brook/West End Brook.

Improve
Drainage/Conveyance
Along Plymouth Road,
Memorial Field House,
Laurel Avenue,
Community Pool,
Waldron Avenue, Kent
Place Boulevard,
Edgemont Avenue,
and W End Avenue.
Construct West End
Sanitary Sewer Pump
Station and holding
tank to prevent
sewage backups
during rainfall events.

18-02

18-03

18-04

18-05

Site work/equalization
tank at the Department of
Public Works

UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026
APPENDICES VOL I – 18 CITY OF SUMMIT

Priority

Responsible
Party
Engineering

Potential
Funding
FEMA,
Municipal
Budget

Municipal
Budget

Cost Estimate

Timeline

Notes

Description

Responsible
Party
Engineering

Potential
Funding

High

Summit Fire Chief

Flood

High

Summit
Engineering

FEMA
HMA,
Municipal
Budget,
Capital
Funding
FEMA
HMA,
Municipal
Budget

Flood, Erosion–
Hurricane/Nor’easter/C
oastal Storm

Low

City Council

Severe Storm–Winter
Weather (Ice Storm),
High Wind–Tornado,
High Wind–Straight-Line
Winds

Medium

Engineering/DPW

Action

Name

18-06

Join the CRS program.

Join the CRS program.

Flood

18-07

Retrofit and
Reconstruct the Fire
Department Building.

High Wind–Tornado,
High Wind–Straight-Line
Winds

18-08

Construct Spillway
Improvements at River
Road.

Retrofit and reconstruct
the Fire Department
Building to prevent wind
damage and ensure
continuity of operations
during storms.
Construct spillway
improvements at River
Road to reduce flooding.

18-09

Update Municipal
Stormwater Control
Ordinance Based on
Appendix D: Model
Stormwater Control
Ordinance for
Municipalities of the
New Jersey
Stormwater Best
Management Practices
Manual to Reflect
Amendments to the
Stormwater
Management Rules at
N.J.A.C. 7:8, Adopted
March 2, 2020.

18-10

Conduct a Full Tree
Survey/Inventory
Assessment Along City
ROWs.

The sample ordinance
represents the minimum
standards
and
expectations,
except
where noted otherwise. A
municipality may choose
stronger or additional
measures in order to
address local water quality
and flooding conditions as
well
as
other
environmental
and
community needs. The
sample
ordinance
is
located in Appendix D of
the
New
Jersey
Stormwater
Best
Management
Practices
Manual.
The City Forester
completes an annual
windshield survey of the
City-owned trees annually.
Due to significant impact
from storms over the last
decade, a full assessment

UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026
APPENDICES VOL I – 18 CITY OF SUMMIT

Hazards Addressed

Priority

Timeline

Action
Status
Withdrawn

$15,100,000.00

1 year

Completed

$500,000.00

1 year

Completed

Municipal
Budget

$0.00

1 year

Completed

Municipal
Budget

$500,000.00

Ongoing

Completed

Cost Estimate
$0.00

Notes

New
firehouse
constructe
d

Followed
DEP model
ordinance
under
county
review.

Action

Name

Description

Hazards Addressed

Priority

Responsible
Party

Potential
Funding

Cost Estimate

Timeline

Action
Status

Notes

will be done upon
completion of the City’s
GIS system scheduled to
take place in 2021.

New and Ongoing Actions
Responsible
Party
Engineering

Potential
Funding
TBD

Low

OEM Coordinator,
in coordination
with NJOEM

Municipal
Budget

Flood

High

Summit
Engineering

Flood

Medium

High Wind–Tornado

Low

Action

Name

Description

Hazards Addressed

18-11

Upgrade and Improve
Channelization of the
Salt Brook/West End
Brook.

Upgrade and improve
channelization of the Salt
Brook/West End Brook.

18-12

Conduct All-Hazards
Public Education and
Outreach Program for
Hazard Mitigation and
Preparedness.
Right-size Undersized
Culverts and Channels
in the Corridor Between
the Golf Course and
Spillway at River Road,
Which Includes Canoe
Brook Golf Course,
Wallace Road, and
Canoe Brook Parkway.
Identify a Solution to
Mitigate City Water
Discharge onto Private
Property on Hobart Ave.
and Edgewood Drive.
Educate the Public
about Risks Associated
with Tornadoes and
Actions to Take in
Advance of Tornado
Warning.

Conduct all-hazards public
education and outreach
program for hazard
mitigation and
preparedness.
Right-size undersized
culverts and channels in
the corridor between the
golf course and spillway at
River Road, which includes
Canoe Brook Golf Course,
Wallace Road, and Canoe
Brook Parkway to control
flooding.
Identify a solution to
mitigate city water
discharge onto private
property on Hobart Ave.
and Edgewood Drive.
Educate public about risks
associated with tornadoes
and actions to take in
advance of tornado
warning.

Flood, Erosion–
Hurricane/ Nor’easter/
Coastal Storm, Severe
Storm – Winter
Weather
All Hazards

18-13

18-14

18-15

UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026
APPENDICES VOL I – 18 CITY OF SUMMIT

Priority

Timeline

Action
Status
Ongoing

TBD

Ongoing

Ongoing

FEMA
HMA,
Municipal
Budget

$2,000,000.00

Ongoing

Ongoing

Engineering

Municipal
Budget

$500,000.00

1 year

Ongoing

Summit OEM

Municipal
Budget

TBD

Ongoing

Ongoing

Cost Estimate
$4,000,000.00

Notes

Responsible
Party
Affected
homeowners

Potential
Funding
FEMA
HMA

High

City/County/State

Flood

High

Flood, Severe Storm –
Winter Weather

High

Action

Name

Description

18-16

Acquire, Elevate, or
Relocate Buildings and
Infrastructure in Floodprone Areas Along Salt
Brook, the Passaic River,
Blue Brook, and Rahway
River Tributaries Near
the City's Borders, with
a Focus on Repetitive
Loss (RL) and Severe
Repetitive Loss (SRL)
Properties
Ascot Way (Area
Drainage Basin)

Acquire, elevate, or
relocate structures that are
listed as RL/SRL properties.
Summit City will support
these projects as interested
homeowners come forward
and will work with
homeowners to mitigate
their properties.

Flood

High

A stream that serves as the
discharge location for a
large watershed before
traversing County land, and
then State property is silted
over.
The main facility is located
in a flood plain.
Floodproofing needed for
future development

Flood

Several tributary streams
discharge to a privately
owned pond. Erosion is
causing flooding and
restricting flow.

18-17

18-18

Public Works Facility

18-19

Woodmere Drive
Drainage Area

UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026
APPENDICES VOL I – 18 CITY OF SUMMIT

Hazards Addressed

Priority

TBD

Timeline
Ongoing

Action
Status
Ongoing

FEMA

TBD

Ongoing

Ongoing

Permitting
in
progress.

City

FEMA

TBD

Ongoing

Ongoing

Plans in
progress.

City/Private HOA

FEMA

TBD

TBD

Ongoing

Cost Estimate

Notes

nl
y
O
ft
D
ra

UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN 2026

Prepared for:

Union County
Division of Emergency Services
400 North Avenue East
Westfield, NJ 07090

FEMA Approvable
Pending Adoption
(APA)
June 2026

Prepared by:

Michael Baker International, Inc.
1700 American Blvd., 2nd Floor
Pennington, NJ 08534

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction

1.1 Overview and Purpose ..................................................................................................................1.0-2
1.2 Scope .............................................................................................................................................1.0-2
1.3 Organization of the Plan................................................................................................................1.0-2
1.4 Authority and References ............................................................................................................. 1.0-4

2.0 HMP Review, Evaluation, and Implementation

2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................................2.0-2
2.2 HMP Review: Changes in Development ........................................................................................ 2.0-2
2.3 HMP Evaluation: Changes in Priorities .......................................................................................... 2.0-8
2.4 HMP Implementation: Progress in Local Mitigation Efforts ........................................................ 2.0-10

nl
y

3.0 Mitigation Strategy

3.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................................3.0-2
3.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives ............................................................................... 3.0-2
3.3 Evaluation and Prioritization of Mitigation Actions ...................................................................... 3.0-3

O

3.4 Municipal Mitigation Strategy Summary ...................................................................................... 3.0-4

4.0 Planning Process

4.1 Description of the Planning Process ............................................................................................. 4.0-2

ft

4.2 Steering Committee ......................................................................................................................4.0-3

ra

4.3 Engagement Strategy ....................................................................................................................4.0-3
4.4 Summary of Participation ........................................................................................................... 4.0-10
4.5 Public Participation .....................................................................................................................4.0-12

D

5.0 Capability Assessment

5.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................................5.0-2
5.2 New Jersey State Regulations ....................................................................................................... 5.0-2
5.3 Watershed Management Plans ..................................................................................................... 5.0-3
5.4 Regional Capabilities .....................................................................................................................5.0-4
5.5 Union County Capabilities ............................................................................................................. 5.0-5
5.6 Plan Integration .............................................................................................................................5.0-6

6.0 County Profile

6.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................................6.0-2
6.2 Population and the Economy ........................................................................................................ 6.0-4
6.3 Built Environment .........................................................................................................................6.0-6
6.4 Ecosystems and Natural Assets ..................................................................................................... 6.0-9
i

7.0 Risk Assessment

7.1 Overview and Changes Since 2021 ............................................................................................... 7.0-2
7.2 Identification of Hazards ............................................................................................................... 7.0-3
7.3 Hazards Summary .........................................................................................................................7.0-5
7.4 Dam Failure ................................................................................................................................. 7.0-10
7.5 Drought .......................................................................................................................................7.0-17
7.6 Earthquake/Geological ................................................................................................................7.0-22
7.7 Erosion (Including Hurricane/Nor’easter/Tropical Storm) .......................................................... 7.0-31
7.8 Extreme Temperature−Cold ........................................................................................................ 7.0-37
7.9 Extreme Temperature−Heat ........................................................................................................ 7.0-40
7.10 Flood (Includes Tidal, Flash, and Riverine Flooding) ................................................................. 7.0-47

nl
y

7.11 Hail ............................................................................................................................................7.0-74
7.12 High Wind–Straight-Line Winds
(Includes Hurricanes, Nor’easter, Tropical Storms, Thunderstorms) ................................................ 7.0-78
7.13 High Wind−Tornado ..................................................................................................................7.0-90

O

7.14 Landslide (Non-Seismic) ............................................................................................................ 7.0-95
7.15 Severe Storm − Lightning ........................................................................................................7.0-101
7.16 Severe Storm − Winter Weather .............................................................................................7.0-104

ft

7.17 Storm Surge (Includes Hurricanes, Nor’easters, Tropical Storms) ..........................................7.0-111

ra

7.18 Wildfire....................................................................................................................................7.0-118
7.19 Animal Disease ........................................................................................................................7.0-126
7.20 Civil Unrest ..............................................................................................................................7.0-131

D

7.21 Cyber Attack ............................................................................................................................7.0-134
7.22 Economic Collapse ..................................................................................................................7.0-138
7.23 Hazardous Materials Release–Fixed Site.................................................................................7.0-142
7.24 Hazardous Materials Release–Transportation Incidents .........................................................7.0-147
7.25 Nuclear Hazards ......................................................................................................................7.0-151
7.26 Pandemic................................................................................................................................. 7.0-153
7.27 Power Failure ..........................................................................................................................7.0-162
7.28 Terrorism ................................................................................................................................. 7.0-168

8.0 Plan Adoption

8.1 Plan Adoption................................................................................................................................8.0-2

9.0 Plan Maintenance

9.1 Process Summary ..........................................................................................................................9.0-2
ii

9.2 Monitoring the Plan ......................................................................................................................9.0-2
9.3 Updating the Plan .........................................................................................................................9.0-3
9.4 Public Participation in Plan Maintenance ..................................................................................... 9.0-3

Appendices
Volume I. Jurisdictional Information
Vol I. 13 Rahway, City of

Vol I. 2 Clark, Township of

Vol I. 14 Roselle, Borough of

Vol I. 3 Cranford, Township of

Vol I. 15 Roselle Park, Borough of

Vol I. 4 Elizabeth, City of

Vol I. 16 Scotch Plains, Township of

Vol I. 5 Fanwood, Borough of

Vol I. 17 Springfield, Township of

Vol I. 6 Garwood, Borough of

Vol I. 18 Summit, City of

nl
y

Vol I. 1 Berkeley Heights, Township of

Vol I. 19 Union, Township of

Vol I. 7 Hillside, Township of

Vol I. 20 Westfield, Town of

Vol I. 8 Kenilworth, Borough of

Vol I. 21 Winfield, Township of

O

Vol I. 9 Linden, City of

Vol I. 22 Special Districts

Vol I. 10 Mountainside, Township of

Vol I. 23 Union, County of

Vol I. 11 New Providence, Township of

ra

ft

Vol I. 12 Plainfield, City of

Appendix Volume II. Other Planning Materials

D

Vol II. A – Plan Review Tool

Vol. II. E – Local Resolutions

Vol II. B – Resolution Template

Vol. II. F – Invitations to Stakeholders

Vol II. C – CRS Crosswalk

Vol. II G – Capability Assessment Table

Vol II. D – Annual Progress Report

iii

nl
y
O
ft
ra
D
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Rahway, NJ

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE

nl
y

On October 30, 2000, the President signed into law the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, also known as DMA 2000. Among
its other features, DMA 2000 established a requirement that in order to remain eligible for federal disaster assistance and
grant funds, local and state governments must develop and adopt hazard mitigation plans. On February 26, 2002, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published an Interim Final Rule (IFR) that set forth the guidance and
regulations under which such plans are supposed to be developed. The IFR provides detailed descriptions of both the
planning process that states and localities are required to observe and the contents of the plan that emerges. In December
2010 the Union County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (Union County HMP) was developed to satisfy these
requirements. The original plan was approved by FEMA and adopted by the County on December 8, 2010, updated in
March 28, 2016 (first update) and December 15, 2021 (second update). This Union County HMP is the third update to the
original plan and is the result of work by County residents, local officials, and stakeholders that participated in the hazard
mitigation planning process. Of the 21 municipalities that lie within Union County, 21 participated in the Plan update,
achieving 100% plan participation.

O

The term “Hazard Mitigation” describes actions that can help reduce or eliminate long-term risks caused by hazards or
disaster. The HMP process includes identifying local risks and vulnerabilities associated with disasters and developing longterm strategies for protecting people and property from future hazard events. These strategies are essential to breaking
the typical disaster cycle of damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. Natural hazard mitigation saves $6 on average
for every $1 spent on Federal mitigation grants, according to an analysis by the National Institute of Building Sciences
(2018). In other words, hazard mitigation actions and projects save more money than they cost.

ft

1.2 SCOPE

D

ra

The Union County HMP update has been prepared to meet requirements set forth by the FEMA and the New Jersey Office
of Emergency Management (NJOEM) in order for Union County to be eligible for funding and technical assistance from
State and Federal hazard mitigation programs. Further, this HMP update is an effort to identify risks and vulnerabilities to
natural and human-made hazards across Union County, as well as to outline suggested actions aimed at reducing overall
risk and building resilience across the County.
Union County selected the consultant Michael Baker International, Inc. (Michael Baker) to help develop the 2026 Union
County Plan. The Union County Division of Emergency Services and Michael Baker worked together to update this HMP
(the Project Team).

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN
The Union County HMP is organized into the following nine sections and two volumes of appendices:
1.0 Introduction: Discusses the purpose of hazard mitigation planning and the planning requirements for the HMP
2.0 HMP Review, Evaluation, and Implementation: Highlights changes in development and land use since the previous
HMP, changes in priorities (goals, objectives, and hazard rankings), and progress in local mitigation efforts.
3.0 Mitigation Strategy: Union County’s mitigation strategy is the blueprint for reducing potential future losses from
hazards. This section includes the update process, mitigation goals and objectives, the evaluation and prioritization of
mitigation actions, a summary of each municipality’s mitigation strategy, and Union County’s mitigation strategy.

1.0 - 2

4.0 Planning Process: Discusses the planning process, the planning team that led this HMP update, county, stakeholder,
and municipal participation, and public participation.
5.0 Capability Assessment: Discusses state building codes and the unique planning, regulatory, administrative, technical,
financial, and education and outreach capabilities present in Union County. This section also describes how the County
and its municipalities integrate their plans and regulations with hazard mitigation.
6.0 Community Profile: Provides an overview on Union County and discusses population and the economy (including
underserved communities and socially vulnerable populations), the built environment (including recent and future
changes in development), and ecosystems and natural assets.
7.0 Risk Assessment: Identifies the hazards of concern and an analysis on the vulnerability and risks posed by each hazard.
8.0 Plan Maintenance: Explains the plan maintenance process for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the HMP once the
plan is approved by FEMA.
9.0 Plan Adoption: Discusses the County and municipal HMP adoption process.

nl
y

Appendices Volume I. Jurisdictional Information: Each municipality has their own appendix detailing their local
community profile and mitigation strategy, including the following information:
Planning Team and Participation: lists the names of local officials and representatives that attended the municipal
meetings and helped write the municipal appendices.

•

Community Profile: provides an overview of the municipality; land use, development, and growth since the
previous plan (including recent, known, or anticipated major development and infrastructure); and information
on demographics and vulnerable populations.

•

Hazard Identification: includes each municipality’s hazard ranking, an explanation for that hazard ranking, and
significant storms events since the last plan update.

•

Risk Assessment: includes municipal National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) statistics, vulnerability of the built
environment, and risk maps, including current flood risk, future flood risk (NJ Inland Design Flood Elevation and
Sea Level Rise (if applicable)), and Wildland Urban Classification (if applicable).

•

Capability Assessment: includes tables of local planning and regulatory; administrative and technical; education
and outreach; and financial capabilities.

•

Mitigation Strategy: provides an overall mitigation strategy since the previous plan and looking forward towards
the next five years, completed or removed actions, and new and ongoing actions.

D

ra

ft

O

•

Appendices Volume II. Other Plan Materials: Includes the FEMA Plan Review Tool, resolution template, Community Rating
System (CRS) crosswalk, annual progress report, adopted local resolutions, engagement documentation, and a
comprehensive capability assessment table.

1.0 - 3

1.4 AUTHORITY AND REFERENCES
Authority for this plan originates from the following federal sources:
•
•
•
•

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C., Section 322, as amended
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 44, Parts 201 and 206
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Public Law 106-390, as amended
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.

Authority for this plan originates from the following State of New Jersey sources:
•
•

State of New Jersey 2024 State Hazard Mitigation Plan
Assembly No. 4691, State of New Jersey 220th Legislature, introduced 10/3/2022, updated 1/8/2024

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

FEMA’s Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide, effective April 11, 2025, was the primary guide used for the development
of this plan. Previous FEMA guides including the 386 series and information available from NJOEM on hazard mitigations
were used to guide this plan’s development.

1.0 - 4

nl
y
O
ft
ra
D

2.0 HMP REVIEW,
EVALUATION, AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Elizabeth, NJ

2.0 HMP REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION
2.1 OVERVIEW
This section was added to the 2021 Union County HMP to highlight changes in development and land use since the previous
HMP, changes in priorities (goals, objectives, and hazard rankings), and progress in local mitigation efforts. The information
below has been updated with changes after the plan was adopted in 2021 to early 2026.

2.2 HMP REVIEW: CHANGES IN DEVELOPMENT
This section discusses recent and future development and changes in land use/land cover since the last plan update in
2021.

RECENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

Table 2.2-1 Recent and Future Development, by Municipality

O

New and Future Development
The Terrace at Berkeley Heights was completed in 2021. This development contains 20 units and is not located within the
floodplain. Additionally, construction of Woodcrest at Berkeley Heights, a luxury 55+ rental apartment community of 196 units as
well as Modera Berkeley Heights, a 173-luxury apartment community at 1 Lone Pine Drive, was recently completed. Another
development, Berkeley Crossing by Elite properties consisting of two developments of 10 and 45 units, was opened. The Toll
Brothers’ 67 luxury Carriage Homes and Condos, including 20 affordable-housing condos, at 110 Roosevelt Avenue was
completed. Most recently completed in 2025 was the Clarus, a mixed-use development with 211 total units, including 32
affordable housing units, located between Lone Pine and Sherman Avenues. This development is located within the regulatory
floodplain.

Clark
Township

Cranford
Township

Elizabeth City

D
ra

ft

Municipality
Berkeley
Heights
Township

nl
y

During the Planning Process, participants were asked if they were aware of any recent (since 2021) and future
developments (5+ years) in their community. Recent and future development trends in Union County are illustrated below
in Table 2.2-1 below. Future development located within a high-risk area are also noted in Table 2.2-1. For more
information on the plans for new and future development, see each municipal narrative, under Land Use, Development,
and Growth located in Appendices Volume I – Jurisdictional Information.

The Park, a 12-story corporate park consisting of offices, 328 rental residential units and parking lots, is undergoing construction.
It is located in the Interstate 78 corridor.
A luxury apartment complex at 35 Walnut Avenue was completed in mid-2023. The development includes 177 units including 28
affordable units. The complex is near the Rahway River but not located within the floodplain. The township reports that the
development could worsen runoff impacts downstream. Completed in 2023 was a 48-unit development on Raritan Road. This is
located higher up and not in the floodplain. Also completed in 2023 was the Hyatt Hills golf course at 1300 Raritan Rd. Union
County has begun planning the Clark Reservoir Project, a project to preserve the natural landscape of the Clark Reservoir while
adding recreational amenities like walking paths, duck boats, and a fishing pier.
No future development identified by the municipality.
Apartments at 750 Walnut were recently constructed. These are 272 units on over 38 acres. There are three buildings. In addition,
there are also two commercial warehouses. Post-Irene there was a nearly 300-unit development at 235 Birchwood. The street
here floods due to the creek that runs along it. There is a catch basin, but it has not been tested yet by a severe storm. The multiunit development at 235 Birchwood falls within the NJ Inland Design Flood Elevation zone which is FEMA’s 1% annual chance
floodplain + 3 feet (NJFloodMapper).
On South Avenue between High Street and Walnut Avenue, there is going to be a four-story mixed-use development going in. It
falls within the flood zone. On Chestnut Street, another brownstone is going in, there will be parking on the first floor and
residential above it. Around 30 units will be constructed. Additionally, the township got its next round of state affordable housing
obligation and has a redevelopment zone.
There has been significant development in the City of Elizabeth. It has included 10 affordable units at 823-827 East Jersey Street;
eight two-family dwellings at 100 First Street; two warehouse building consisting of 300,000 SF at 827-907 Newark Avenue; 17

2.0-2

Kenilworth
Borough

Linden City

Mountainside
Borough

New
Providence
Borough

2.0-3

nl
y

Hillside
Township

There is one mixed-use development going in at 383 S. Ave. This will include about 15-20 residential units and is outside the flood
zone.
296 luxury apartments, called Vermella, were completed at 450 South Avenue.
There is anticipated development at 15-31 North Avenue and 75-93 North Avenue. At the latter, plans for an apartment building
have been approved.
An outdoor pool at Central Avenue and a new library at Memorial Drive began construction in 2025. The Spray Park Phase of the
outdoor pool project opened in August 2025, and pool construction began in mid-September 2025. The police department will
expand into the existing library, while ground broke for the new library in August 2025.

O

Garwood
Borough

There is also substantial anticipated development in Elizabeth. This includes a 148-room hotel at 33-37 West Grand Street; 10
affordable units at 1033-1039 East Jersey Street; 7 dwelling units and 940 SF retail at 140 Jefferson Avenue; 12 dwelling units at
26-30 Elm Street; 94 dwelling units, 2,131 SF retail, and 2,789 SF bakery at 581-599 Pennsylvania Avenue; 164,352 SF warehouse
with 8,774 SF of office at 711 Lidgerwood Avenue; 145 dwelling units and 14,600 SF of commercial at 59-81 & 74-82 Livingston
Street; a 102-seat restaurant at 735-739 Edgar Road; 19 dwelling units at 420-242 Westminster; 19 dwelling units at 225-229
Broad Street; 16 dwelling units at 424-432 Rahway Avenue; 78 dwelling units at 69-73 West Jersey Street; 16 dwelling units at
463-467 Madison Avenue; 27 dwelling units and 5,960 SF medical office at 748-762 Spring Street; 14 dwelling units and 600 SF
retail at 836-842 Spring Street; 24 dwelling units at 170-176 First Street; and a 258-unit apartment building with approximately
3,000 square feet of retail space at 250 Union Street.
Recent development includes three locations. 40 S Ave which is a mixed-use construction with 30 residential units. The new
development Soho is a four-story development with approximately 80-100 residential units along with commercial units on the
bottom. Carano Square on 105 S. Ave is two buildings with over 150 units. All three locations experience no flooding.

At 1350 Liberty Avenue, senior housing with an anchor tenant will be constructed. It is outside the flood zone.
No recent development identified by the municipality.

ft

Fanwood
Borough

New and Future Development
dwelling units at 308-312 West Jersey Street; 20 affordable units at 828 East Jersey Street; four warehouse buildings consisting
of 277,440 SF at Tern Landing; 122,446 SF self-storage building at 165 Division Street; 86 dwelling units at 705-713 Newark
Avenue; 61 dwelling units at 538-550 Morris Avenue; 9 two-family dwellings at 111-121 Miller Street; 12 dwelling units at 30-34
Bank Street; 12 dwelling units at 731-735 New Point Road; and 267 dwelling units and 11,000 SF commercial space at 100 Union
Street called Vinty.

The former Merck & Co. campus in Kenilworth will be converted to a data center and research facility. This redevelopment will
be known as the NEST campus. The plan for this development has been approved but the final agreement is not complete. PSE&G
will be readying the area’s electrical infrastructure to support the extensive energy needs of the facility. Additional anticipated
development includes a 165-unit apartment building which has been approved near Michigan and Galloping Hill. The
development includes about 15 affordable units and is not located in the floodplain.
New residential properties were built at North Wood Avenue, South West Avenue, and West Elizabeth Avenue. However, none of
these are in a floodplain.

D
ra

Municipality

The Walmart at Legacy Square will be redeveloped into the largest Walmart in the country. It is not located in a regulatory
floodplain.
In 2024, the borough constructed a new Department of Public Works facility along Route 22. The project cost $2 million and
was funded through the sale of land on Mountain Avenue which is to be the site of the Park West condominium complex. Park
West at Mountainside is a 36- unit townhome condominium development located near Mountainside Avenue and New
Providence Road in the south of town. The development is currently in the final stage of construction and expected to be
completed in 2025. This complex is not located in the floodplain.
Anticipated development includes a 20-lot subdivision of single-family homes off Route 22 off Route 22 which is in the planning
process. Not located within the floodplain.
Development under construction includes the “Bard site” (111 Spring St) along the Salt Brook. This is a townhouse and multifamily
development consisting of 192 units, including a 20% set-aside for affordable units. There is flooding and wetlands around the
creek area of the site, but this flooding does not impact the development area. The site was required to meet new DEP standards.
Another development, called Riverbend, consisting of 22 townhome units (4 of which are affordable), was recently completed.
This development is located in the floodplain. Additional development includes the Lantern Hill Senior Living Community on
Mountain Avenue, an assisted living facility which has been expanded over the years. The most recent expansion has received

Plainfield City

An additional Nursing Home in the floodplain was recently approved for expansion at 144 Gales Drive. During Hurricane, Ida
several people required rescue from this location. The Borough has since attached a 12k platform to its high-water rescue vehicle
to ensure accessibility to the elderly. A site plan application has been approved for 121 Chanlon Road in the town’s affordable
housing overlay zone. The development will consist of 83 units with 21 units set aside for affordable housing. This development
is not in an existing floodplain. As previously stated, an expansion to the Lantern Hill Senior Living Community was approved in
2023. This will be the final phase of development for the complex. This expansion has yet to begin construction but once complete,
it will contain an additional 444 independent living units. This site, however, is not located in a floodplain. A site plan was approved
by the Planning Board for a 21.5 acre site located at 70 Ryder Way. This development will include 297 residential units which
includes 59 affordable units. The development will consist of townhomes and two multi-story apartment buildings. These will
all be age-restricted rental units. The site is not located in a flood plain. In 2024, New Jersey American Water completed
replacement of approximately 3,200 feet of aging water main in New Providence. The company upgraded the aging water lines
that were installed as far back as the 1900s with new 16-inch ductile iron main along South Street / County Road 647 from
Springfield Avenue to Central Avenue. The project also includes replacing fire hydrants and utility-owned service lines along the
pipeline route. Still in the process, New Jersey American Water will replace any customer-owned service line that has been
identified as lead or galvanized as part of a statewide initiative to remove all lead and galvanized service lines by 2031.
11 residential complexes were developed on South Avenue. These are not located in a regulatory floodplain.
The DEP has restricted any residential development beyond 1000 North Avenue, because of increased flood risk. Other planned
developments include: 11 residential buildings on South Avenue, four complexes along East 3rd Street, and developments on
Roosevelt Avenue and Watching Avenue. None of these developments will be located in a regulatory floodplain.
In 2023, Merck relocated their headquarters back to their campus in Rahway, NJ. Over the company’s nearly 120-year history in
Rahway, the 200-acre site, which extends into Linden, expanded from one manufacturing plant to approximately 100 buildings.
The recent developments include a multipurpose auditorium, additional parking and a $450 million learning and manufacturing
facility. Other major developments include the construction of several multi-family residential developments including
Brownstones Phase 1 and The Mint 2. The Brownstones Phase 1, the first of two proposed phases, is situated at 1901 Elizabeth
Avenue and consists of 298 residential units. The Mint 2, the second of two phases, is situated at 84 Monroe Street and consists
of 109 residential units.

ft

O

Rahway City

New and Future Development
approval but has not yet begun construction. This development is not located in the floodplain. A Daycare Center (165 South St)
was completed in 2025; however, it is not in floodplain.

nl
y

Municipality

Roselle Park
Borough
Scotch Plains
Township

D
ra

Roselle
Borough

Vermella Rahway, which is situated along Essex Street, broke ground in 2024 and is expected to open for leasing in 2026. Vermella
Rahway consists of 164 residential units. Glendennings Homes is a public housing community located along Capobianco Plaza and
is managed by the Rahway Housing Authority. This development consists of 112 units and is scheduled to be completely replaced
in several phases over the next few years. While the unit count will remain the same, the project aims to modernize the existing
housing units and improve living conditions for residents.
There have been a few recent developments in the past five years. There were 953 apartments built on Pine Street, where certain
sections of the area fall within the FEMA flood zone. On 4th and Chestnut, 31 one-bedroom apartments were built outside of the
flood zone. On 1100 Spruce Street, 195 units were built outside of the flood zone as part of a five-story apartment building.
In the next five years, there are three anticipated developments. Borough Hall will be reconstructed at 210 Chestnut Street. 135
units are expected to be built at the Top Line Property on the 100 block of East 1st Avenue as part of a five-story apartment
building. A four-story, 55-unit multi-family dwelling will be constructed in a new development on 792 East 3rd Street. There will
also be an apartment building constructed along E Saint Georges Avenue; 195 units.
A 400-unit mixed-use development and two buildings comprising 300 units were built on Westfield Avenue. These developments
are located close to a regulatory floodplain. Additionally, there are other projects on the table for development throughout the
borough.
The township’s Third Round Affordable Housing settlement required the township to rezone several properties and areas to
permit housing at a higher density to fulfill affordable housing requirements. As required by the settlement agreement, 228
residential units are under construction on Terrill Road at the former Parker Gardens site (now Orchid Park) and 200 residential
units were constructed on Route 22 at the former Bowcraft site (now Glenside). Furthermore, the township is currently planning
towards addressing its fourth-round state-mandated affordable housing obligations received in October 2024. The township is
seeking to satisfy as much of their affordable housing obligations as possible in the downtown area to protect their wellestablished residential neighborhoods. There have been several projects (mixed-use, residential, and commercial) that have been
constructed or are currently under construction downtown. The township’s Housing Element and Fair Share Plan is due on June
30, 2025.

2.0-4

nl
y

Union
Township
Westfield
Town

The township is pretty built out, so no large-scale developments are coming. A few redevelopments are happening. The old
firehouse is one of them as the firehouse has to move simply due to age. Tyrconnell Housing will add 28 new units. This is Morris
and River Road. This area does not flood.
None identified at this time by the municipality.
The projects shown in the table below have been completed from 2021 to present.
Application
Number

Address

Application
Type

PB 22-3

440 North
Avenue
East

Preliminary
and Final
Major Site Plan

PB 21-12

516-540
North
Avenue
East

Preliminary
and Final
Major Site Plan

O

Summit City

Scotty’s Pub on Morris Avenue has been sold, and it is going to be a 55+ community with about 30 units. This area is outside the
flood zone.
Primarily redevelopment of business and corporate districts, but there is no large-scale development that added a large number
of units.

Description

Planning
Board
Approval
Date

Status

Approved
5/2/2022

Complete

Construction of 40unit building

Approved
4/4/2022

Complete

Construction of 10unit building.

Bedroom Distribution

1 Bedroom

Market
Rate
NA
NA
8 units
NA
8 units
Market
Rate
5 units
25 units
4 units
34 units
Market
Rate
10 units

2 Bedroom

84 units

19 units

3 Bedroom

36 units

7 units

Total

130 units

32 units

Unit Size

ft

Springfield
Township

New and Future Development
The NJDEP’s new Flood Hazard Area (FHA) and Stormwater Management Rules, adopted in July 2023, put a significant portion of
the township’s downtown and other parts of town in the regulated floodplain. A mixed-use downtown redevelopment project
spread across approximately nine acres area in Downtown Park Avenue toward U.S. Highway Route 22 is planned. The
redevelopment plan includes the relocation of the township’s Emergency Services (Police, Fire, OEM, Fire/EMS), currently located
in a floodplain, to township-owned property on Plainfield Avenue where a new state of the art combined facility will be
constructed. The facility is not planned in a location prone to flooding. Additionally, the township is working with a developer to
sell several large parking lots to reduce impervious surfaces and mitigate flooding in the area. Any projects that have been
constructed recently, are in the process of construction, or that will be constructed need Individual Permit approval from the
NJDEP.
A recent apartment complex was completed with retail underneath on Morris Avenue to Church Mall. A development project
called The Metropolitan was built on Millburn Avenue with 240 units. The next development of 32 units is on the Church Mall.
Both developments are outside the flood zone. Another project (The Gomes Project) on Morris Avenue, consisting of 140 units
and retail stores on the first floor, has been under construction for many years and may reach completion in the next year or two.

D
ra

Municipality

Studio
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
Total
Unit Size
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
Total
Unit Size

PB 21-09

2.0-5

522
Springfield
Avenue

PB 21-11

552-556
North
Avenue
East

PB 21-10

421-449
South
Avenue
East

Preliminary
and Final
Major Site Plan

Construction of 162
units total in three
separate buildings

Preliminary
and Final
Major Site Plan

Renovation
and
expansion of former
TD Bank building for
7,500 SF retail

Preliminary
and Final
Major Site Plan

Mixed use project
consisting of 156
residential units and
17,000 square feet of
commercial space

Approved
2/7/2022

Approved
1/26/2022

Complete

Complete

Complete

Total

NA
NA
1 units
1 units
2 units

NA
NA
9 units
1 unit
10 units

Affordable

Total

0 units
4 units
2 units
6 units

5 units
29 units
6 units
40 units

Affordable

Total

6 units

16 units
103
units
43 units
162
units

NA

Studio
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom

Market
Rate
NA
48 units
82 units
NA

Total

130 units

Unit Size
Approved
10/4/2021

Affordable

Affordable

Total

4 units
NA
16 units
6 units

4 units
48 units
98 units
6 units
156
units

26 units

Municipality

New and Future Development

PB 12-12

430-516
Central
Avenue

Preliminary
and Final
Major Site Plan
Approval

Proposed mixed-use
building containing
15,359 SF
commercial space
and 22 residential
units

Approved
11/4/2013

8 – One BR Market Rate
Complete
14 – Two BR Market Rate

The Town has adopted a redevelopment plan for a project called One Westfield Place will feature new housing, retail, and office
properties. The redevelopment plan allows for a maximum of approximately 200 residential units and approximately 200,000
square feet of commercial space along with various public improvements which include public plazas and streetscape
enhancements. Site plan approvals have not yet been obtained and construction has not yet started on this project.
Remaining major development projects anticipated to be completed in the next five (5) years include:

Application Type

Description

PB 24-005

1003
North
Avenue
West

Preliminary/Final
Major Site Plan
w/variances

Construction of a
mixed-use building
w/22 residential
units for homeless
veterans

118 Elm
St

Preliminary/Final
Major Site Plan
w/variances

Construction of a
mixed-use 3-story
building w/22
residential units over
3,863 SF retail and
parking

PB 23-04

PB 23-07

Preliminary/Final
Major Site Plan

ft

PB 23-010

500
North
Avenue
East

Construction of a
three-story
apartment building
w/29 units

D
ra

PB 23-012

418
South
Ave
East;
448
South
Ave
East;
338
Windsor
Ave

184 Elm
Street

Preliminary/Final
Major Site Plan

Preliminary and
Final Major Site
Plan

Planning
Board
Approval
Date

Status

Bedroom Distribution

22 - special needs units

11/4/2024

Applicant
seeking project
financing

Approved
10/16/2023

Under
Construction

Approved
12/4/2023

Unit Size
Applicant
revising plans to 1 Bedroom
meet conditions
2 Bedroom
of approval
3 Bedroom

Approved

nl
y

Address

O

Application
Number

Construction of three
story
apartment
building with 37 units

Two story addition
onto
existing
building. Two ground
floor
commercial
tenant spaces (5,962
SF total) and a total of
10 dwelling units on
upper stories

6 – Two BR Market Rate

Total

Approved
6/5/2023

Under
Construction

Applicant
determining
project start
date

Market
Rate

Affordable

19 units

1 unit

5 units
0 units

3 units
1 unit

24 units

5 units

Studio

Market
Rate
NA

1 Bedroom

12 units

NA

2 Bedroom

19 units

3 units

3 Bedroom

NA

2 units

Total

31 units

6 units

Unit Size

Approved
7/17/2023

16 – One BR Market Rate

Total
20
units
8 units
1 unit
29
units

Affordable

Total

1 unit

1 unit
12
units
22
units
2 units
37
units

6 – One BR Market Rate
4 – Two BR Market Rate

2.0-6

Municipality

New and Future Development

PB 22-9

PB 22-11

201 and
215
Prospect
Street;
112
Ferris
Place

Preliminary and
Final Major Site
Plan

Preliminary &
Final Major Site
Plan

Applicant proposes to
construct a new
mixed-use building
and parking. New
building will have 500
SF commercial / retail
on 1st floor and 60
apartments in total.

Approved
10/3/2022

16 – One BR Market Rate

Under
Construction

4 – Two BR Market Rate

Studio

Market
Rate
NA

1 Bedroom

29 units

1

2 Bedroom

22 units

6 units

3 Bedroom

NA

2 units

Total

51 units

9 units

Unit Size

Approved
8/1/2022

Under
Construction

Affordable

Total

NA

NA
30
units
28
units
2 units
60
units

The township is built out. Due to the unique nature of landownership in the town almost no new development is allowed,
although residents can make some improvements.

nl
y

Winfield
Township

415-427
South
Avenue
W

Applicant proposes to
construct a new
mixed-use building
and parking. New
building will have
5,233
SF
of
commercial / retail
on 1st floor and 20
apartments in total
on 2nd and 3rd
floors.

CHANGES IN LAND USE/LAND COVER

O

Land use/land cover within Union County has remained relatively consistent since the last HMP Update, which used New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 2012 data. According to Table 2.2-2 Land Cover Changes Since 2015
In Union County, the County’s urban footprint decreased by less than 0.1%. Local and state protections advance the aim
for this type of development not to increase flood, wind, or earthquake risk to existing or new property owners.

Land Cover Type

2015 (Acres)

ft

Table 2.2-2 Land Cover Changes Since 2015 in Union County

Percent Change

2020 (Acres)

Percent Change

D
ra

Agriculture
86.6
0.4%
79.8
-7.9%
Barren Land
778.6
12.1%
868.1
11.5%
Forest
6,082.8
-1.0%
6,007.1
-1.2%
Urban
55,689
0.0%
55,723.4
<1%
Water
1,910.9
-1.6%
1,908.2
<1%
Wetlands
2,903.3
0.1%
2,864.8
-1.3%
Source: New Jersey DEP DOIT BGIS 2025 Land Use/Land Cover 2020 Update. This report was developed using New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection Geographic Information System digital data, but this secondary product has not been verified by New Jersey DEP and is not state-authorized
or endorsed.

In New Jersey, housing and land use have been significantly impacted by affordable housing litigation and subsequent
legislation. The Mount Laurel IV Declaratory Judgment Process commenced in 2015 as a result of the responsibility for
determining municipal affordable housing obligations and implementation of municipal housing elements and fair share
plans pursuant to the Fair Housing Act being placed under the jurisdiction of the State Supreme Court, in response to a
failure by the State Council on Affordable Housing to adopt updated Substantive and Procedural Rules and lack of a
legislative solution. As the Declaratory Judgment Process continues, increasing numbers of municipalities in Union County
and other areas of the State are reaching settlements with the Fair Share Housing Center and are adopting amended third
round housing elements and fair share plans which describe municipal affordable housing obligations through 2025.

2.0-7

2.3 HMP EVALUATION: CHANGES IN PRIORITIES
This section reflects changes in priorities, including HMP Goals and Objectives and Hazard Identification.

CHANGES IN HMP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
One of the first steps in updating this HMP was to meet with the Steering Committee and review the 2021 HMP Goals,
which are general guidelines that explain what Union County wants to achieve through this plan. Goals are expressed as
broad policy statements representing desired long-term results. Objectives are well-defined intermediate points in the
process of achieving goals and are generally coterminous with strategies. Mitigation Actions are the specific steps (projects,
policies, strategies, and programs) that advance a given objective. They are highly focused, specific, and measurable.

nl
y

After evaluating the previous HMP goals, the Steering Committee discussed what has occurred in Union County since the
last plan update and maintained the 2021 HMP Goals and Objectives continue to address the risk that the County faces
and therefore did not make any changes to the Goals and Objectives. The Steering Committee highlighted the importance
of data sharing and collaboration with other counties. The Goals and Objectives for the 2026 Union County HMP are listed
in Table 2.3-1 HMP Goals and Objectives.
Table 2.3-1 HMP Goals and Objectives
Goal

Objective

Objective 1.A: Increase awareness of risks and understanding of the advantages of mitigation
by the general public and local government officials.
Objective 1.B: Increase local government official awareness regarding funding opportunities for
mitigation.
Objective 1.C: Increase local government official awareness regarding opportunities for
participation in and contributing to future Plan updates.

Goal 2:
Improve data collection, use, and sharing to
reduce the impact of hazards

Objective 2.A: Improve availability of the county and participating municipalities to collect data
related to all relevant hazards for use in future planning efforts.
Objective 2.B: Provide government officials and local practitioners with educational
opportunities and information regarding best practices for hazard mitigation planning, project
identification, and implementation.
Objective 2.C: Acquire and maintain detailed data regarding critical facilities such that these
sites can be prioritized and risk-assessed for possible mitigation actions.

Goal 3:
Improve capabilities, coordination, and
opportunities at municipal and county levels
to plan and implement hazard mitigation
projects, programs, and activities.

Objective 3.A: Continue support of hazard mitigation planning, project identification, and
implementation at the municipal and county level.
Objective 3.B: Support increased NFIP/CRS participation.
Objective 3.C: Support increased integration of municipal/county hazard mitigation planning
and floodplain management with effective municipal/ county zoning regulation, subdivision
regulation, and comprehensive planning.
Objective 3.D: Elicit and support efforts to address shortcomings in existing laws, programs, and
administrative rules related to hazard mitigation.
Objective 3.E: Provide for user-friendly hazard-data accessibility for mitigation and other
planning efforts and for private citizens.
Objective 3.F: Provide direct support, where possible, to municipal mitigation programs.
Objective 3.G: Provide opportunities for neighboring communities, agencies, businesses,
academia, nonprofits, and other interested parties to be involved in the plan update process.
Objective 4.A: Facilitate development and timely submittal of project applications meeting state
and federal guidelines for funding (1) for RL and SRL properties and (2) for hardening /
retrofitting infrastructure and critical facilities with highest vulnerability ratings.
Objective 4.B: Maintain and enhance local planning and regulatory standards related to future
development and investments.

D
ra

ft

O

Goal 1:
Improve education and outreach efforts
regarding potential impacts of hazards and the
identification of specific measures that can be
taken to reduce their impact.

Goal 4:
Pursue opportunities to mitigate repetitive
and severe repetitive loss properties and other
appropriate hazard mitigation projects,
programs, and activities.

2.0-8

Goal

Objective

Goal 5:
Mitigate High Hazard-Potential Dams within
the County

Objective 5.A: Repair or rehabilitate high hazard-potential dams.

CHANGES IN HAZARD RANKINGS
The hazards the Steering Committee decided to evaluate as part of this plan update are listed in Table 2.3-2 Hazard
Identification Crosswalk. In the initial phase of the planning process, the Steering Committee evaluated the hazards
profiled in the 2021 plan and determined that the same 15 natural hazards and 10 human-caused hazards from the 2021
plan should be profiled for the 2026 HMP. However, the ranking of the 25 hazards changed slightly from the previous plan,
which were reevaluated by the Steering Committee in the Spring of 2025. Table 2.3-2 Hazard Ranking Crosswalk details
the changes in hazard ranking from 2021 to 2026.
Table 2.3-2 Hazard Ranking Crosswalk
2021 Hazards Profiled

nl
y

O

ft

D
ra

Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake/Geological
Erosion–Hurricane/Nor’easter/Coastal Storm
Extreme Temperature–Cold
Extreme Temperature – Heat
Flood
Hail
High Wind – Straight-Line Winds
High Wind – Tornado
Landslide (non-seismic)
Severe Storm – Lightning
Severe Storm – Winter Weather
(Includes Ice Storm)
Storm Surge –Hurricane/Nor’easter/Tropical Storm
Wildfire

2021 Hazard Ranking
Natural Hazards
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
High
High
High
Medium
High
Medium
Low
Low
High

High
Low
Human-Based Hazards
High
High
Low
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
High
High
High

Hazardous Materials Release – Fixed Site
Hazardous Materials Release – Transportation
Animal Disease
Civil Unrest
Cyber Attack
Economic Collapse
Nuclear Hazards
Pandemic
Power Failure
Terrorism
Notes:
Impacts from Climate Change and Sea Level Rise are addressed in each applicable hazard.
* hazard ranking change

2.0-9

2026 Hazard Ranking
Medium
Medium
Low
High*
High
High
High
Medium
High
Low*
Low
Low
High
High
Medium*
High
High
Low
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
High
High
High

2.4 HMP IMPLEMENTATION: PROGRESS IN LOCAL MITIGATION EFFORTS
As required by FEMA, Union County and its 21 municipalities completed an evaluation of the mitigation strategies and
actions from the 2021 plan and reported on the status of each, either as Ongoing, Completed, or Withdrawn. The table
below highlighted completed mitigation actions since the last plan update in 2021.
Table 2.4-1 Municipal Mitigation Strategy Summary

Berkeley Heights
Township

Action 01-02
Action 01-04

Action 01-05

Berkeley Heights
Township
Berkeley Heights
Township

Action 01-06

Clark Township

Action 02-01

Clark Township

Action 02-02

Acquire Homes at Robbins Avenue and
Springfield Intersection.
Flood-proof Town Hall Building Which
Houses Police Department/Data Storage.
Upgrade and Improve the Stormwater
Management System for the Berkeley Hall
Nursing Home.
Update Municipal Stormwater Control
Ordinance Based on Appendix D: Model
Stormwater Control Ordinance for
Municipalities of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual to Reflect Amendments to the
Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C.
7:8, Adopted March 2, 2020.
Flood-proof Homes Along 400 and 600
River Road.
Relocate Municipal Facilities Outside of
Flood-prone Areas.
Purchase and Install Generators for Police
Station and Fire Station Headquarters and
Fire Station #2.
Repair, Remove, or Rehabilitate the
Robinson's Branch Reservoir Dam.

D
ra

Action 01-07

Completed Action Description

Clark Township

Action 02-03

Cranford Township

Action 03-02

Cranford Township

Action 03-03

Cranford Township

Action 03-05

Cranford Township

Action 03-06

Update Municipal Stormwater Control
Ordinance Based on Appendix D: Model
Stormwater Control Ordinance for
Municipalities of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual to Reflect Amendments to the
Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C.
7:8, Adopted March 2, 2020.
Upgrade and Improve the Stormwater
Management System for the Municipal
Building Which Houses the Police
Department.
Purchase and Install Backup Generator for
Fire Department.
Upgrade Gate System at Hansel's Dam.
Inflow and Infiltration Phase 1
Cranford Avenue Drainage Improvements

Cranford Township

Action 03-07

Acquire homes at Robbins Avenue and Springfield
intersection.
Flood-proof Town Hall Building which houses Police
Department/Data Storage.
Upgrade and improve the stormwater management
system for the Berkeley Hall Nursing Home.
The sample ordinance represents the minimum
standards and expectations, except where noted
otherwise. A municipality may choose stronger or
additional measures in order to address local water
quality and flooding conditions as well as other
environmental and community needs. The sample
ordinances located in Appendix D of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.
Flood-proof homes along 400 and 600 River Road.

nl
y

Berkeley Heights
Township

Action 01-01

Completed Action Name

O

Berkeley Heights
Township
Berkeley Heights
Township

Completed
Action #

ft

Jurisdiction

Relocate municipal facilities outside of flood-prone
areas. Facilities in need of relocation include the Police
Department, Town Hall, DPW, and Library.
Purchase and Install Generators for Police Station and
Fire Station Headquarters and Fire Station #2.
Repair, remove, or rehabilitate Robinson's Branch
Reservoir Dam, a High-Hazard Potential Dam, located
along Robinson's Branch.
The sample ordinance represents the minimum
standards and expectations, except where noted
otherwise. A municipality may choose stronger or
additional measures in order to address local water
quality and flooding conditions as well as other
environmental and community needs. The sample
ordinances located in Appendix D of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.
Storm-water management system upgrade and
improvement for the Municipal Building which houses
the Police Department.
Purchase and Install Backup Generator for Fire
Department.
Upgrade gate system at Hansel's Dam.
Installation of approximately 3,000 LF of storm
conveyance pipe and associated drainage structures.
Improvements include roadway reconstruction, milling
and paving, HMA overlay, base repair, curb installation,
modular block retaining walls, construction of ADAcompliant ramps, upgrading inlets with eco curb pieces,

2.0-10

Jurisdiction

Completed
Action #

Completed Action Name

Completed Action Description

Kensington Avenue and Edgar Avenue
Drainage Improvements
Cranford Township

Action 03-08

Elizabeth City

Action 04-01

Upgrade and/or Repair Ursino Dam.

Elizabeth City

Action 04-02

Upgrade the South Second Street Pump
Station, Install a New Generator and
Improve Local Storm Sewers.

Elizabeth City

Action 04-03

Elizabeth City

Action 04-04

Elizabeth City

Action 04-05

O

Construct an Emergency Response
Ambulance Canopy.

Garwood Borough
Hillside Township

Kenilworth Borough

Kenilworth Borough

2.0-11

D
ra

Fanwood Borough

Action 04-06

ft

Continue to Revise Municipal Stormwater
Control Ordinances as New State
Regulations are Adopted.
Elizabeth City

Upgrade the South Second Street Pump Station, install a
new generator and improve local storm sewers to get
more flow to the station to control flooding and provide
for continuity of service at the pump station during
power failure.
Upgrade and repair of storm drains and sewers along
Decker Ave. to eliminate backups.
Conduct a citywide public communication campaign to
increase emerging disease outbreaks and epidemics.
Provide links from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) and links regarding vaccinations to reduce illness
and death.
Construct an emergency response ambulance canopy to
provide overhead protection for emergency vehicles
during severe winter weather events.
The City updated their stormwater ordinances based on
Appendix D: Model Stormwater Control Ordinance for
Municipalities of the New Jersey Stormwater Best
Management Practices Manual to Reflect Amendments
to the Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C. 7:8,
Adopted March 2, 2020. As new sample ordinances
come out, the City should continue to update their
stormwater
ordinances.
The sample ordinance represents the minimum
standards and expectations, except where noted
otherwise. A municipality may choose stronger or
additional measures in order to address local water
quality and flooding conditions as well as other
environmental and community needs. The sample
ordinances located in Appendix D of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.

nl
y

Upgrade and Repair Storm Drains and
Sewers along Decker Ave.
Conduct a Citywide Public Communication
Campaign to increase Emerging Disease
Outbreaks and Epidemics.

driveway replacement, grading and drainage
improvements
Installation of approximately 850 LF of storm
conveyance pipe and associated drainage structures.
Improvements also included, milling and paving, HMA
overlay, base repair, curb installation, and construction
of ADA-compliant ramps.
Upgrade and/or repairs of the local dam.

Update Municipal Stormwater Control
Ordinance Based on Appendix D: Model
Stormwater Control Ordinance for
Municipalities of the New Jersey
Action 05-02
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual to Reflect Amendments to the
Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C.
7:8, Adopted March 2, 2020.
No completed mitigation actions since 2021.
No completed mitigation actions since 2021.
Update Municipal Stormwater Control
Ordinance Based on Appendix D: Model
Stormwater Control Ordinance for
Municipalities of the New Jersey
Action 08-01
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual to Reflect Amendments to the
Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C.
7:8, Adopted March 2, 2020.
Improve Maintenance of Brook near GSP
Action 08-02

The sample ordinance represents the minimum
standards and expectations, except where noted
otherwise. A municipality may choose stronger or
additional measures in order to address local water
quality and flooding conditions as well as other
environmental and community needs. The sample
ordinances located in Appendix D of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.
There is a 10-foot-wide area that requires minor
cleaning. It is located near a repetitive loss area where

Jurisdiction

Completed
Action #

Completed Action Name

Completed Action Description

Flood-proof Department of Public Works

water comes off the parkway. The area was last cleaned
out about 15-20 years ago
Flood-proof Department of Public Works.
In coordination with Rutgers University, restore
wetlands, conduct drainage improvements, and conduct
bird surveys near Marshes Creek.
Back-up generator for City Hall.

Linden City

Action 09-02

Linden City

Action 09-06

Linden City

Action 09-07

Restore Wetlands, Conduct Drainage
Improvements, and Conduct Bird Surveys
Near Marshes Creek
Purchase a Backup Generator for City Hall.

Linden City

Action 09-08

Replace Range Road Bridge.

Replace Range Road Bridge to eliminate flood risk.
Acquisition of Repetitive and Severe Repetitive Loss
Residential Properties on Madison Street, Main Street,
Irene Street, Arthur Street, and Parkway Avenue.

Action 09-10

Mountainside
Borough

Action 10-01

Mountainside
Borough

Action 10-02

Replace the Grate at the End of Charles
Street Creek.

O

Action 09-09

ft

Linden City

Action 10-03

Mountainside
Borough

Action 10-04

New Providence
Borough

Update Municipal Stormwater Control
Ordinance Based on Appendix D: Model
Stormwater Control Ordinance for
Municipalities of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual to Reflect Amendments to the
Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C.
7:8
Purchase and Install a Generator for
Borough Hall.
Repair, Remove, or Rehabilitate the
Clearwater Detention Dam.

D
ra

Mountainside
Borough

Action 11-01

New Providence
Borough

Action 11-02

New Providence
Borough

Action 11-03

The sample ordinance represents the minimum
standards and expectations, except where noted
otherwise. A municipality may choose stronger or
additional measures in order to address local water
quality and flooding conditions as well as other
environmental and community needs. The sample
ordinances located in Appendix D of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.
Install emergency backup generator at Mountainside
Rescue Squad EOC (1399 Route 22 East) to power the
entire building, allowing the rescue squad to provide
essential services during storms regardless of a major
power outage.
Install new grate at the end of Charles Street Creek to
address flood risk by maintaining flow of water and
clearing debris.
The sample ordinance represents the minimum
standards and expectations, except where noted
otherwise. A municipality may choose stronger or
additional measures in order to address local water
quality and flooding conditions as well as other
environmental

nl
y

Linden City

Acquire Repetitive and Severe Repetitive
Loss Residential Properties on Madison
Street, Main Street, Irene Street, Arthur
Street, and Parkway Avenue.
Update Municipal Stormwater Control
Ordinance Based on Appendix D: Model
Stormwater Control Ordinance for
Municipalities of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual to Reflect Amendments to the
Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C.
7:8, Adopted March 2, 2020.
Install Emergency Backup Generator at
Mountainside Rescue Squad EOC (1399
Route 22 East).

Replace the Mee Lane Pedestrian Bridge to
Allow for Continuity of Operations during a
Hazard Event.

Update Municipal Stormwater Control
Ordinance Based on Appendix D: Model

Purchase and Install a Generator for Borough Hall.
Repair, remove, or rehabilitate Clearwater Detention
Dam, a High-Hazard Potential Dam, located along Salt
Brook. Recently, some work was completed to the dam
to reduce the risk of dam failure and flooding. The
projects include cleaning out the emergency dam
spillway, gabion baskets, remove and replace trash
racks, and repaired the scour of the dam inlet and
outlets
Replace the Mee Lane Pedestrian Bridge with an
elevated and wider bridge that can accommodate
emergency vehicles. And be above the BFE. The
pedestrian bridge connects to the rear of the New
Providence High School and an upgraded bridge would
allow improved emergency response
The sample ordinance represents the minimum
standards and expectations, except where noted

2.0-12

Completed
Action #

Plainfield City

Action 12-01

Plainfield City

Action 12-02

Plainfield City

Action 12-04

Plainfield City

Action 12-06

Plainfield City

Action 12-07
Action 12-08

Completed Action Description

Stormwater Control Ordinance for
Municipalities of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual to Reflect Amendments to the
Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C.
7:8, Adopted March 2, 2020.
Obtain Backup Power or Bury Lines for Fire
Station on Central Avenue.
Obtain Backup Power or Bury Lines for Fire
Station at Bergen and 3rd.
Obtain Backup Power or Bury Lines for Fire
Station at South Avenue and Belvedere.
Install emergency generator at Warming
Center (Welcome Center) at Senior Citizens
Building - 400 East Front St.
Stabilize and Augment the Streambanks of
Cedar Brook to Protect the Apartment
Complexes at Rose and Randolf Road.
Update Municipal Stormwater Control
Ordinance Based on Appendix D: Model
Stormwater Control Ordinance for
Municipalities of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual to Reflect Amendments to the
Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C.
7:8, Adopted March 2, 2020.
Update the City's Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance to Conform to NJDEP's Model
Ordinance Standards.

otherwise. A municipality may choose stronger or
additional measures in order to address local water
quality and flooding conditions as well as other
environmental and community needs. The sample
ordinances located in Appendix D of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.
Obtain backup power or bury lines for Fire Station on
Central Avenue.
Obtain backup power or bury lines for Fire Station at
Bergen and 3rd.
Obtain backup power or bury lines for Fire Station at
South Avenue and Belvedere.
Install emergency generator at Warming Center
(Welcome Center) at Senior Citizens Building - 400 East
Front St.
Stabilize and augment the streambanks of Cedar Brook
to protect the apartment complexes at Rose and
Randolf Road.
The sample ordinance represents the minimum
standards and expectations, except where noted
otherwise. A municipality may choose stronger or
additional measures in order to address local water
quality and flooding conditions as well as other
environmental and community needs. The sample
ordinances located in Appendix D of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.
Update the city's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
to conform to NJDEP's model ordinance standards to
reduce flood risk and prevent flood damage in Rahway
City.
The sample ordinance represents the minimum
standards and expectations, except where noted
otherwise. A municipality may choose stronger or
additional measures in order to address local water
quality and flooding conditions as well as other
environmental and community needs. The sample
ordinances located in Appendix D of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.

O

Plainfield City

Completed Action Name

nl
y

Jurisdiction

Action 13-01

ft

Rahway City

Roselle Borough
Roselle Park Borough
Roselle Park Borough

D
ra

Rahway City

Update Municipal Stormwater Control
Ordinance Based on Appendix D: Model
Stormwater Control Ordinance for
Municipalities of the New Jersey
Action 13-02
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual to Reflect Amendments to the
Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C.
7:8, Adopted March 2, 2020.
No completed mitigation actions since 2021.
Flood-proof the Chestnut Street Fire
Action 15-01
Station.
Action 15-02 Flood-proof the Lorane Fire House.

Roselle Park Borough

Action 15-03

Roselle Park Borough

Action 15-05

Roselle Park Borough

Action 15-06

Roselle Park Borough

Action 15-07

Roselle Park Borough

Action 15-08

Roselle Park Borough

Action 15-10

2.0-13

Flood-proof the Chestnut Street fire station.
Flood-proof the Lorane Fire House

Retrofit Roof to Meet Current High Wind
Standards on the Faitoute Fire House
Mitigate Flooding of the Sherman School.

Retrofit roof to meet current high wind standards on the
Faitoute Fire House
Mitigate flooding of the Sherman School.

Obtain Backup Power to the Roselle Parks
Middles School.
Obtain Backup Power for and Retrofit the
Aldine School.
Obtain Backup Power for and Retrofit
Roselle Park High School.
Impact Harden and Retrofit Roofs on 4
Schools Located on West Grant Ave (2
Facilities), Laurel Ave, and Chestnut Ave.

Backup power to the Roselle Parks Middles School.
Backup power/retrofitting of the Aldine School.
Backup power/retrofitting of Roselle Park High School.
Impact Harden and retrofit roofs on 4 schools located on
West Grant Ave (2 facilities), Laurel Ave, and Chestnut
Ave.

Action 15-11

Roselle Park Borough

Action 15-12

Roselle Park Borough

Scotch Plains
Township
Scotch Plains
Township

Action 15-13

Action 16-02
Action 16-03

Scotch Plains
Township

Action 16-04

Scotch Plains
Township

Action 16-06

Action 17-01

Springfield Township

Action 17-02

Springfield Township

Rebuild Trash Racks with Stronger Material
to Prevent Debris from Clogging Drains at
the Walnut St. Basin.
Join CRS Program.

Walnut St Basin (Rebuild trash racks with stronger
material to prevent debris from clogging drains).

Update Municipal Stormwater Control
Ordinance Based on Appendix D: Model
Stormwater Control Ordinance for
Municipalities of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual to Reflect Amendments to the
Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C.
7:8, Adopted March 2, 2020.
Install Generator at Municipal Building.

The sample ordinance represents the minimum
standards and expectations, except where noted
otherwise. A municipality may choose stronger or
additional measures in order to address local water
quality and flooding conditions as well as other
environmental and community needs. The sample
ordinances located in Appendix D of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.
Install generator at municipal building.

Restore Eroded Streambanks Upstream of
Raritan Rd. Pump Station.
Increase Drainage in the Southeast
quadrant of the Township near Ash Brook
Reservation to Mitigate Flooding to the
Surrounding Repetitive Loss (RL) Properties.
Upgrade EOC.

Restore eroded streambanks upstream of pump station.

Purchase and Install a Backup Generator for
Independence Way to Ensure Continuity of
Operations at the Springfield Senior
Citizens Housing Facility.
Purchase and Install a Generator at the
Freeman Apartments at 41 Hillside Avenue.

The Springfield Senior Citizens Housing Facility is located
on Independence Way. A backup generator is necessary
to ensure the safety of the residents in the facility
during a disaster, despite a power outage.
Purchase and install a generator as the Freeman
Apartments at 41 Hillside Avenue to ensure continuity of
operations at the facility during a disaster, despite a
power outage.
Purchase a light tower to help DPW provide essential
services during emergencies and nighttime hours.

Purchase a Light Tower to Help the
Department of Public Works (DPW) Provide
Essential Services During Emergencies and
Nighttime Hours.
Update Municipal Stormwater Control
Ordinance Based on Appendix D: Model
Stormwater Control Ordinance for
Municipalities of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual to Reflect Amendments to the
Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C.
7:8, Adopted March 2, 2020.
Purchase and Install a Backup Generator for
the Department of Public Works.
Improve Drainage/Conveyance Along
Plymouth Road, Memorial Field House,
Laurel Avenue, Community Pool, Waldron
Avenue, Kent Place Boulevard, Edgemont
Avenue, and W End Avenue.
Retrofit and Reconstruct the Fire
Department Building.

D
ra

Springfield Township

Completed Action Description

Action 17-03

Springfield Township

Action 17-04

Summit City

Action 18-01

Summit City

Action 18-04

Summit City

Action 18-07

Summit City

Action 18-08

Join CRS Program.

Address repetitive loss properties by increasing drainage
under bridge on Carriage Drive/Cellar Avenue (i.e.
sediment
removal).
Upgrade EOC.

nl
y

Roselle Park Borough

Completed Action Name

O

Completed
Action #

ft

Jurisdiction

Construct Spillway Improvements at River
Road.

The sample ordinance represents the minimum
standards and expectations, except where noted
otherwise. A municipality may choose stronger or
additional measures in order to address local water
quality and flooding conditions as well as other
environmental and community needs. The sample
ordinances located in Appendix D of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.
Backup generator for the Department of Public Works.
Improve drainage/conveyance along Plymouth Road,
Memorial Field House, Laurel Avenue, Community Pool,
Waldron Avenue, Kent Place Boulevard, Edgemont
Avenue, W End Avenue.
Retrofit and reconstruct the Fire Department Building to
prevent wind damage and ensure continuity of
operations during storms.
Construct spillway improvements at River Road to
reduce flooding.

2.0-14

Jurisdiction

Completed
Action #

Summit City

Action 18-09

Summit City

Action 18-10

Completed Action Name

Completed Action Description

Update Municipal Stormwater Control
Ordinance Based on Appendix D: Model
Stormwater Control Ordinance for
Municipalities of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual to Reflect Amendments to the
Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C.
7:8, Adopted March 2, 2020.
Conduct a Full Tree Survey/Inventory
Assessment Along City ROWs.

The sample ordinance represents the minimum
standards and expectations, except where noted
otherwise. A municipality may choose stronger or
additional measures in order to address local water
quality and flooding conditions as well as other
environmental and community needs. The sample
ordinances located in Appendix D of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.
The City Forester completes an annual windshield
survey of the City-owned trees annually. Due to
significant impact from storms over the last decade, a
full assessment will be done upon completion of the
City’s GIS system scheduled to take place in 2021.
Stormwater management system upgrade and
improvement for Carol Road, Audrey Terrace, Eleanor
Terrace, Liberty Avenue, Lori Court, and Mount Vernon
Road.

Action 19-01

Union Township

Action 19-02

Union Township

Action 19-03

Harden and Retrofit of Municipal Building.

Hardening/retrofitting of Municipal Building.

Union Township

Action 19-04

Conduct all-hazards public education and outreach
program for hazard mitigation and preparedness.

Union Township

Action 19-05

Union Township

Action 19-06

Union Township

Action 19-07

Conduct all-hazards public education and
outreach program for hazard mitigation and
preparedness.
Purchase New Emergency Standby
Generator for Firehouse Headquarters.
Purchase New Emergency Standby
Generator for Senior Center.
Repair Retaining Walls on Various Streams
Throughout the Township.

Union Township

Action 19-08

Union Township

Action 19-09

Action 20-01

Westfield Town

Action 20-02

2.0-15

O

ft

Purchase New Emergency Standby
Generator for Police Department.
Repair Irvington Branch Retaining Wall.

D
ra

Westfield Town

Winfield Township

nl
y

Union Township

Upgrade and Improve Stormwater
Management System for Carol Road,
Audrey Terrace, Eleanor Terrace, Liberty
Avenue, Lori Court, and Mount Vernon
Road.
Harden and Retrofit Police Department.

Action 21-01

Update Municipal Stormwater Control
Ordinance Based on Appendix D: Model
Stormwater Control Ordinance for
Municipalities of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual to Reflect Amendments to the
Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C.
7:8, Adopted March 2, 2020.
Implement the Mitigation Actions from the
Resiliency Guidelines prepared by the
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
(C2ES) to Adapt to Future Extreme Heat
and Flooding Hazards.
Update Municipal Stormwater Control
Ordinance Based on Appendix D: Model
Stormwater Control Ordinance for
Municipalities of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual to Reflect Amendments to the
Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C.
7:8, Adopted March 2, 2020.

Hardening/retrofitting of Police Department.

New Emergency Standby Generator – Firehouse
Headquarters
New Emergency Standby Generator – Senior Center
Repair retaining walls on various streams throughout
the Township to ensure they remain functional during
future flood events.
New Emergency Standby Generator – Police Department
Irvington Branch Retaining Wall Repairs
The sample ordinance represents the minimum
standards and expectations, except where noted
otherwise. A municipality may choose stronger or
additional measures in order to address local water
quality and flooding conditions as well as other
environmental and community needs. The sample
ordinances located in Appendix D of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.
The town will review the resiliency guidelines prepared
by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES)
and implement the mitigation actions to adapt to power
outages, extreme heat, and flooding
The sample ordinance represents the minimum
standards and expectations, except where noted
otherwise. A municipality may choose stronger or
additional measures in order to address local water
quality and flooding conditions as well as other
environmental and community needs. The sample
ordinances located in Appendix D of the New Jersey
Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual.

Upgrade Facilities for Potential Heating and
Cooling Centers to Protect Persons from
Extreme Temperature Events.

Upgrade facilities for potential heating and cooling
centers to protect persons from extreme temperature
events. Facilities under consideration are the Senior
Center and Community Center.
Install a fiber loop throughout each county complex in
Union County to provide enhanced communication
between government facilities, ensure continuity of
operations during power failure, and enhance security
to prevent against a cyber-attack.

Install a Fiber Loop Throughout Each
County Complex to Provide Enhanced
Communication Between Government
Facilities, Ensure Continuity of Operations
During Power Failure, and Enhance Security
to Prevent Against a Cyber Attack.

nl
y

Action 23-07

Completed Action Description

O

Union County

Action 21-02

Completed Action Name

ft

Winfield Township

Completed
Action #

D
ra

Jurisdiction

2.0-16

nl
y
O
ft
ra
D

3.0 MITIGATION
STRATEGY

Plainfield, NJ

3.0 MITIGATION STRATEGY
3.1 OVERVIEW
The Mitigation Strategy outlined in Section 3.0 of this plan is Union County’s blueprint for reducing potential future losses
from hazards. The Mitigation Strategy provides information to guide county and municipal decision making regarding the
protection of community lifelines and critical facilities. The Mitigation Strategy consists of:
•

Union County’s Hazard Mitigation Goals and Objectives that help guide the selection of activities that will mitigate
identified hazards and reduce future losses (located in Section 2.0); and

•

Strategies that lead to the identification, evaluation, and prioritization of mitigation actions. The County’s
mitigation strategies are located in this section while each municipality’s mitigation strategies are located in
Appendices Vol. I – Jurisdictional Information.

O

nl
y

The Steering Committee Kickoff Meeting, which occurred on May 9, 2024, began the discussion of updating the mitigation
strategy. The Steering Committee evaluated the previous HMP goals and objectives and maintained them as they continue
to reflect the current risk and vulnerabilities that face the County. The Steering Committee also decided the best planning
methodology to update the strategy is to individually discuss potential future risks affecting each community and develop
specific mitigation actions to address those risks using the New Jersey State Hazard Mitigation Plan’s 2024 Mitigation Action
Prioritization Tool (MAP-T). This section further describes the strategy in developing County and municipal mitigation
actions.

ft

Section 3.0 Mitigation Strategy includes the following information:
• Hazard Mitigation Plan Goals and Objectives (Section 3.2)
• Evaluation and prioritization of mitigation actions (Section 3.3)
• The municipal mitigation strategy summary (Section 3.4)
• Union County’s mitigation actions (Appendices Volume I. Jurisdictional Information – 23. Union County)

ra

3.2 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

D

As discussed in the previous section, Union County’s mitigation goals and objectives are the same as the 2021 update.
Table 3.2-1 HMP Goals and Objectives
Goal

Objective

Goal 1:
Improve education and outreach efforts
regarding potential impacts of hazards and the
identification of specific measures that can be
taken to reduce their impact.

Objective 1.A: Increase awareness of risks and understanding of the advantages of mitigation
by the general public and local government officials.
Objective 1.B: Increase local government official awareness regarding funding opportunities for
mitigation.
Objective 1.C: Increase local government official awareness regarding opportunities for
participation in and contributing to future Plan updates.

Goal 2:
Improve data collection, use, and sharing to
reduce the impact of hazards

Objective 2.A: Improve availability of the county and participating municipalities to collect data
related to all relevant hazards for use in future planning efforts.
Objective 2.B: Provide government officials and local practitioners with educational
opportunities and information regarding best practices for hazard mitigation planning, project
identification, and implementation.
Objective 2.C: Acquire and maintain detailed data regarding critical facilities such that these
sites can be prioritized and risk-assessed for possible mitigation actions.

Goal 3:
Improve capabilities, coordination, and
opportunities at municipal and county levels

Objective 3.A: Continue support of hazard mitigation planning, project identification, and
implementation at the municipal and county level.
Objective 3.B: Support increased NFIP/CRS participation.

3.0-2

Goal

Objective

to plan and implement hazard mitigation
projects, programs, and activities.

Objective 3.C: Support increased integration of municipal/county hazard mitigation planning
and floodplain management with effective municipal/ county zoning regulation, subdivision
regulation, and comprehensive planning.
Objective 3.D: Elicit and support efforts to address shortcomings in existing laws, programs, and
administrative rules related to hazard mitigation.
Objective 3.E: Provide for user-friendly hazard-data accessibility for mitigation and other
planning efforts and for private citizens.
Objective 3.F: Provide direct support, where possible, to municipal mitigation programs.
Objective 3.G: Provide opportunities for neighboring communities, agencies, businesses,
academia, nonprofits, and other interested parties to be involved in the plan update process.
Objective 4.A: Facilitate development and timely submittal of project applications meeting state
and federal guidelines for funding (1) for RL and SRL properties and (2) for hardening /
retrofitting infrastructure and critical facilities with highest vulnerability ratings.
Objective 4.B: Maintain and enhance local planning and regulatory standards related to future
development and investments.

Goal 4:
Pursue opportunities to mitigate repetitive
and severe repetitive loss properties and other
appropriate hazard mitigation projects,
programs, and activities.
Goal 5:
Mitigate High Hazard-Potential Dams within
the County

Objective 5.A: Repair or rehabilitate high hazard-potential dams.

nl
y

3.3 EVALUATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION ACTIONS
When the Project Team met with the municipalities and the County, each mitigation action was discussed and updated
based on their current status. The status evaluation includes completed, ongoing, withdrawn, or new.

ft

O

Completed: The County and each municipality established which mitigation actions were successfully completed over the
previous five-year cycle. For these completed actions, the County or municipality identified action details that may have
changed or expanded, such as scope, cost, and funding source. The 2026 HMP contains the most up-to-date information
provided for these actions, and the action will not be included in the mitigation actions table in future plan updates.

D
ra

Ongoing: The Planning Team worked with the County and each municipality to reflect progress in the HMP
implementation. Ongoing mitigation actions are those that were started but not completed or not started. They are carried
forward from the 2021 plan into this plan update. In each municipal appendix, the reasoning for the ongoing status is
noted in the “Notes” column.
Withdrawn: The Planning Team also worked with the County and each municipality to pinpoint Withdrawn Mitigations
Actions, those that were included in the previous HMP but are no longer feasible, practical, or necessary to implement.
These typically are actions completed by another entity or actions combined with other actions but may also be actions
that did not retain political or fiscal viability.
New: The Planning Team worked with the County and each municipality to identify New Mitigation Actions to include in
the hazard mitigation planning process. These may be actions that were started but not discussed in previous HMPs or
actions that the County or municipality intends to start in the coming five years.

PRIORITIZATION OF MITIGATION ACTIONS
In addition to reviewing the status of each mitigation action, the Project Team worked with municipalities and the County
to prioritize all ongoing and new actions using the New Jersey State Hazard Mitigation Plan’s 2024 Mitigation Action
Prioritization Tool (MAP-T). Municipalities and the County reviewed their ongoing and new actions against MAP-T’s 14
criteria (Table 3.3-1) to evaluate the priority of the mitigation action. The more criteria that an action addresses, the higher
its priority becomes. Action prioritization rankings are Low (action meets less than 6 criteria), medium (action meets
between 7-11 criteria, and High (action meets above 11 criteria).
3.0-3

Table 3.3-1 MAP-T’s Criteria and Description
Description

Life Safety

Protection of life and prevention of injury Consider adverse effects on one segment of the population.

Property Protection

Elimination and reduction of damage to structures and infrastructure. Consider development in the floodplain or highrisk areas.

Cost-Effectiveness

Commensurateness of cost of the action with the benefits achieved.

Political

Public support and political will in support of the action. Consider any conflict with development pressures.

Legal

Authority to implement the action.

Fiscal

Capability to fund under existing program budgets, obtain authorization for a new budget, or acquire funding from
another source like a grant.

Environmental

Potential environmental impacts of the action, compliance with environmental regulations, and co-benefits of the action.

Social Vulnerability

Benefits to socially vulnerable populations and underserved communities.

Administrative

Personnel and administrative capabilities to implement the action and maintain it, capability to obtain outside help, and
alignment of the project’s scope and scale with the entity’s capabilities.

Hazards of Concern

Mitigation of high-ranked hazards through the action.

Climate Change

Incorporation of climate change projections for the State into the action, designs to withstand/address long-term
conditions, and consistency with the State’s climate resilience goals.

Timeline

Capability to complete the action in less than 5 years (within the planning horizon of the HMP).

Community Lifelines

Benefits that the action provides to community lifelines.

Other State and
Local Objectives

Advancement of other entity objectives, like capital improvements, economic development, environmental quality, or
open-space preservation, and support of policies of other plans and programs.

O

nl
y

Criteria

ft

3.4 MUNICIPAL MITIGATION STRATEGY SUMMARY

D

ra

This section provides a high-level summary for each municipality’s mitigation strategy. New to this plan is the “Mitigation
Statement,” which summarizes what each municipality has prioritized through hazard mitigation planning since the last
HMP in 2021 and their plan on what to prioritize for hazard mitigation in the next five years (2031). The Project Team
worked with the municipalities to develop their mitigation strategy statement, which is included in Table 3.4-1.
Additionally, the number of completed, ongoing, new, and withdrawn actions are also included in Table 3.4-1. For the full
municipal mitigation strategy, refer to each municipal appendix (Appendices Vol. I – Jurisdictional Information). As required
by FEMA, Union County and its 21 municipalities completed an evaluation of the mitigation strategies and actions from
the 2021 plan and reported on the status of each, either as Ongoing, Completed, or Withdrawn. In addition, the Planning
Team worked with the County and each municipality to brainstorm New Mitigation Actions for inclusion in this HMP
update. There is also a mitigation actions table for Special Districts. For the 2026 HMP update, there are a total of 377
mitigation actions, with 62 New actions, 210 Ongoing actions, 83 Completed actions, and 22 Withdrawn actions. For
more information on the mitigation strategy, see Section 3.0 Mitigation Strategy. Note that Union County’s mitigation
actions are located in their appendix and not included in Table 3.4-1.
This section provides a high-level summary for each municipality’s mitigation strategy. New to this plan is the “Mitigation
Statement,” which summarizes what each municipality has prioritized through hazard mitigation planning since the last
HMP in 2021 and their plan on what to prioritize for hazard mitigation in the next five years (2031). The Project Team
worked with the municipalities to develop their mitigation strategy statement, which is included in Table 3.4-1
Additionally, the number of completed, ongoing, new, and withdrawn actions are also included in Table 3.4-1. For the full
municipal mitigation strategy, refer to each municipal appendix (Appendices Vol. I – Jurisdictional Information).
3.0-4

15

6

1

0

4

3

0

6

11

6

3

1

34

6

0

1

3

1

1

5

6

0

0

Actions

1

# of New

Since the previous Hazard Mitigation Update, the Township of Berkeley Heights has
constructed a new Municipal Complex which hosts our Police Division, Library, Recreation
Department and finally our Buildings Department. In addition, our Township has prioritized
removing hazardous dead trees that would impact power loss and cleaned out waterways to
prevent flooding. During the next five years, the Township will be focusing on continuing the
above actions as mentioned above and also resident emergency notifications/preparedness
for significant weather and or terrorist events.
The Township of Clark continues to make investments in hazard mitigation. The Police
Department has been outfitted with rescue vests, and the Fire Department has purchased
additional boats and water rescue suits for high water rescues. Inspection and maintenance
of Pumpkin Patch waterway is completed twice per year. Storm water management is a critical
requirement for all construction and improvements within the Township of Clark. The
township is currently reviewing grant opportunities to consider improvements to the Pumpkin
Patch area to reduce flash flooding. Areas around Rahway Park are part of a larger plan
including numerous communities along the Rahway River.
Since the 2021 plan update, our flood mitigation strategy has prioritized enhancing
stormwater management systems and reinforcing critical infrastructure to reduce flood risks.
Over the next five years, we will focus on undertaking a river desilting projects to increase
water flow and transport capacity, expanding our stormwater management capabilities and
expanding green infrastructure to improve water absorption and reduce runoff. These
measures are crucial for safeguarding our community and ensuring resilience against future
flooding.
Since the 2021 plan update, the City of Elizabeth has focused on enhancing flood resilience,
improving emergency response capabilities and upgrading critical infrastructure to mitigate
natural hazard risks. Key completed actions include improving drainage systems, enhancing
backup power, increasing emergency response efficiency and responding to a global
pandemic. Over the next five years, the City of Elizabeth will continue to improve drainage
systems, implement an advanced emergency alert system, increase power resiliency, and
improve public outreach amongst other actions to safeguard the residents of Elizabeth.
The Borough of Fanwood continuously monitors and critiques all storms with an after-action
meeting with OEM officials. It continuously clears storm drains before and after events
throughout the Borough. All road projects, especially in flood prone areas, and extra inlets and
piping are added as needed to move water from the roadway. Prior to storms, all debris is
removed when needed. The Borough continues to educate the community about storm water
management and will spend up to $1,000.00 in education and other incidentals pertaining to
hazard mitigation. Currently, Forest Road Park building at 200 Forest Road is being updated
with storage space to include bedding, to act as a temporary shelter, and/or charging station
as needed. A whole building generator is also being installed in 2025. The historic train station
at 232 North Avenue will be used, as needed, as an information center. All evacuation routes,
which are county roads, are closely monitored and cleared as needed by the Borough of
Fanwood DPW and Union County DPW. The Borough will not assist in elevating structures.
The Borough is working on an update for its master plan, which is due to include a vulnerability
assessment.
Since the 2021 plan update, the Borough has made strides in strengthening its defenses
against natural hazards. We are adopting modern FEMA standards and reinforcing backup
power at key facilities, these efforts have laid the groundwork for a more resilient community.
Looking ahead, the Borough is setting its sights on the future—prioritizing initiatives that
confront the growing challenges of climate change, including rising sea levels. Over the next
five years, it plans to expand mitigation strategies by refining flood maps and implementing
state-of-the-art emergency alert systems. These actions reflect the Borough’s strong
commitment to protecting residents and supporting sustainable growth in an ever-changing
environment.

Fanwood
Borough

Garwood
Borough

3.0-5

D
ra

Elizabeth
City

ft

O

Cranford
Township

# of Withdrawn
Actions

Clark
Township

# of Completed
Actions

Berkeley
Heights
Township

Mitigation Statement

nl
y

Jurisdiction

# of Ongoing
Actions

Table 3.4-1 Municipal Mitigation Summary

0

11

0

0

0

2

2

0

3

12

6

4

0

3

4

0

2

7

3

0

3

8

6

2

1

8

2

0

nl
y

Actions

# of Withdrawn
Actions

Rahway
City

# of Completed
Actions

Plainfield
City

# of Ongoing
Actions

New
Providence
Borough

O

Mountainsi
de Borough

ft

Linden City

The township is working with the engineering and administration to develop a mitigation
strategy. This will include working with the Planning and Zoning Boards as well as the Township
Planner. American Water Company is in the process of replacing old water lines and
Elizabethtown Gas Company is replacing all old gas lines and meters. Request for assistance
from FEMA for the flume that runs from the Rahway River down Central Avenue and turns left
on Mertz Avenue was denied during Hurricane Ida; however, a maintenance plan is in place to
assure that there is no spillage and unrestricted flow. An application for the BRIC grant to
mitigate several roadways and a new OEM office were put on hold due to lack of funding.
Since the last update, the borough has continued to get funding to improve its OEM building.
It also has been working to identify and fix areas that experience flooding on a regular basis.
The borough is working on an update for its master plan, which is due to include a vulnerability
assessment.
Since 2021, the City of Linden has initiated a comprehensive mitigation action strategy aimed
at strengthening its resilience against natural disasters and human-made hazards. This
strategy focuses on enhancing infrastructure, promoting sustainable development practices,
and fostering community engagement to effectively reduce vulnerabilities and ensure the
well-being of its residents. The collaborative efforts of its various City Departments, as well as
other governmental partners and stakeholders within the private sector, have demonstrated
the City’s commitment to a safer and more sustainable future.
Since 2021, the Borough has been actively strengthening its commitment to hazard mitigation,
with a strong emphasis on reducing flood risks. A central initiative has been the
implementation of updated stormwater management ordinances designed to minimize
environmental impact and mitigate flooding. These measures are being incorporated into
both private and public development projects, promoting long-term resilience and
sustainability across the community. The Borough will continue to prioritize flood mitigation
in future development in both private development and government development.
Since 2021, the borough continued to review its commitment to hazard mitigation. The
borough has made investments in repairing and rehabilitating the Clearwater detention dam,
upgraded pedestrian bridges that cross various waterways, and improved rescue equipment
operated by emergency services. The borough has also adopted new ordinances for
stormwater management that intend to address flooding conditions and minimize
environmental impact. The borough will continue to prioritize flood mitigation in future
development in both private and government development.
Since the 2021 plan update, the City of Plainfield has prioritized addressing flood-prone
infrastructure, upgrading emergency power at critical facilities, and enhancing community
outreach. Key efforts have included securing backup power for fire stations and planning major
stormwater upgrades in high-risk neighborhoods. Over the next five years, the city aims to
improve streambank stabilization, develop a microgrid for critical infrastructure, and elevate
Repetitive Loss properties to increase resilience to worsening climate impacts.
Since the City of Rahway’s last mitigation plan update in 2021, our overall strategy has focused
on implementing practical, high-impact projects that address both acute and systemic
flooding vulnerabilities. In response to the severe damage caused by Tropical Storm Ida—
particularly the over $2 million in losses at Hamilton Stage and the destruction of more than
200 vehicles—our priorities have emphasized infrastructure hardening and real-time hazard
communication. Key initiatives for 2025 include flood-proofing the Hamilton Stage building,
installing flood depth gauges at historically low-lying intersections, and advancing the Tide and
Sluice Gate Project to manage tidal inflows and enhance stormwater drainage capacity.

ra

Kenilworth
Borough

Mitigation Statement

D

Hillside
Township

# of New

Jurisdiction

Additionally, the City has launched a comprehensive waterway analysis, concentrating initially
on Orchard Creek to identify debris and vegetation removal opportunities that can be
executed rapidly for near-term benefits. This approach allows for immediate risk reduction
while setting the stage for longer-term waterway improvements citywide. Our commitment
to regional collaboration continues through active participation in the Mayors Council for the

3.0-6

# of Ongoing
Actions

# of Completed
Actions

# of Withdrawn
Actions

Mitigation Statement

12

0

0

2

17

11

2

0

10

4

2

0

14

4

0

0

9

6

4

1

7

9

0

4

9

2

1

Actions

23

# of New

Jurisdiction

Rahway River Watershed, working closely with NJDEP and USACE on sustainable, basin-wide
flood mitigation strategies.

Springfield
Township

Summit
City

Union
Township

Westfield
Town

3.0-7

nl
y

O

Scotch
Plains
Township

ft

Roselle
Park
Borough

D
ra

Roselle
Borough

Looking ahead, the City’s priorities over the next five years will include the systematic
execution of smaller-scale waterway clearance projects identified in our ongoing analysis.
These efforts are critical to reducing chronic flooding risks, improving hydraulic capacity, and
building resilience incrementally throughout the City.
Since the 2021 plan update, the Borough of Roselle has focused on enhancing flood resilience,
improving emergency response capabilities for natural and human-made attacks, and
upgrading critical infrastructure to mitigate natural hazard risks. Over the next five years,
Roselle aims to prioritize projects that address streambank stabilization and security for
various attacks.
Since the 2021 plan update, the Borough of Roselle Park has focused on enhancing flood
resilience, improving emergency response capabilities, and upgrading critical infrastructure to
mitigate natural hazard risks. Key completed actions include improving drainage systems and
enhancing backup power at essential facilities. Over the next five years, The Borough of Roselle
Park aims to prioritize projects that address emerging climate challenges, such as sea-level
rise, by expanding mitigation strategies like updated flood mapping, increased drainage and
retention basin capacity. These efforts underscore the Borough of Roselle Park’s commitment
to safeguarding residents and promoting sustainable growth in the face of evolving hazards.
The borough is working on a 2026 update for its master plan, which is due to include a
vulnerability assessment.
The overall mitigation strategy for the township will always focus and be prioritized first and
foremost on life-safety initiatives, followed by encouraging the State Department of
Transportation to take action on the long-standing mitigation effort of addressing the flooding
on Route 22. The township’s Downtown Development as well as development in general will
always seek to make the township more resilient to the weather events that have increased
in intensity and show no sign of stopping.
Since the 2021 update, the Township of Springfield has increased resiliency by purchase and
installation of emergency backup generators. The community often loses power and backup
generators ensure that flood control / stormwater pumps are kept operational. New pumps
and new generators are planned in construction.
Since the last update, the City has completed construction of its new firehouse which also
houses the City’s OEM and its Emergency Operations Center (EOC). This modern facility will
greatly assist the City’s ability to serve the public in times of major incident activation. Looking
to the future, the City intends to put a priority on upgrading its infrastructure to accommodate
the intense microburst storms that seem to be increasing in frequency and greatly impact the
existing infrastructure. This will be done through physical improvements as well consideration
of policy and planning changes to assist in more resilient development.
Since the 2021 plan update, Union Township, NJ (07083) has prioritized upgrades to aging
storm water infrastructure, strengthening its pump stations, and improving emergency
communication systems in response to increased flooding from severe weather events. Over
the next five years, the township focus will center on modernizing and expanding the capacity
of critical pump stations, particularly in low-lying and flood-prone neighborhoods, where
existing systems have been overwhelmed during heavy rainfall. By enhancing pump
performance and reliability, the township aims to significantly reduce the frequency and
severity of localized flooding, protect homes and businesses, and improve its ability to manage
storm events more effectively.
Since the last plan update in 2021, the Town mitigation strategy has focused on strengthening
critical infrastructure to ensure continuity of essential services during power failures and other
emergencies. Westfield prioritized installing backup power systems at key facilities such as
emergency shelters, fire and police stations, and communication centers to address
vulnerabilities revealed during recent outages. Over the next five years, the Town plans to
expand these efforts and prioritize hardening evacuation routes and enhancing

# of Completed
Actions

# of Withdrawn
Actions

1

8

2

2

8

0

0

0

ft

O

nl
y

N/A

Actions

# of Ongoing
Actions

communication systems to ensure residents can safely evacuate and stay informed during
extended emergencies.
Since the last plan update, the Township of Winfield has focused on enhancing community
outreach, improving emergency response capabilities, and upgrading critical infrastructure to
mitigate natural hazard risks. Key completed actions include acquiring new technology to
better notify its residents prior, during, and after emergencies. Over the next five years,
Winfield aims to prioritize projects that address improving drainage systems and enhance
backup power at essential facilities by expanding mitigation strategies like upgrading
community shelters. These efforts underscore the Township of Winfield’s commitment to
safeguarding residents and promoting sustainable growth in the face of evolving hazards.

ra

Special
Districts

Mitigation Statement

D

Winfield
Township

# of New

Jurisdiction

3.0-8

nl
y
O
ft
ra
D
4.0 PLANNING PROCESS

Westfield, NJ

4.0 PLANNING PROCESS
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING PROCESS
The Union County HMP update includes a robust planning process and participation strategy. The project is led by the
Union County Division of Emergency Services. The HMP Project Manager is the Union County Deputy OEM Coordinator,
William Kane. Union County Division of Emergency Services selected the consultant Michael Baker International, Inc.
(Michael Baker) to help develop the 2026 Union County Plan. The Union County Division of Emergency Services and
Michael Baker worked together to update this HMP (Project Team).
The Union County HMP update was prepared through numerous meetings, both in-person and virtual, with the steering
committee, County agencies and departments, regional stakeholders, all 21 municipalities, and members of the public.
The County OEM webpage was used throughout the plan update to bring awareness to hazard mitigation and give the
public an opportunity to provide comments. The Union County HMP followed FEMA’s HMP process by following their four
core steps in completing an HMP update.

nl
y

Table 4.1-1 FEMA’s Four Core Planning Steps
FEMA’s Four Core Planning Steps

Union County HMP Action

Created an online project website for public input, meeting notices, general information on
hazard mitigation, and links to additional resources.

Assess Risks and Capabilities

Provided risk estimates based on Hazus-MH, which was based on an updated critical facility data
layer and reviewed local capabilities at the municipal meetings.

Develop a Mitigation Strategy

Developed Mitigation Action Worksheets, which document each jurisdiction's analysis of actions
considered to reduce the impacts of hazards identified in the risk assessment.

Adopt and Implement the Plan

After receiving formal approval from both NJOEM and FEMA, the County will adopt this plan and
each of the 21 municipalities will formally adopt a resolution approving the finalized Union
County HMP update.

ra

ft

O

Organize the Planning Process and Resources

D

This HMP update was completed through a combination of research and municipal, stakeholder, and public participation.
The Project Team researched existing local plans, reports, projects, and ordinances in addition to acquiring data from the
County, New Jersey Geographic Information Network (NJGIN), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and FEMA to update the Union County HMP.
New to this plan update is the inclusion of high hazard potential dam owners in the planning process. There three dams
are classified as high-hazard potential by the DEP-Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood Control: Robinson’s Branch Reservoir
Dam (Clark Township), Clearwater Detention Dam (New Providence Borough), and Shackamaxon Dam (Scotch Plains
Township). The Robinson’s Branch Reservoir Dam is owned by Union County and as part of this plan update, they moved
the priority to high for the action to mitigate the risk of dam failure for the dam. The Clearwater Detention Dam is owned
by New Providence Borough and as part of this plan update, they created a new action to repair and maintain the dam.
The Shackamaxon Dam is owned by NJ Golf Partners, LLC. The Shackamaxon Dam is owned by Heritage Golf Group. The
Project Team engaged the engineer Jeff Derosier from Derosier Engineering, who reviewed the HMP and offered an update
on the dam’s inspection status and recent findings.

4.0-2

4.2 STEERING COMMITTEE
Union County formed a steering committee at the start of the planning process to guide the HMP development. The
steering committee members includes County agencies and regional stakeholders, including representatives of FEMA’s
Community Lifelines (e.g., Health and Medical, Energy, Transportation) and non-profits that work with climate change. The
steering committee met three times during the plan development process. Topics and implementation of the steering
committee meetings are detailed in the next section.

4.3 ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY

nl
y

This HMP update included a broad range of stakeholders, including 10 County agencies and departments, 16 regional
stakeholders, and each of the 21 municipalities. Even more stakeholders were invited to participate in this HMP update,
including stakeholder organizations and nonprofits that support underserved populations, climate change experts,
neighboring counties, agencies that have the authority to regulate development, and other private and nonprofit interests
involved in hazard mitigation activities. Section 4.3 Summary of Meetings Held During This Plan Update, each organization
invited to the meeting is listed, along with the organization that attended each meeting. Table 4.4-1 Summary of Planning
Attendance lists which organization participated in each meeting.

ft

ra

Steering Committee Meeting #1
Public Meeting #1
Municipal Mitigation Workshop
Individual Meetings
Steering Committee Meeting #2
Socially Vulnerable Roundtable
Regional Stakeholder Meeting
Regional Utility Authority Meeting
Public Meeting #2
Public Meeting #3

D

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

O

The Project Team held the following meetings during this plan update:

Summary Of Meetings Held

MAY 9, 2024: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #1
The County held an in-person steering committee kick-off meeting in May 2024. County departments and all 21
municipalities were invited to be on the steering committee. During this meeting, the Project Team reviewed the role of
the steering committee; an overview on hazard mitigation and the planning process; changes since the last plan and new
FEMA guidance; high-level overview of the planning process, risk and vulnerability assessment, capability assessment,
mitigation strategy; and the project schedule. Participants that were physically at the meeting completed two worksheets
during this meeting to evaluate the goals and objectives and profiled hazards from the previous plan. Hazards profiled by
the New Jersey State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2024) were considered for this plan update. Virtual participants were
emailed both worksheets as a follow-up to the meeting. The Project Team received several completed worksheets by both
the steering committee and municipalities.

4.0-3

Table 4.3-1 Steering Committee Kick-off Meeting Invitations and Attendance
Attended Steering Committee Kick-off Meeting

nl
y







D

ra

ft

O

Organization Invited to Meeting
Union County Public Safety
Union County Department of Health
Union County Public Health Nurse
Union County Police
Union County Department of Engineering, Public Works, Facilities
Management
Union County 911 Coordinator
Union County Fire
Union County Department of Public Works
Union County Department of Human Services
New Jersey State Police
Lower Raritan Watershed Partnership
Union County Utilities Authority
Jersey Central Power & Light
Union County Communications
Berkeley Heights Township
Clark Township
Cranford Township
Elizabeth City
Fanwood Borough
Garwood Borough
Hillside Township
Kenilworth Borough
Linden City
Mountainside Borough
New Providence Borough
Plainfield City
Rahway City
Roselle Borough
Roselle Park Borough
Scotch Plains Township
Springfield Township
Summit City
Union Township
Westfield Town
Winfield Township
































OCTOBER 17, 2024: MUNICIPAL MITIGATION WORKSHOP
On October 17, 2024, the Planning Team met with 15 municipalities and other plan stakeholders from Union County OEM,
Communications, and Utilities as well as Lower Raritan Watershed. At this meeting, the Planning Team provided an
overview of hazard mitigation, the schedule for the hazard mitigation plan update, and role of municipalities in the plan
update.

4.0-4

Table 4.3-2 Municipal Mitigation Workshop
Attended Municipal Mitigation Workshop

O

nl
y

Organization Invited to Meeting
Berkeley Heights Township
Clark Township
Cranford Township
Elizabeth City
Fanwood Borough
Garwood Borough
Hillside Township
Kenilworth Borough
Linden City
Mountainside Borough
New Providence Borough
Plainfield City
Rahway City
Roselle Borough
Roselle Park Borough
Scotch Plains Township
Springfield Township
Summit City
Union Township
Westfield Town
Winfield Township
Lower Raritan Watershed
Union County OEM
Union County Communications
Union County Utilities Authority



























ft

DECEMBER 3, 2024 - JANUARY 29, 2025: INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPAL MEETINGS

D

ra

During individual meetings, which took place between December 3, 2024, and January 29, 2025, the Project Team
discussed with each municipality details around its hazards and mitigation efforts. Each meeting lasted about an hour,
and, aside from one virtual meeting, they occurred in person at the Union County Public Safety Building in Westfield, NJ.
Discussion focused on significant storms events since the previous plan in 2021, recent major development and
infrastructure from 2021 to present, known or anticipated major development and infrastructure in the next five (5) years,
and organizations that work with socially vulnerable populations to bring to the table for the socially vulnerable roundtable
meeting. The Project Team reviewed municipal risk maps produced by Michael Baker, including a map of Repetitive Loss
(RL) properties overlaid on top of their current flood risk and Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Classification. These maps
also included future risk maps including permanent inundation under sea level rise (SLR) conditions, up to five feet of SLR,
and New Jersey Inland Design Flood Elevation. Lastly, the Project Team worked with municipalities to review the list of
critical facilities and community lifelines and rank hazards of concern (high, medium, or low). Information from these
workshops is included in each municipality’s appendix.

4.0-5

Table 4.3-3 Individual Meeting Attendance
Organization Invited to Meeting
Berkeley Heights Township

Attended Individual Meeting

Clark Township
Cranford Township
Elizabeth City
Fanwood Borough
Garwood Borough
Hillside Township
Kenilworth Borough
Linden City
Mountainside Borough
New Providence Borough
Plainfield City
Rahway City
Roselle Borough

nl
y

Roselle Park Borough

- Virtual
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person
- In Person

Scotch Plains Township
Springfield Township
Summit City
Union Township

O

Westfield Town
Winfield Township

ft

FEBRUARY 3, 2025: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #2

D

ra

On February 3, 2025, the Planning Team met with the steering committee for the second time to update it on the hazard
mitigation planning process and schedule. The committee heard about the municipalities’ participation in the process and
what other stakeholders would be involved. Other stakeholders include County departments, organizations that represent
socially vulnerable populations, adjacent counties, major employers, climate change experts like Rutgers University, and
regional utility authorities/providers. All stakeholders have the opportunity to provide input on the plan, such as through
updating and adding mitigation actions.

4.0-6

Table 4.3-4 Steering Committee Meeting #2
Attended Steering Committee Meeting #2

nl
y







D

ra

ft

O

Organization Invited to Meeting
Union County Public Safety
Union County Department of Health
Union County Public Health Nurse
Union County Police
Union County Department of Engineering, Public Works, Facilities
Management
Union County 911 Coordinator
Union County Fire
Union County Department of Public Works
Union County Department of Human Services
New Jersey State Police
Lower Raritan Watershed Partnership
Union County Utilities Authority
Jersey Central Power & Light
Union County Communications
Union County Office of Emergency Management
Berkeley Heights Township
Clark Township
Cranford Township
Elizabeth City
Fanwood Borough
Garwood Borough
Hillside Township
Kenilworth Borough
Linden City
Mountainside Borough
New Providence Borough
Plainfield City
Rahway City
Roselle Borough
Roselle Park Borough
Scotch Plains Township
Springfield Township
Summit City
Union Township
Westfield Town
Winfield Township

































MARCH 11, 2025: SOCIAL VULNERABILITY ROUNDTABLE
The Project Team held a roundtable with organizations that support socially vulnerable populations across Union County
in March 2025. These organizations were identified by municipalities during the municipal workshop or municipal
meetings. Representatives from various identified organizations discussed recent hazards, such as extreme temperatures,
the April 2024 earthquake, drought, cyberattacks, COVID-19, civil unrest against immigrant and refugee populations, and
flooding, particularly during Hurricane Ida in 2021. Additionally, potential mitigation actions to address the hazards were
discussed.
A key concern raised by representatives of the organizations was the damage to their facilities incurred by the organizations
due to flooding during Hurricane Ida and other high rainfall events, particularly in Elizabeth. In particular, Trinitas Medical

4.0-7

Center, International Rescue Committee, and the Salvation Army in Elizabeth have been affected by plumbing issues and
facility, and basement damage owing to flooding; repairs are ongoing in several of these organizations.
Additionally, concerns about the impact of extreme temperatures on senior populations, low-income communities, and
people with chronic health conditions, were raised; the low-income clients of International Rescue Committee are
particularly impacted by extreme heat because several of them do not have access to air-conditioning in their homes. The
shelter of the Salvation Army in Elizabeth needs generators and a new cooling system to address the impact of extreme
heat. The Gateway Family, YMCA, too needs generators to support refrigeration for storage of medication and support airconditioning during extreme heat conditions; the common cooling centers in the respective buildings of the organization
are insufficient to provide shelter to residents during extended periods of extreme heat.
Another concern raised by the International Rescue Committee was the lack of access to transportation for community
members who do not have cars and need transportation during hazard events. For the email inviting stakeholders to the
roundtable meeting, please see Appendices Volume II. Other Plan Materials Appendix F. Email Invites Stakeholders.
Table 4.3-5 Socially Vulnerable Roundtable Meeting Attendance

O

nl
y

Attended

D

ra

ft

Organization Invited to Meeting
International Rescue Committee
Community Hope
Trinitas Regional Medical Center
The Salvation Army, Elizabeth
Union County Public Safety
The Arc of Union
Bridgeway
Elizabeth Coalition to House the Homeless
Family Promise
LINCS
Union County Division of Aging
Community Food Bank
Catholic Charities-Support Services for Veteran Families
PROCEED, Inc.
Acacia Lodge
Linden Reformed Church
Community In Cooperation
NJ Reentry
Legal Services New Jersey
Urban League of Union County
Mountainside Borough Senior Coordinator
Jewish Family Services - Elizabeth
Scotch Plains - Fanwood Ministerium
Salvation Army - Cranford
Crescent Avenue Presbyterian Church
Cranford Family Care
Abundant Life Church
YMCA - Scotch Plains and Fanwood
Jewish Community Center of Central New Jersey
Salvation Army - Plainfield
Groundwork Elizabeth
Jewish Family Services


































4.0-8

MARCH 12, 2025: REGIONAL STAKEHOLDER MEETING
This meeting targeted participation from agencies that have the authority to regulate development, Offices of Emergency
Management from neighboring counties, climate change experts, and other private and nonprofit interests involved in
hazard mitigation activities. During the meeting, the Project Team summarized risk assessment findings and discussed the
hazards of concern. Participants were asked if the assessment aligns with what they have experienced within the last five
(5) years.

nl
y

Participants noted that flooding owing to rain bursts or high rainfall over a few hours that overwhelms the stormwater
infrastructure is a hazard of major concern. Additionally, flooding owing to extreme weather events such as hurricanes is
a key concern. During Hurricane Ida in 2021, Port Elizabeth and Goethals Bridge in particular, were damaged by the
flooding. Consequently, the Port Authority is in the process of performing their own Risk Assessment to mitigate flooding
impacts, by identifying priority projects and funding sources for their implementation. It is also reviewing the impact of
storm surges. Additionally, counties have jointly prepared a few plans to mitigate the impacts of hazards on infrastructure.
In particular, Union, Essex, Somerset Counties have prepared a Treatment Plan and a Power Plan. For the email inviting
stakeholders to this stakeholder meeting, please see Appendices Volume II. Other Plan Materials Appendix F. Email Invites
Stakeholders.
Table 4.3-6 Regional Stakeholder Meeting Attendance

O

Attended

ra

ft

Organization Invited to Meeting
Kean University
Port Authority of New York New Jersey
Somerset County Office of Emergency Management
Essex County Sheriff's Office of Emergency Management
Middlesex County Office of Emergency Management
Union County Office of Emergency Management
Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties
Lower Raritan Watershed Partnership
Union County Office of Health Management
Union County Department of Human Services












MARCH 12, 2025: REGIONAL UTILITY AUTHORITY MEETING

D

The Project Team met virtually with representatives from municipal utility authorities in Union County in March 2025.
These representatives discussed recent hazards, such as cyber-attack, power failure, heavy rainfall, flooding, earthquakes,
droughts, COVID-19, and hurricanes.
Cyber-attack is an emerging concern; specifically, the Union County Utilities Authority experienced a cyber-attack in 2021,
and the authority has since then been attempting to apply for coverage using Tier 3 insurance security. Additionally, it is
applying for non-Federal grants and state funding and reviewing its cyber security measures.
Power failures are also a hazard of significant concern for the Union County Utilities Authority, as it essentially functions
as the entire county’s incinerator.
Wet weather significantly impacts the Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority. It is also prone to flooding due to CSOs during
heavy rainfall events.
For the Regional Utility Authority’s mitigation actions, please see Appendices Volume I. Jurisdictional Information 22.
Special Districts Appendix.

4.0-9

Table 4.3-7 Regional Utility Authority Attendance
Organization Invited to Meeting
Jersey Central Power & Light
Union County Utilities Authority
Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority
New Jersey American Water
Waste Management of New Jersey, Inc
Veolia Water
ReWorld (formerly Covanta) Operators of the Union County Resource
Recovery Facility (incinerator)
Elizabethtown Gas
PSE&G

Attended











4.4 SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATION
Table 4.4-1 includes a summary of all stakeholder attendance, by meeting, organized by stakeholder group (County
agency/department, regional stakeholder/State agency, or municipal representative).

nl
y

Table 4.4-1 Summary of Planning Attendance
Participation

Steering
Committee
Meeting #1

Steering
Committee
Meeting #2









O

Meeting Type
Individual
Meeting

Socially
Vulnerable
Roundtable

Regional
Stakeholder

Regional
Utility
Authority















































ra

















































































































































































D

Union County Public Safety
Union County Department of
Health
Union County Public Health
Nurse
Union County Police
Union County Department of
Engineering, Public Works,
Facilities Management
Union County 911 Coordinator
Union County Fire
Union County Department of
Public Works
Union County Department of
Human Services
Union County Communications
Union County Office of
Emergency Management

ft

County Agency/Department

Municipal
Mitigation
Workshop

Regional Stakeholders
New Jersey State Police
Lower Raritan Watershed
Partnership
Union County Utilities
Authority
Jersey Central Power & Light
International Rescue
Committee
Community Hope

4.0-10

Meeting Type

4.0-11

Socially
Vulnerable
Roundtable

Regional
Stakeholder

Regional
Utility
Authority






































































































































































































































O

nl
y

Individual
Meeting

D

Municipalities
Berkeley Heights Township
Clark Township
Cranford Township
Elizabeth City
Fanwood Borough
Garwood Borough
Hillside Township
Kenilworth Borough
Linden City
Mountainside Borough
New Providence Borough
Plainfield City
Rahway City
Roselle Borough
Roselle Park Borough
Scotch Plains Township
Springfield Township
Summit City
Union Township
Westfield Town
Winfield Township

Municipal
Mitigation
Workshop

ra

Trinitas Regional Medical
Center
The Salvation Army, Elizabeth
Kean University
Port Authority of New York
New Jersey
Somerset County Office of
Emergency Management
Essex County Sheriff's Office of
Emergency Management
Middlesex County Office of
Emergency Management
Rahway Valley Sewerage
Authority
New Jersey American Water

Steering
Committee
Meeting #2

ft

Participation

Steering
Committee
Meeting #1













































4.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Starting at the beginning of the planning process, members of the public were given the opportunity to be involved in the
planning process. The Project Team hosted the first public workshop on July 20, 2024, where the County OEM website
was announced. This website was the main point of communication for the public throughout the planning process.

WEBSITE

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

The Union County Division of Emergency Services hosted the Union County HMP website, which was used to announce
information on the plan update. At the beginning of the planning process, the Project Team updated content on the Union
County HMP website to announce the 2026 HMP update and the first public workshop. The County added a public
comment section to the website which remained open throughout the entire planning process. Comments from the public
were used to update the municipal community profiles (Appendices V.1 – Jurisdictions). The planning team used the public
comments to inform the plan and reached out to the relevant municipalities to ask for additional input. Each public
workshop was advertised on this website. The draft plan was also posted on this website for public review and comment.
See Figure 4.5-1 for a snapshot of the Union County HMP website.

4.0-12

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Figure 4.5-1 Union County HMP Website on September 22, 2025

4.0-13

PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
For each of the public workshops, the Project Team created a workshop handout (Figure 4.5-2) with information on how
to attend the public meeting and what it covers.
In addition to sending the public workshop handout to regional stakeholders, the project website advertised each public
meeting and the County released the handout as a press release and posted on the County’s social media. For the first
public meeting on the risk assessment, TAPinto released a news article about the public meeting (Figure 4.5-3).

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Figure 4.5-2 Public Workshop #1, #2, and #3 Handouts

4.0-14

O

nl
y

Figure 4.5-3 TAPinto Article about Public Meeting #1

PUBLIC WORKSHOPS SUMMARY

D

ra

ft

July 30, 2024: Public Workshop #1 – Introduction to Plan Update
The first public workshop served as an announcement to the public about the plan update and provided information on
how to remain involved through the planning process. This meeting kicked-off the planning process by introducing the
Project Team and providing an overview on hazard mitigation, including the planning process, changes since the last plan
update, and the Union County HMP goals and objectives. The Project Team discussed each plan element and the project
schedule, including upcoming public workshops.
October 20, 2025: Public Workshop #2 – Risk Assessment Findings
The second public workshop started by providing a project overview, including the purpose and schedule. The Project
Team then reviewed the natural and human-caused hazards profiled in this plan update along with their county-level
rankings and reviewed risk assessment findings on FEMA’s floodplain, storm surge, wildfires, and sea level rise.
February 25, 2026: Public Workshop #3 – Draft Plan
The Project Team hosted its third public meeting in February 2026 online via Microsoft Teams to discuss updates to this
HMP. During the meeting, the team provided an overview of the HMP update process, including its purpose, timeline, and
key highlights from the draft plan. These highlights included a community profile, hazard identification, capability
assessment, mitigation strategy, and plan maintenance. The team shared county-scale and selected municipal-scale maps
detailing FEMA Flood Zones, NJ Inland Flood Elevation, Sea Level Rise, and the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). Updates
on mitigation strategies were also presented, revealing 63 new actions, 215 ongoing actions, 82 completed actions, and
21 withdrawn actions across the county. The discussion concluded with a review of next steps for plan maintenance,
including the process for towns to submit annual progress reports for additional actions before the next plan update.

4.0-15

This meeting was advertised by a press release (see Figure 4.5-4) and social media (see Figure 4.5-5). The Planning Team
also emailed each individual who requested to be kept updated on the plan’s progress via the public comment section on
the website (see Figure 4.5-6).

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Figure 4.5-4 Public Meeting 3 Press Release

4.0-16

O

nl
y

Figure 4.5-5 Union County Facebook and Instagram Posts Advertising Public Meeting 3

D

ra

ft

Figure 4.5-6 Email with a Blind Copy to Each Person Who Submitted in Public Comment Section on Website

4.0-17

nl
y
O
ft
ra
D
5.0 CAPABILITY
ASSESSMENT

Green Brook, Plainfield, NJ

5.0 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
5.1 OVERVIEW
A Capability Assessment evaluates local regulatory, administrative, technical, and fiscal capabilities to accomplish hazard
mitigation actions through existing mechanisms. This assessment helps Union County and its municipalities identify
strengths that could be used to reduce losses and risks in the community. The capability assessment also provides an
inventory of the most critical local planning tools available within each municipality and a summary of the fiscal and
technical capabilities available through programs and organizations outside of the County. It also identifies emergency
management capabilities and the processes used to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

NEW JERSEY FLOOD HAZARD AREA CONTROL ACT

O

5.2 NEW JERSEY STATE REGULATIONS

nl
y

To fully understand each jurisdiction’s existing authorities, policies, programs, and resources, the Project Team distributed
a capability assessment survey to Union County’s 21 municipalities prior to each municipal meeting. During the meetings,
the Project Team and local officials discussed new capabilities since the acceptance of the previous Union County HMP
and updated the worksheet based on feedback. Where there were gaps in local knowledge or where extra information
was available through research, this information was added to complement local feedback. The Worksheet divides
capabilities into four categories: Planning and Regulatory; Administrative and Technical; Financial; Education and Outreach.
Each municipal capability assessment is located in the Appendix Vol. I – Jurisdictional Information.

ra

ft

The New Jersey Flood Hazard Area Control Act (FHACA), part of New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC) § 7:13, contains a
regulatory standard for new habitable buildings in a flood hazard area or, in certain cases, in an area that was previously
in a flood hazard that exceeds federal regulation. It requires these buildings add one foot of freeboard to the Flood Hazard
Design Flood Elevation (DFE) and be set no lower than the elevation required under the Uniform Construction Code, NJAC
5:23. Habitable buildings are any building intended for regular human occupation and/or residence. This includes singlefamily homes and duplexes, multi-residence buildings, critical buildings, commercial buildings, accessory structures that
are regularly occupied, mobile or manufactured homes and trailers intended for human residence, and any other building
that is regularly occupied.

D

NEW JERSEY MODEL CODE COORDINATED ORDINANCES
For better coordination between the requirements set forth in the NFIP, the FHACA, and the Uniform Construction Code
(UCC), the New Jersey Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinances supplied by NJDEP were upgraded to create Model
Code Coordinated Ordinances in 2021. These model ordinances include statewide minimum standards and optional
suggested language for higher standards. Municipalities that have adopted floodplain ordinance that exceed the statewide
minimum standards within Union County are described in their municipal appendices (Appendices Volume I – Jurisdictional
Information). These updated regulations represent a strengthening and alignment of codes that dictate floodplain
management.

NEW JERSEY PROTECTING AGAINST CLIMATE THREATS REFORM TO SUPPORT RESILIENT ENVIRONMENTS AND
LANDSCAPES
The New Jersey Protecting Against Climate Threats (NJPACT) Resilient Environments and Landscapes (REAL), part of
Governor Phil Murphy’s January 2020 Executive Order 100, addresses environmental concerns and bolsters resilient
investments in New Jersey. It adjusts coastal flood hazard areas to consider rising sea levels and storm surge, increases
jurisdictional area further inland, requires higher first-floor elevations or floodproofing, and mandates higher roadways. It
also implemented an inundation risk zone for structures proposed in areas of permanent or daily inundation from sea level

5.0-2

rise. NJPACT REAL added onto stormwater management practices, encouraged nature-based solutions and renewable
energy, and streamlined NJDEP permitting practices. Lastly, it worked with FEMA to clarify updates the Federal Housing
Authority rules with regards to the NFIP program.1

INLAND FLOOD PROTECTION RULES
Effective as of July 2023, the Inland Flood Protection rule of New Jersey seeks to better define vulnerable areas and regulate
new construction in these areas. New DFE adds two feet to fluvial (non-tidal) flood elevation mapped by NJDEP. The rule
mandates use of future projected precipitation when calculating flood elevations, conformance with NJ Uniform
Construction Code standards, and meeting or exceeding minimum FEMA NFIP requirements. It also requires that
stormwater Best Management Practices account for runoff from both today’s storms as well as future storms.2

SENATE BILL NO. 2607. FEBRUARY 4, 2021.

nl
y

Governor Murphy signed Senate Bill No. 2607 requiring the integration of climate vulnerability assessments into future
municipal master plan updates. Municipalities are now required to include a climate change-related hazard vulnerability
assessment in their land use plan elements to analyze current and future threats associated with climate change related
natural hazards, such as flooding. This assessment also must include a build-out analysis of all future development in the
municipality, as well as any threats and vulnerabilities associated with this development, and strategies to reduce the risks
of climate change-related natural hazards.

O

If a municipality has updated their master plan to include the climate vulnerability assessment, it is noted in Table 5.6-1
Ongoing Municipal Planned Integration Activities with Hazard Mitigation and in each municipal appendix located in
Appendices Volume I. Jurisdictional Information.

5.3 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANS

D

ra

ft

Union County contains portions of three Watershed Management Areas (WMAs): WMA 06 Upper Passaic, Whippany and
Rockaway; WMA 07 Arthur Kill; and WMA 09 Lower Raritan, South River and Lawrence. In June 2018, the DEP Division of
Water Monitoring and Standards published the Non-Tidal Raritan River Watershed Protection Plan, which focuses on the
non-tidal portion of the watershed and includes seven counties (Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris,
Somerset and Union County). Nine Union County municipalities are in the Raritan River Watershed (as a part of WMA 09):
Berkeley Heights Township, Fanwood Borough, Mountainside Borough, New Providence Borough, Plainfield City, Scotch
Plains Township, Springfield Township, Summit City, and Westfield Township. The Plan is available on the DEP website here:
https://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bears/docs/Raritan_Watershed_Protection_Plan_2018-06-04.pdf
The Green Brook Sub Basin is part of the Raritan River Watershed and is an area of flooding in Union, Middlesex, and
Somerset Counties. The Green Brook Flood Control Commission is multi-county effort to address Green Brook flooding.
The municipalities and counties invited to participate in the Commission are: Borough of Bound Brook, Township of
Bridgewater, Borough of Dunellen, Township of Green Brook, Borough of Middlesex, Borough of North Plainfield, Plainfield
City, Township of Scotch Plains, and the Borough of Watchung, and the County of Middlesex, County of Somerset, and
County of Union. The Commission is established in accordance with Chapter 316, P.L. 1971 of the State of New Jersey.
Another flood control commission, the Mayors Council Rahway River Watershed Flood Control, is composed of governing
officials in seven municipalities in Union and Essex County. Officials in Cranford, Kenilworth, Rahway, Springfield and Union
Township (Union County), and Maplewood and Millburn (Essex County) have coordinated with one another, their counties,
U.S. Representatives and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on flood control in the Rahway River Basin.
1
2

https://dep.nj.gov/njreal/
https://dep.nj.gov/inland-flood-protection-rule/

5.0-3

Watershed Organizations are also active in Union County. One such organization is the Rahway River Watershed
Association, who seek the protection and restoration of the Rahway River and its associated biological communities. The
Rahway City receives its drinking water from the Rahway River.

5.4 REGIONAL CAPABILITIES
PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) has three facilities within Union County: Newark Liberty
International Airport, the Elizabeth Marine Terminal, and the Goethals Bridge. The PANYNJ conducts proactive risk
assessments of extreme weather and climate change threats. The Surge Inundation Risk Assessment leverages thousands
of synthetic storm tracks to probabilistically assess risk of surge inundation under current climate conditions and for future
climate scenarios and sea-level rise cases out to 2100. The Climate Risk Assessment is an asset-scale, multi-stressor
exercise to identify key risks, develop corresponding risk mitigation measures, and prioritize cost-beneficial mitigations
for investment.

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

O

nl
y

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is involved in several different projects in Union County. For one, it is
performing a validation study and General Reevaluation Report of the Green Brook NJ Sub-Basin. This sub-basin is in the
Raritan River Basin and touches Union County in the City of Plainfield and the Township of Scotch Plains. Revised features
could include non-structural work such as floodproofing, buy-outs, elevation of structures; channel modifications either
small in scale or in combination with other measure(s); a diversion tunnel; levees or floodwalls; and a dry detention basin
at another location in Upper Basin.

D

ra

ft

USACE is also performing a flood risk management feasibility study at the Rahway River Basin (fluvial). It is reactivating
this study as there are local concerns of flooding. The work includes surveys, structure inventory, existing & improved
condition hydrology and hydraulics (H&H), and alternatives layout. The project team is completing benefit-to-cost analyses
and producing a plan that is engineering feasible, economically justifiable, and environmentally acceptable. The primary
area of Union County affected by fluvial flooding in the basin is Cranford Township, although several other municipalities
as well as the county are included in the study.
In addition to the fluvial study, USACE is doing a storm risk management feasibility study of the Rahway River Basin (tidal).
Rapid development in the area is producing increased stormwater runoff and is the primary cause of flooding within the
Rahway River Basin. The results of the flooding have included damage to houses, businesses, municipal facilities, and
public infrastructure. Lower portions of the Rahway River Basin experienced damages during Hurricane Sandy. The
recommended plan for the basin has structural and nonstructural components. While the structural portion focuses on
Middlesex County, the nonstructural plan includes elevation and flood proofing for properties in the City of Rahway and
City of Linden in Union County.
The USACE’s Hudson Raritan Estuary (HRE) Feasibility Study, initiated in 2001, identifies and documents water resourcerelated components that contribute to environmental degradation within the estuary with the intent to develop potential
solutions for ecosystem restoration. The ultimate goal is to restore ecological function and diversity affected by of human
activities. 20 individual restoration projects, meant to restore 621 acres of habitat, were recommended. The Consolidated
Appropriations Law of 2022 provided funding for the first four. While none of them are in Union County, portions of Union
County were included in the studies.

5.0-4

In 2025, USACE is performing operations & maintenance work, including a maintenance dredging contract, in the Newark
Bay Channels. Production of an annual hydrographic condition survey and online publication of the Controlling Depth
Report, are also scheduled for 2025.

5.5 UNION COUNTY CAPABILITIES
UNION COUNTY FIRST ALERT
The County of Union uses the UC First Alert Network to immediately contact residents during a major crisis or
emergency. The UC First Alert Network delivers important emergency alerts, notifications and updates all registered
electrics devices. The Union County First Alert Network is administered by the Union County Office of Emergency
Management.

UNION COUNTY COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAM

nl
y

The Union County Community Outreach Program, an initiative of the Union County Board of County Commissioners,
connects with residents throughout the county by going door-to-door to speak with residents and provide information
and resources. Outreach teams are in the community five days a week.

CLARK RESERVIOR PROJECT

ra

BRIANT POND HYDRORAKING PROJECT

ft

O

The Clark Reservoir Project prioritizes environmental improvements like dredging to combat siltation and sedimentation,
expand flood storage, and enhance water quality in the Clark Reservoir. It also includes improvements for the recreational
experience at the reservoir. Commissioner Sergio Granados, Chairman of the Open Space Recreation and Historic
Preservation Trust Board noted, “By prioritizing the preservation of the reservoir’s natural landscape and addressing
longstanding environmental issues, we are creating a project that balances progress with preservation, making the Clark
Reservoir a valued natural space for future generations to enjoy.” After receiving feedback from the public, the County
modified the project in August 2024 to further prioritize environmental improvements.

D

In collaboration with NJDEP to secure necessary permits, Union County is performing a hydro-raking project at Briant Pond
in the City of Summit. It is meant to preserve natural habitats, improve ecological health, and increase recreational
opportunities. T. R. Weniger, an experienced contractor, is leading the hydro-raking project, with Colliers Engineering
performing operations oversight and management.

UNION COUNTY COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM (CERT)
Union County’s Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) is a volunteer-based program designed to enhance local
emergency preparedness and response. CERT members receive free training in disaster response skills such as fire safety,
basic first aid, search and rescue, emergency management, and disaster psychology. Once trained, volunteers assist
professional first responders during emergencies by supporting logistics, managing crowds, providing basic medical aid,
and helping with communications. They also play a key role in community outreach, staffing public safety events,
promoting disaster awareness, and helping organize spontaneous volunteers during large-scale incidents. In nonemergency times, CERT members contribute to preparedness efforts by participating in drills, simulations, and public
education campaigns.

5.0-5

5.6 PLAN INTEGRATION
COUNTY INTEGRATION ACTIVITIES
Planning for the protection and management of open space and natural resources in the county already integrates hazard
mitigation into other planning mechanisms and provides an excellent opportunity for continued and improved integration.
Union County has adopted several plans and programs within the last two decades.

nl
y

Union County Parks, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan (2010)
The Union County Parks, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan identifies the current major public space needs of the
community and anticipates the future needs of its residents. In addition to planning for the county’s recreational needs
for health communities and civic life, it also protects natural areas and provides environmental balance and relief key to
long-term sustainability, particularly in this dense, urban area. This plan was an update to the County’s 1999 plan. The
goals identified in the planning process were to provide an interconnected system of high quality, accessible, multi-use
trails and greenway corridors; update parks and facilities giving consideration to recreation trends and priority need areas;
provide funding sources for Master Plan implementation; preserve and protect the environment; and develop consistent
maintenance and appearance of parks.

ft

O

Union County Transportation Master Plan (2016)
The Union County Transportation Master Plan integrates hazard mitigation planning by emphasizing a resilient
transportation system through vulnerability assessments, resilient design, and coordination with agencies such as NJDOT
and FEMA. The plan also prioritizes maintaining emergency routes, engaging the public in preparedness efforts, and
ensuring that transportation assets can withstand and recover from hazardous events. Chapter 3 of the plan, titled
“Transportation Network” contains a section on climate resilience which discusses both Union County and the state of
New Jersey’s hazard mitigation plans. The plan examines existing efforts to address climate resilience; trends in regional
climate change related to sea level rise, storm surge, temperature and precipitation; various issues and opportunities; and
a strategy to implement recommendations.

D

ra

Passaic River Basin Climate Resilience Planning Study (2019)
A climate resilience planning effort for transportation in the New Jersey portion of the Passaic River Basin, including parts
of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, and Union counties, was completed in June 2019. The
purpose of the planning study was to identify adaptation strategies to protect transportation corridors and assets from
extreme weather events, including excessive flooding, heat waves and sea level rise. The study consisted of the following
activities: conduct a vulnerability assessment of the area’s transportation system; project future climate risks for the
Passaic River Basin; develop adaptation strategies for critical transportation corridors and assets; develop recommended
actions and strategies to protect the transportation system from damage and disruption
NJTPA Resilience Improvement Plan (2024)
The NJTPA is the federally authorized Metropolitan Planning Organization for the 13-county northern New Jersey region,
including Union County. The 2024 Resilience Improvement Plan focuses on enhancing the region’s ability to withstand and
recover from climate-related natural hazards through strategic transportation planning. Developed in partnership with the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the RIP supports hazard mitigation by identifying vulnerabilities in the
transportation system such as risks from flooding, sea level rise, extreme weather, and other disasters and proposing
resilience upgrades to critical infrastructure. As part of the federal PROTECT Program, the plan enables NJTPA subregions
and municipalities to access funding for mitigation projects with reduced local cost share, improving competitiveness for
grants aimed at evacuation routes, at-risk coastal infrastructure, and community resilience initiatives.

5.0-6

LOCAL INTEGRATION ACTIVITIES
Table 5.6-1 details how each municipality is currently integrating their plans and regulations with hazard mitigation and
their strategy to integrate this HMP update with other community planning initiatives.
Table 5.6-1 Ongoing Municipal Integration Activities with Hazard Mitigation
Municipality
Berkeley Heights
Township

Clark Township
Cranford
Township

Ongoing Planned Integration Activities with Hazard Mitigation
The climate change-related hazard vulnerability assessment in the Master Plan was developed in accordance with data and
research noted in the Union County Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) 2021 Update Draft, climate change resources published
by the NJDEP, and the Municipal Snapshot developed by Rutgers NJ Climate Change Resource Center.
The Capital Improvement Plan contains wastewater treatment plant upgrades.
None identified by municipality.
The Capital Improvement Plan identifies projects that, if implemented, could prevent and reduce the impacts of hazards.
Cranford’s Flood Development Ordinance models the State ordinance for development within the flood hazard areas.
Additionally, the Township requires an additional 3 feet of freeboard above the base flood elevation for properties located
within the flood hazard zone.

nl
y

Per the Stormwater Management Ordinance, stormwater management measures for major development should be
designed so that the post-construction peak runoff rates for the current and projected two-, ten-, and 100-year storm
events, are 50%, 75% and 80%, respectively, of the pre-construction peak runoff rates. The percentages apply only to the
post-construction stormwater runoff that is attributable to the portion of the site on which the proposed development or
project is to be constructed.

ft

O

Substantial damage/improved structures response is conducted via inspection by Building, Engineering, Property
Maintenance, or Fire Officials. Notices of violation are issued with follow-up to the responsible party to ensure compliance
in accordance with Uniform Construction Code, Uniform Fire Code, and Property Maintenance Code. When an applicant
applies for a building permit for home improvements the structure is evaluated for SD/SI. If during storm events structures
are damaged, in the past, OEM, building code official, and Engineer have looked at structures for substantial damage
determination.

ra

If a project is being developed in an FHA zone engineering requirements will indicate that an elevation certificate (EC) is
required prior to issuance of a C.O. The Letter of Map Change (LOMC) will require approval from Township floodplain
manager. All EC/LOMC are on record in the building department.
The township has prepared a Flash Flood map that shows impacted areas outside of the flood plain.
The Capital Improvement Plan identifies projects that could prevent or reduce the impacts of natural hazards.

D

Elizabeth City

The Floodplain Development Ordinance enforces higher freeboard or other standards.

Fanwood
Borough

The Stormwater Management Ordinance adopted higher standards than the model.
Drainage improvements are included in the yearly update to the Capital Improvement Plan to reduce surface flooding.
The borough adopted NJDEP’s Stormwater Management Ordinance which is strict for minor development.

5.0-7

Municipality
Garwood
Borough

Ongoing Planned Integration Activities with Hazard Mitigation
The Master Plan provides rules/guidelines to keep the borough safe/viable.
The Capital Improvement Plan provides guidelines for improvements.
Basic Plan Section III – A&B and Basic Plan Section V of the EOP support hazard mitigation.
The Stormwater Management Ordinance reduces the amount of water in stormwater sewers.
The Sheltering Plan gives direction to reduce confusion, and the Evacuation Plan gives direction to make smooth transitions.
The substantial damage/improved structures response helps with emergency situations.
The Disaster Debris Management Plan moves/removes debris efficiently and safely.
The Post-Disaster Recovery Plan re-establishes normalcy.

Mountainside
Borough

None identified by municipality.
None identified by municipality.

nl
y

Hillside
Township
Kenilworth
Borough
Linden City

None identified by municipality.
The Floodplain Development Ordinance enforces some higher standards.

Borough site for disaster debris (Municipal Pool Parking) has been accepted again until Sept 30, 2029.
The borough has a steep slope ordinance.
When a property owner in SFHA applies for a building permit, the borough requests the cost of the work and the value of
the building to determine if the owners are required to bring substantially damaged/improved structures into compliance.

O

New Providence
Borough

The borough has a lot grading ordinance that address steep slope runoff to mitigate flood risk.
The Master Plan incorporates flood mitigation and climate adaptation priorities.

ra

Plainfield City

ft

Construction Department monitors properties through site plan review when redevelopment takes place.

The Capital Improvement Plan includes flood infrastructure and emergency backup power.

D

The EOP expanded to include pandemic and severe weather events.
The Stormwater Management Plan follows NJDEP BMP Manual for runoff.

Rahway City

A Repetitive Loss Plan is to be developed as target initiative.
The Stormwater Management Ordinance is in conformance with the NJDEP model ordinance.

Roselle Borough

The city adopted its Water Conservation Ordinance in 2022.
None identified by municipality.

Roselle Park
Borough
Scotch Plains
Township
Springfield
Township

None identified by municipality.
None identified by municipality.
The EOP is kept on the forefront.
The Floodplain Development Ordinance encourages sensible development.
The Stormwater Management Ordinance is per NJDEP mandate, and the Stormwater Management Plan is per ordinance.

Summit City

The Evacuation Plan lays out clear steps.
None identified by municipality.

5.0-8

Municipality
Union Township

Ongoing Planned Integration Activities with Hazard Mitigation
The Capital Improvement Plan addresses projects that reduce impacts from natural hazards.
The township adopted the FEMA/NJDEP model for its Floodplain Development Ordinance.

Westfield Town

The township adopted a steep slope ordinance.
A section titled “Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment” was added into the Storm Resiliency, Smart Growth, and
Environmental Sustainability element of the Master Plan.
The Capital Improvement Plan provides resources to continue to upgrade stormwater facilities throughout the town.
The Floodplain Development Ordinance regulates construction and land use in flood-prone areas to reduce future flood
damage.
The Stormwater Management Ordinance and Stormwater Management Plan were adopted per state guidelines.

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Winfield
Township

5.0-9

nl
y
O
ft
D
ra
6.0 COUNTY PROFILE

Irving Street Bridge, Rahway, NJ

6.0 COUNTY PROFILE
The recommendations in the Union County HMP update are based in large part on identification of past and potential
property losses and risk to life and safety due to natural and man-made hazards. As part of the process of identifying
potential problems, it is useful to understand the physical characteristics of Union County. It is also important to understand
any related planning efforts by the NJOEM, as well as requirements of the federal government regarding hazard mitigation
plans. The following subsections provide the geography, climate, and population characteristics for Union County.

6.1 OVERVIEW

ft

O

Plainfield City
Rahway City
Roselle Borough
Roselle Park Borough
Scotch Plains Township
Springfield Township
Summit City
Union Township
Westfield Town
Winfield Township

ra

Berkeley Heights Township
Clark Township
Cranford Township
Elizabeth City
Fanwood Borough
Garwood Borough
Hillside Township
Kenilworth Borough
Linden City
Mountainside Borough
New Providence Borough

nl
y

Union County comprises 105 square miles and is home to 21 municipalities. The Watchung Mountains cross the
northwestern section of the County, with the highest elevations exceeding 500 feet above sea level in several locations. It
is the third most densely populated county in New Jersey. Union County is located in the northeast section of New Jersey
and is bordered by the Hudson County, the New York Stateline, and the Arthur Kill to the east, Essex County to the north,
Morris County to the northwest, Somerset County to the southwest, and Middlesex County to the south. The 21
municipalities in Union County include the following:

D

All 21 municipalities participated in the Union County HMP and are mapped in Figure 6.1-1 Union County Base Map.

6.0-2

WATERSHEDS

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Figure 6.1-1 Union County Base Map

A watershed is the area of land that drains into a body of water such as a river, lake, stream, or bay. It is separated from
other systems by high points in the area such as hills or slopes. It includes not only the waterway itself but also the entire
land area that drains to it. Drainage basins generally refer to large watersheds that encompass the watersheds of many
smaller rivers and streams. In New Jersey, the State is divided into 20 Watershed Management Areas (WMA), which are
made up of smaller watersheds. Union County is located mostly in the Arthur Kill (WMA 7), but also encompasses part of
Upper Passaic, Whippany, and Rockaway (WMA 6) and Lower Raritan, South River, and Lawrence (WMA 9).
The mainstem of the Rahway River is 24 miles long, flowing from Union County into the Arthur Kill near Linden and is tidal
from the Pennsylvania Railroad Bridge at Rahway down to the mouth. Major tributaries include the East Branch Rahway
River, Woodbridge River and Robinson's Branch and major impoundments are the Middlesex Reservoir, Orange Reservoir,
Lower and Upper Echo Lakes and Diamond Mill Pond. The Elizabeth River is 11 miles long, much of it channelized for flood
control purposes. Land uses in the Rahway and Elizabeth Watersheds are principally residential, commercial, and industrial.

6.0-3

6.2 POPULATION AND THE ECONOMY
According to the 2018-2022 Census ACS survey, Union County has over 570,000 residents (an estimated 572,079), with
6.1% of the population (an estimated 35,176 residents) under 5 years of age, and 14.6% (an estimated 83,680 residents)
over age 65. The county overall has experienced an estimated 2.65% population growth over the 2013-2017 and 20182022 ACS survey periods.
This trend is also seen in individual municipalities throughout the county; most saw modest growth in population
between 2013-2017 and 2018-2022 estimates. Five municipalities saw population decline, all experiencing relatively
small losses in population: Berkeley Heights, Clark, Cranford, Springfield, and Winfield. The largest population growth
was seen in New Providence, with a nearly 7% population increase during this time.
Table 6.2-1 Union County Total Population

ft

ra
D

Total Population
(2018-2022 ACS 5-Year)
13,120
15,415
23,838
135,665
7,723
4,542
22,262
8,345
43,478
6,991
13,595
54,358
29,664
22,500
13,964
24,740
17,011
22,555
59,956
30,839
1,518

nl
y

Berkeley Heights Township
Clark Township
Cranford Township
Elizabeth City
Fanwood Borough
Garwood Borough
Hillside Township
Kenilworth Borough
Linden City
Mountainside Borough
New Providence Borough
Plainfield City
Rahway City
Roselle Borough
Roselle Park Borough
Scotch Plains Township
Springfield Township
Summit City
Union Township
Westfield Town
Winfield Township

Total Population
(2013-2017 ACS 5-Year)
13,576
15,607
23,972
129,363
7,648
4,365
22,069
8,235
42,230
6,907
12,716
51,097
29,443
21,764
13,709
24,339
17,528
22,155
58,499
30,591
1,525

O

Municipality

Percent Change (%)
-3.36%
-1.23%
-0.56%
4.87%
0.98%
4.05%
0.87%
1.34%
2.96%
1.22%
6.91%
6.38%
0.75%
3.47%
1.86%
1.65%
-2.95%
1.81%
2.49%
0.81%
-0.46%

UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES AND SOCIALLY VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
Very young or aging populations can indicate a potentially vulnerable group of people during the preparation for and
response to a hazard event. Union County is relatively distributed by age but skews towards an older population. Overall
throughout the County, Union has 6.1% of its population under age 5, and 14.6% of its population over the age of 65. Some
exceptions to this distribution are seen in Winfield, where 2.2% of the population is under age 5 and 21.3% of the
population is over age 65, and Mountainside, where over a quarter of the population is over age 65 (25.4%), and just under
9% (8.9%) is under age 5.

6.0-4

Table 6.2-2 Union County Vulnerable Populations
Percent of Population Over Age 65
(2018-2022 ACS 5-Year)
18.57%

Clark Township

4.72%

21.09%

Cranford Township

5.60%

19.33%

Elizabeth City

7.44%

11.36%

Fanwood Borough

4.45%

16.86%

Garwood Borough

4.47%

20.81%

Hillside Township

5.99%

13.93%

Kenilworth Borough

3.86%

14.54%

Linden City

5.64%

13.74%

Mountainside Borough

8.93%

25.43%

New Providence Borough

5.22%

21.20%

Plainfield City

7.65%

10.76%

Rahway City

7.49%

Roselle Borough

4.37%

Roselle Park Borough

5.68%

Scotch Plains Township

4.82%

O

Berkeley Heights Township

nl
y

Percent of Population Under Age 5
(2018-2022 ACS 5-Year)
5.06%

Municipality

Springfield Township
Summit City
Union Township

13.38%
17.12%
16.44%

5.86%

12.82%

4.27%

16.72%

7.50%

14.46%

2.17%

21.28%

ra

Winfield Township

15.72%

4.66%

ft

Westfield Town

16.14%

D

Union County has no tracts designated under the Community Disaster Resilience Zone (CDRZ) designation – tracts which
may be eligible for enhanced hazard mitigation benefits from FEMA for at least five years, and which qualify for more
expansive government investments (such as Climate Smart Communities Initiative, which prioritizes CDRZs).
Union County has 277 block groups (2020) in 15 different municipalities labeled as Overburdened Communities (OBC) – a
New Jersey designation which identifies areas which have (1) at least 35% low-income households, (2) at least 40% of
residents identifying as minority or members of a State-recognized tribal community, or (3) at least 40% of households
having limited English proficiency. In Union County, the overburdened block groups meet criteria, most commonly, of
Minority population classification. There are also portions of Union meeting criteria for communities labeled as Low
Income and Minority, and Low Income, Minority, and Limited English, according to OBC.
Union County has 43 Census Tracts (2010) in 6 different municipalities identified through the Federally designated Climate
and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST), noting communities which are underserved and overburdened by active and
legacy pollution and related vulnerabilities. Municipalities with designated CEJST tracts are primarily far eastern (Elizabeth,
Linden) or far western (Plainfield) Union County. With these classifications, communities within six Union municipalities
meet criteria for areas in need of climate or economic justice under categories of Workforce Development (most common),
Climate Change, Housing, Legacy Pollution, Transportation, Water and Wastewater, and Health.

6.0-5

Based on the above designations, the City of Elizabeth is perhaps the municipality in Union County with the most
underserved tracts/communities; within Elizabeth, there are 80 block groups that are designated OBC and 26 tracts which
are designated CEJST communities. Similarly, the City of Linden has fewer block groups and residents but has the same full
coverage of vulnerable communities as designated by OBC/CEJST found within its borders.

ECONOMY
According to the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (NJLWD) 2024 New Jersey Quarterly
Census of Employment and Wages report, there are 229,052 people employed in Union County in both the public and
private sectors. The industry employing the greatest number of employees was Health Care and Social Assistance, with
35,125 employees, with an annual payroll of $2,304,912,662. The industry with the highest annual payroll was Professional
and Technical Services, $2,472,984,999, with 15,456 employees. Figure 6.2-1 Jobs by Employment Sector in Union County,
2024 displays the number of jobs by industry sector.

nl
y

Figure 6.2-1 Jobs by Employment Sector in Union County (2024)

Health Care and Social Assistance

Transportation and Warehousing
Professional and Technical Services

O

Industry Sector

Educational Services

Wholesale Trade
Other Services, Ex. Public Admin

ft

Finance and Insurance

D
ra

Management of Companies and Enterprises
-

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

Number of Jobs

Source: NJLWD 2024 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages

The major employers identified by the Steering Committee to include in the Planning Process include:
• Merck
• Overlook Medical Center
• Phillips 66 Refinery
• Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Rahway
• Wakefern Food Corporation (Shoprite)
• Trinitas Regional Medical Center

6.3 BUILT ENVIRONMENT
LAND USE/LAND COVER
Key land use types are calculated for the entire county of Union and all municipalities within by using the Land Use / Land
Cover (LULC) data provided by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). Both data releases in
2015 and 2020 were used for change-over-time comparisons.

6.0-6

According to this NJDEP LULC data for survey year 2020, Union County’s over 67,000 acres (including land and water) is
primarily classified as urban (developed). This category includes over 55,000 acres (55,723) as of 2020, nearly 83% of the
county overall (82.6%). Forest land made up an additional 6,007 acres (8.9% of Union County) as of the 2020 LULC release,
and wetlands geographies comprised an additional 4.25% of the county, with 2,865 acres of wetlands throughout Union.
Smaller land use categories include water (1,908 acres, 2.8% of the county) and barren land (868 acres, 1.28% of the
county). Union has a negligible amount of land classified as agriculture; just 79.8 acres (0.11% of the county) are dedicated
to agricultural uses.

Table 6.3-1 Union County Land Cover, 2015 vs. 2020 (NJDEP)
Land Use Type

2015 Acres
86.6
778.6
6,082.8
55,689.1
1,910.9
2,903.4

ft

O

Agriculture
Barren Land
Forest
Urban
Water
Wetlands

nl
y

These statistics show some slight changes between Land Use/Land Cover in 2020 and an earlier 2015 release. Notably,
land classified as ‘barren land’ grew 11.5% over these two survey periods, from 778.6 acres in 2015 to an estimated 868
acres in 2020. Agricultural land saw a loss of 7.9%, with a 2015 estimate of 86.6 acres dropping to the aforementioned
79.8 acres by 2020 estimates. Forest land also saw a slight loss, with 1.2% decline in this acreage (from 6,802 acres in 2015
to just over 6,000 in 2020). Wetlands experienced a slight decline with a loss of just under 40 acres, resulting in a
percentage shift of –1.3% between 2015 and 2020. Urban and water land classifications remained unchanged between
NJDEP estimates in 2015 and 2020. These trends point to a potential period of redevelopment over these time periods, as
a slight loss in forest, agriculture, and wetlands, coupled with a rise in ‘barren land’ indicate land being cleared, unused in
preparation for future development. Table 6.3-1 Union County Land Cover Acreage Change by Land Cover, 2015 vs. 2020
displays the changes in land use seen in the County between 2015 and 2020.
2020 Acres
79.8
868.1
6,007.1
55,723.4
1,908.2
2,864.8

Percent Change (%)
-7.9
11.5
-1.2
0.1
-0.1
-1.3

D

ra

Land uses in Union County were also assessed using the state’s MOD-IV parcel tax database, which allows for land
classification into more detailed categories. This dataset was assessed for change-over-time calculations for releases in
the years 2016 and 2022.
According to this state-level data set, in 2022, Union County was primarily a residential community, with 47.3% of total
land area (25,657 acres) classified as residential land, including apartment residential. Following, public land uses (tax
exempt) made up 27.8% of Union (15,077 acres) in 2022. Industrial land made up an additional 5,148 acres (9.49% of
Union) in 2022, and commercial land uses made up 8.98% (4,869 acres). Smaller amounts of land are classified as vacant
(4.8%, 2,620 acres), railroad property (1.58%, 857.6 acres), and farm land (0.04%, 20 acres).
These classifications show some changes between 2016 and 2022 land use surveys in MOD-IV data. Notably, railroad
property, though small in acreage, grew 30.0% between 2016 and 2022, to 857.6 acres from 2016’s 659.7 acres. Vacant
land saw a growth of 9.7%, growing from 2,387.9 in 2016 to 2,620 in 2022. The data illustrates a decline in agriculture in
Union County between these time periods; MOD-IV reports a 39.21% decline in farm land with a 2022 estimate of 20 acres
(down from 2016’s 32.9 acres). Commercial land also saw a 6.5% decline, and industrial land saw a 3.24% decline. Other
categories remained relatively consistent; residential land stayed about the same, though the apartment (multi-family)
portion saw a slight increase of 1.88% with nearly 19 new acres of apartment-residential development. Lastly, civic/public
(tax exempt) land saw a growth of 2.5%, showing nearly 374 new acres of this land use type in Union County between
2016 and 2022. Table 6.3-2 Union County Land Use, MOD-IV, 2016 vs. 2022 displays the changes in land use seen in the
County between 2016 and 2022 according to this data.

6.0-7

Table 6.3-2 Union County Land Use, MODIV, 2016 vs. 2022 (NJDEP)
Land Use Type

2016 Acres

2022 Acres

Percent Change (%)

Residential

24,740.7

24,632.4

-0.4

Apartment

1,005.4

1,024.3

1.9

Commercial

5,208.2

4,868.9

-6.5

Farm

32.9

20

-39.2

Industrial

5,320.8

5,148.3

-3.2

Civic/Public (Tax Exempt)

14,703.8

15,077.3

2.5

Vacant Land

2,387.9

2,620.2

9.7

Railroad Property

659.7

857.6

30.0

TRANSPORTATION

nl
y

According to the Union County Transportation Master Plan (2016), there are 1,430 miles of road in Union County. Major
roadways that traverse Union County include Interstates 78, 278/Goethals Bridge, and the New Jersey Turnpike (I-95); the
Garden State Parkway; and State Highways 1&9, 22, 24, 27, 82, and 124.

O

Union County owns 129 bridges that span over 20 feet. Of these 129 bridges, 5% are structurally deficient and require
replacement (pending funding) and another 30% are functionally obsolete and may require rehabilitation (pending
funding). NJDOT has identified nine “Orphan Bridges” of uncertain ownership in Union County (Union County
Transportation Master Plan 2016). The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns the Goethals Bridge, which
connects Union County to Staten Island, NY.

ra

ft

Union County freight is moved via all forms of transportation: land, sea, and air. Union County is home to several freight
rail corridors, such as the Lehigh Line and the Garden State Secondary (Chemical Coast Line). Most freight lines in Union
County are operated by Conrail Shared Assets Operations (Union County Transportation Master Plan 2016).

D

In Union County, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey operates port facilities at Port Elizabeth in Elizabeth City.
Port Newark/Elizabeth is the largest marine terminal complex in the Port of New York & New Jersey and is composed of
“the largest containerized, deep-water shipping terminals on the East Coast of the U.S.” (Union County Transportation
Master Plan 2016).
Union County is home to two airports: Linden Municipal Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport, which straddles
the cities of Newark (Essex County) and Elizabeth (Union County) (Union County Transportation Master Plan 2016).
Newark Liberty International Airport (Newark Airport) is a major hub for both passenger travel and cargo movement. In
2023, Newark Airport was ranked the 12th busiest commercial airport in the U.S for passenger travel. Additionally, in 2023,
Newark Airport carried the second most domestic cargo (about 1.3 million tons) of any airport in the New York City region.
Newark Airport is operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Union County Transportation Master Plan
2016). A majority of the airport is in FEMA’s SFHA.
Linden Municipal Airport, which is owned and operated by the City of Linden, is used for general aviation entities as well
as emergency responders and government entities. Linden Municipal Airport does not carry cargo (Union County
Transportation Master Plan 2016).

6.0-8

In addition to the major roadways, Union County also has a network of NJ Transit (NJT) bus stops and routes. NJ Transit
bus service operates 25 routes and over 2,100 stops in Union County. There are 16 rail stations in the county that run along
four NJT rail lines: Northeast Corridor, Raritan Valley Line, Morristown Line, and Gladstone Branch. The New Jersey Coast
Line also runs through the county. Transit service is concentrated in the eastern portion of the county with a focus on
access to Elizabeth, Newark, and New York City (Union County Transportation Master Plan 2016).

HOUSING AND NON-RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
For recent (since 2021) and future (5+ years) major development and infrastructure within each municipality, refer to
Section 2.2 HMP Review: Changes in Development.

6.4 ECOSYSTEMS AND NATURAL ASSETS
RESERVATIONS

nl
y

The Watchung Reservation is the largest nature reserve in Union County, encompassing 6,200 acres. The park is bound by
the city of Summit, the borough of Mountainside, and the townships of Berkely Heights, Scotch Plains, and Springfield.
The reservation includes many features such as trails, playgrounds, fishing, kayaking, and picnic areas. One key feature is
the Watchung Reservation History Trail, a 6-mile trail that visits and identifies sites of historic interest. The stops along the
History Trail recall features from the early years of the Watchung Reservation or describe uses of the land before it was
incorporated into the park.

O

COUNTY AND STATE PARKS

Union County’s 36 park encompass more than 6,200 acres with many opportunities for passive and active recreation
including the Trailside Nature & Science Center, Watchung Stable and The Deserted Village of Feltville.

ft

Briant Pond HydroRaking Project

D

ra

Union County enlisted the services of a contractor to lead the hydro-raking in Briant Park in Summit, NJ. This will
reinvigorate the ecological health and recreational value of Briant Pond. The initial press release stated that hydro-raking
operations are scheduled for Monday through Friday to disrupt park use minimally while also progressing the project
efficiently. The ultimate goals reflected in this effort are environmental stewardship and community engagement.

6.0-9

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

westkopp

7.0 RISK ASSESSMENT

Cranford, NJ

7.0 RISK ASSESSMENT
7.1 OVERVIEW AND CHANGES SINCE 2021
Jurisdictions in Union County are vulnerable to both natural and man-made hazards. For the 2026 plan update, the
Steering Committee reviewed the hazards that were included in the 2021 plan, the 2024 NJ State Hazard Mitigation Plan,
and the occurrences of hazardous events since the previous update.
The 2026 plan update includes the same 15 natural and 10 man-made hazards as the 2021 plan update. However, in this
update, the ‘Critical Facilities’ section has been renamed to ‘Critical Facilities and Community Lifelines’, categorizing the
essential services serving the communities into the eight FEMA Community Lifelines: Safety and Security; Food, Hydration,
and Shelter; Health and Medical; Energy; Communications; Transportation; Hazardous Materials; and Water Systems.
Hazardous events not included at this time may be addressed during future evaluations and updates to the risk assessment
if deemed necessary by the Steering Committee.

nl
y

HAZARD RANKING AND RISK ASSESSMENT UPDATE PROCESS

O

Section 7.1.1 of this HMP update includes detailed descriptions of the process that was used to assess and prioritize Union
County’s risks from natural hazards, quantitative risk assessments for Union County as a whole, and create assessments
that are more detailed for certain asset classes. A total of 25 hazards were identified and profiled by the Steering
Committee (see section 2.3 HMP Evaluation: Changes in Priorities for a comparison of hazards from the previous plan).

D

ra

ft

For each of these hazards, the profiles in Section 7.0 include:
• Hazard Description;
• Location, Extent and Magnitude;
• Previous Occurrences and Losses;
• Probability of Future Occurrence;
• Potential Effects of Climate Change; and
• Vulnerability Assessment

In its early meetings related to this HMP update, the Steering Committee considered a total of 25 hazards that have
potential to affect the County. The group reviewed these hazards and prioritized them as high, medium, or low based on
the overall impact to the County. They considered factors such as how often the hazard occurred, degree of property and
infrastructure damage, number of people impacted, and time of recovery. Those hazards prioritized as high or medium
by the Steering Committee include more extensive discussions about vulnerability and risk than those with lower rankings.
A total of 13 hazards were ranked high. The rankings for all 25 hazards can be found in Table 2.3-2 Hazard Ranking
Crosswalk. In addition, jurisdiction specific hazards have been identified and profiled for each participating municipality
in Appendices Volume I-Jurisdictional Information. A subset of hazards from the main plan was selected for each
jurisdiction. These hazards were identified by municipality point of contacts after a series of meetings and workshops held
with each participating jurisdiction. A goal of the risk assessment update for the 2026 HMP was to improve the information
contained in the jurisdictional appendices to capture the risk facing each community within the planning area.
In addition to ranking hazards at the county level, the municipal working groups also ranked each hazard as high, medium,
and low. The county-wide assessment was supported by jurisdictional risk assessments for the hazards, ranked high,
medium, and low by the municipal planning committees.

7.0-2

A risk calculation is a FEMA requirement. Risk is a numerical indication of potential future damages. This section includes
details about calculation methodologies and results of the county-wide risk assessments. In the 2026 Update, all risk
calculations are included in Section 7.0 Risk Assessment.
During the 2026 HMP update many parts of the 2021 HMP update were preserved. Where applicable, portions of the
historical hazard data have been retained. As required by federal planning guidelines, one of the key elements of the 2026
HMP update was to describe the events and effects of natural hazards on the County since the last Plan update was
developed and adopted.
Note: The term “planning area” is used frequently in this section. This term refers to the jurisdictional limits of Union
County.

7.2 IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS

O

nl
y

During the planning process for this update to the Hazard Mitigation Plan, numerous sources were consulted to identify
hazards of concern in the study area. FEMA maintains records on federal expenditures associated with declared major
disasters, while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) collect
data on losses during the course of some of their ongoing projects and studies. Additionally, the National Oceanic
Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI, formerly the National
Climatic Data Center) maintains data about natural hazards in summary format. The NCEI data includes occurrences, dates,
injuries, deaths, and costs.

MAJOR DISASTER DECLARATIONS

ra

ft

Union County has received 16 major Presidential Disaster Declarations and nine Emergency Declarations since 1950. Since
the last plan update, one major disaster declaration has occurred (Hurricane Ida). The more recent major and emergency
declarations (and one non-declared event) are included as part of the summary below.
Recent Hazards and Declared Major Disasters in Union County, New Jersey (1992-2025)
Disaster
Declaration

12/18/1992

DR-973

3/13/1993

Event

D

Date

Summary

Severe Storms and
Inland and Coastal
Flooding

A major winter storm\ (Nor’easter) that caused considerable coastal flooding and
beach erosion. A total of 12 counties in New Jersey included as part of the
Presidentially Declared Disaster.

DR-3106

Severe Storms and
Flooding

Event known as the “Storm of the Century” affected as many as 26 States from
Florida to Maine, the Gulf Coast, and the Ohio Valley. One of the most intense
nor’easters to ever affect the United States. The “Storm of the Century” label was
given to the event due to the record low pressure, wind speeds, temperature, and
snowfall. All 21 counties in New Jersey were included in the Presidentially Declared
Disaster.

1/7/1996

DR-1088

Blizzard

A State of Emergency was declared for the blizzard that hit the state. Road
conditions were dangerous due to the high winds and drifts. Both government and
contract snow plowing operations were running at a maximum. Local roads were
impassable. This blizzard also brought on coastal flooding with the high tides on
Sunday evening and Monday morning, and there were reports of damage to dunes
and beaches from the heavy wave activity. More than 400 National Guard personnel
were activated for transport assistance, primarily for medic missions. In Union
County, snowfall totals ranged from 20"-30".

10/19/1996

DR-1145

Flash Flood

Flooding temporarily closed parts of US 1 and 9, several state routes, and the
Garden State Parkway. Union County received 5"-7" of rainfall. In Union County, the

7.0-3

Date

Disaster
Declaration

Event

Summary
flooding caused an estimated $4 million in residential property damages and
$300,000 in infrastructure damages.

DR-3148

Hurricane Floyd

This downgraded fall hurricane put the entire Eastern Seaboard on flood watch,
including every county in New Jersey. Although downgraded from a hurricane by the
time it hit New Jersey, the storm lasted approximately 18 hours resulting in rainfall
totals of 11.90" within Union Township in Union County. The Rahway River at
Springfield was above its flood stage of 5.5' from 11:00am on the September 16
until 12:45pm on the September 17. The crest stage of 10.67' occurred around
10:00pm on the September 16.

2/16/2003

DR-3181

Heavy Snow

The most powerful storm to affect New Jersey since the Blizzard of 1996. The
combination of the very cold temperatures and the approach of a strong storm
system caused widespread snow to break out, starting before sunrise on Sunday,
February 16. Snow continued during the day Sunday, heavy at times, and continued
into Sunday night. Precipitation continued on Monday, before finally coming to an
end on Tuesday. Total snowfall in Union County ranged from 18.5" to 23.5". New
Jersey requested and was granted a Snow Emergency Declaration for all 21 counties.
The President's Day snowstorm tied or set records in all 21 New Jersey counties
including Union County. Statewide, the event resulted in damages estimated at
approximately $30.2 million.

Severe Storms and
Flooding

Torrential rain resulted in widespread flash flooding of streets, low lying and poor
drainage areas, mainly along a line extending northeast across Southwest Union
County into South Central Bergen County. The highest estimated rainfall rates were
between 2" and 3" per hour across southwest Union County, where the flooding
was most severe. The Plainfield Township police reported numerous streets flooded:
Rock Avenue, West Front and South Second Streets, Watchung Avenue, and East
Third Street, George and Johnson Avenues, Randolph Road, and Cedarbrook Park,
and a section of Route 22 flooded in Scotch Plains.

ft

O

8/5/2003

nl
y

9/16/1999

DR-1694

Severe Storms and
Inland And Coastal
Flooding

A seven-day Nor’easter deluged New Jersey with over 9" of rain, causing millions of
dollars of damage and killing three residents. Statewide damage was estimated at
$180 million dollars. Street flooding was reported along Route 1 south bound near
Lawrence Street. Union County rainfall ranged from 2.16" at Canoe Brook to 7.31” at
Cranford.

04/02/2010

DR-1897

Severe Storms and
Flooding

A slow moving storm moving north along the Atlantic coast produced heavy rains
from March 12 - 15, 2010. Rainfall amounts were greatest in central and
northeastern New Jersey. One of the highest rainfall totals was reported at USGS
gage in Mountainside, New Jersey.

12/26/2010

DR 1954

Severe Winter Storm A rapidly intensifying low-pressure system tracked from off the Southeast US coast
and Snowstorm
on Christmas Day and then past the Mid Atlantic Coast on Sunday December 26th.
Bands of heavy snow plus embedded thunderstorms and very strong winds affecting
the region Sunday afternoon through Sunday night. The powerful blizzard brought a
widespread area of 20 to 30 inches of snow across Northeast New Jersey. The heavy
snow was accompanied by area wide winds of 25 to 40 mph and gusts in excess of
60 mph Sunday afternoon into Sunday night, resulting in near whiteout conditions
with blowing and drifting snow and making all forms of travel extremely difficult to
nearly impossible. Major Disaster Declaration Declared on February 4, 2011.

10/29/2011

DR-4048

Severe Winter Storm
A historic and unprecedented early-season winter storm impacted the area on
and Snowstorm
Saturday, October 29, with more than one foot of heavy wet snow falling on interior
portions of northeast New Jersey. This is the first time a winter storm of this
magnitude has ever occurred in October. The heaviest snow fell across interior
northeast New Jersey, with up to 18 inches of snowfall across higher elevations.
Thousands of people across northeast New Jersey lost power during this event as
heavy snow accumulated on trees that still had partial to full foliage during midautumn. This caused extensive felling of trees and limbs across the region and

D

ra

4/15/2007

7.0-4

Date

Disaster
Declaration

Event

Summary
damage to power lines. In Union County a significant number of trees came down
due to the heavy wet snow.

DR-4021

Hurricane Irene

Hurricane Irene made landfall along the Outer Banks of North Carolina on August
27, 2011 as a Category 1 hurricane. The storm re- emerged over the Atlantic and
made a second landfall as a tropical storm on August 28th in the Little Egg Inlet in
southeastern New Jersey. Large portions of the county experienced flooding, with
the most severe occurring in the municipalities of Cranford, Springfield, and Rahway.
These areas were mainly impacted by flooding from the Rahway River. The storm
flooded thousands of residential homes in Cranford including the downtown area. In
other areas of the county, police used boats to rescue nearly 90 people from their
homes on flooded streets in Rahway and Springfield. In Rahway significant flooding
occurred along West Grand Avenue and Rahway Avenue. An estimated 30,000
Union County residents were left without power.

10/30/2012

DR-4086

Hurricane Sandy

In late October of 2012, Union County was impacted by Hurricane Sandy, a late
season hurricane. Sandy reached a peak intensity of 85 knot while it turned
northwestward toward the mid-Atlantic states. Sandy weakened somewhat and
then made landfall as a post-tropical cyclone near Brigantine, New Jersey with 70knott maximum sustained winds. Because of its tremendous size, however, Sandy
drove a catastrophic storm surge into the New Jersey and New York coastlines. In
Union County, the storm produced 3 to 6 feet of inundation along the Arthur Kill and
in the Elizabeth Port Authority Marine Terminal along Newark Bay in eastern Union
County. This inundation caused areas of moderate to major damage to industrial
complexes, such as the Bayway refinery.

01/22/2016

DR-4264

Severe Winter Storm
and Snowstorm

On February 11, 2016, Governor Chris Christie requested a major disaster
declaration due to a severe winter storm and snowstorm during the period of
January 22-24, 2016. The Governor requested a declaration for Public Assistance for
17 counties, snow assistance for 14 counties, and Hazard Mitigation statewide.

03/25/2020

DR-4488

Covid-19 Pandemic

09/05/2021

DR-4614

ft

O

nl
y

08/31/2011

ra

FEMA announced that federal emergency aid has been made available for the state
of New Jersey to supplement the state and local recovery efforts in the areas
affected by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic beginning on
January 20, 2020, and continuing.

D

Remnants of
Hurricane Ida

On September 2, 2021, Governor Philip D. Murphy requested an expedited major
disaster declaration due to the remnants of Hurricane Ida during the period of
September 1-3, 2021. The Governor requested a declaration for Individual
Assistance; Public Assistance, including direct Federal assistance; and Hazard
Mitigation statewide.

Source: NOAA/NCEI, FEMA, and the NJ Office of Emergency Management

Although not a FEMA disaster declaration, a flash flood on July 14, 2025, impacted Union County and took two lives in
Plainfield City.

7.3 HAZARDS SUMMARY

7.3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE TYPE AND LOCATION OF HAZARDS
In the initial phase of the planning process, Union County’s Steering Committee reviewed the hazards profiled in the 2021
HMP update. The Steering Committee determined that the same 25 hazards posed the greatest threat to Union County.
As with the 2021 HMP update, the Steering Committee combined Ice Storm with Severe Weather-Winter Weather. Table
7.3-1 Hazard Identification summarizes the hazards included in the 2026 HMP update.

7.0-5

Hazard Identification
Natural Hazards
Dam Failure
Drought
Earthquake/Geological
Erosion–Hurricane/Nor’easter/Coastal Storm
Extreme Temperature – Cold
Extreme Temperature – Heat
Flood
Hail
High Wind – Straight-Line Winds
High Wind – Tornado

nl
y

Landslide (non-seismic)
Severe Storm – Lightning

Severe Storm – Winter Weather
(Includes Ice Storm)

O

Storm Surge –Hurricane/Nor’easter/Tropical Storm
Wildfire

Human-Caused Hazards

ft

Animal Disease
Civil Unrest

ra

Cyber Attack

Economic Collapse

Hazardous Materials Release – Fixed Site

D

Hazardous Materials Release – Transportation
Nuclear Hazards
Pandemic
Power Failure
Terrorism

Note: Impacts from Climate Change and Sea Level Rise will be addressed in each applicable hazard.

The following section profiles each of the 25 hazards listed above and includes a description of the hazard, location and
extent of the hazard, severity of the hazard, impact on life and property, and past occurrences of the hazard.
7.3.2 CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW JERSEY STATE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
As part of the process of developing the Union County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, the planning team carefully
reviewed the 2024 New Jersey State Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (State HMP), with the goal of ensuring consistency
between the two documents, primarily in the areas of hazard identification, risk assessment and mitigation strategy.

7.0-6

For the 2021 HMP update, Union County Division of Emergency Services reviewed the human-based hazards included in
the State HMP and decided to profile several human-based hazards for the first time within the 2021 HMP update. The
2026 plan update continues to profile these hazards. They are as follows:
• Animal Disease
• Civil Unrest
• Cyber Attack
• Economic Collapse
• Nuclear Hazards
• Pandemic
• Power Failure
• Terrorism

nl
y

As with the 2021 HMP update, Union County Division of Emergency Services decided not to profile the following humanbased hazards found in the State HMP in the 2026 HMP update, as they were deemed inapplicable or of insufficient risk
to Union County:
• Crop Failure
• Fishing Failure
• Harmful Algal Bloom

O

7.3.3 HAZARD PROFILE

IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF ASSETS IN HAZARD AREAS

ra

ft

An inventory of Union County's georeferenced assets (identified assets with specific, identified locations) was created in
order to identify and characterize property and persons potentially at risk to the identified hazards. By understanding the
type and number of assets that exist and where they are located in relation to known hazard areas, the relative risk and
vulnerability for such assets can be assessed using GIS analysis.

D

Critical Facilities were identified in cooperation with each municipality using FEMA’s Community Lifelines as a framework.
FEMA created the eight Community Lifelines to contextualize information from incidents, communicate impacts in plain
language, and promote a more unified effort across a community that focuses on stabilization of these lifelines during
response. The eight categories of community lifelines are:
• Safety and Security: Law Enforcement, Security, Fire Service, Search and Rescue, Government Service, Community
Safety
• Food, Hydration, Shelter: Food, Hydration, Shelter, Agriculture
• Health and Medical: Medical Care, Public Health, Patient Movement, Medical Supply Chain, Fatality Management
• Energy: Power Grid, Fuel
• Communications: Infrastructure, Responder Communications, Alerts, Warnings, and Messages, Finance, 911 and
Dispatch
• Transportation: Highway/Roadway/Motor Vehicle, Mass Transit, Railway, Aviation, Maritime
• Hazardous Materials: Facilities, HAZMAT, Pollutants, Contaminants
• Water Systems: Potable Water Infrastructure, Wastewater Management
These community lifelines must continue to operate before, during, and after an emergency and/or hazard event and/or
are vital to health and safety. Community lifelines have been identified as the most fundamental services in each
community that when stabilized enable all other aspects of society to function. A total of 884 lifelines were identified for
this update. The critical facilities, infrastructure and community lifelines spatial inventory includes assets that, although
7.0-7

not always publicly owned, have been defined as critical in accordance with the above definitions. Table 7.3-2 Critical
Facilities and Community Lifeline Summary for Union County summarizes the number of identified community lifelines.
Critical Facilities and Community Lifeline Summary for Union County
Lifeline Category
Jurisdiction

Safety
and
Security

Food,
Hydration
and
Shelter

Health
and
Medical

Energy

Communications

Union
County
675
4
53
29
Total
Source: Union County HMP Update 2021, Union County municipalities

6

Transportation

Hazardous
Materials

Water
Systems

Total

31

16

69

884

O

nl
y

7.3.4 VULNERABILITY OF ASSETS
All assets throughout Union County are exposed to extreme temperatures, extreme winds, hurricanes and tropical
storms, lightning, nor'easters, tornadoes, winter storms, drought and earthquakes. Some hazards have discrete,
delineable hazard areas associated with them. In other words, lines can be drawn on a map to show approximate areas
that are potentially susceptible to the hazard versus those that are not. For the hazards with delineable hazard areas (i.e.,
flood and sea level rise), tables showing the exposure of Union County’s critical facilities by jurisdiction are included in
Appendices Volume I: Jurisdictional Information. Exposure of these assets was determined through GIS analysis of hazard
areas using georeferenced point locations for critical facilities, which were aggregated by community lifeline type. The
results of this analysis are discussed in each relevant hazard profile.

D

ra

ft

7.3.5 DAMAGE ESTIMATES
This multi-jurisdictional vulnerability assessment was conducted utilizing FEMA National Risk Index (NRI) data to provide
estimates for the potential impact of hazards by using a common, systematic framework for evaluation. In the case of the
dam failure hazard, which is not included in the NRI, FEMA’s Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT) was used to
estimate impacts. The results of the multi- jurisdictional vulnerability assessment are provided for each hazard
immediately following the Hazard Profiles of each hazard. Below is a brief description of these approaches.
National Risk Index (NRI) Methodology
FEMA’s National Risk Index dataset and online tool leverages data on natural hazards and community risk factors to
develop a baseline risk measurement for 18 natural hazards by County and Census tract (FEMA, n.d.). Expected annual
loss (EAL) is the natural hazards component of the National Risk Index; the EAL score and rating represent the average
economic loss in dollars resulting from natural hazards each year for a community when compared to all other
communities at the same level. The following formula was used to calculate the EAL:
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 ∗ 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑑 𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢e𝑛𝑐𝑦∗ 𝐻𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = 𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠
Exposure is the representative value of buildings, population, or agriculture potentially exposed to a natural hazard
consequence. Annualized frequency is the expected frequency or probability of a natural hazard occurrence per year.
Historic loss ratio is the estimated percentage of the exposed building value, population, or agriculture value expected to
be lost due to a natural hazard occurrence (FEMA, n.d.).
Risk is presented in terms of EAL in dollars. Building EAL is the predominant measure used across hazards, however,
depending on the nature of the hazard, in some instances agricultural EAL, population equivalence EAL, or total EAL (the
7.0-8

sum of building, agricultural and population equivalence EAL) is used. In general, presenting results in the annualized form
is useful in three ways:
•
•
•

This approach accounts for the contribution of potential losses from all future disasters;
Annualized results for different hazards are readily comparable, thus easier to rank; and
The use of annualized losses is the most objective approach for evaluating mitigation alternatives.

nl
y

Loss estimates provided in this vulnerability assessment are based on best available data, and the methodologies applied
result in an approximation of risk. These estimates should be used to understand relative risk from hazards and potential
losses. Uncertainties are inherent in any loss estimation methodology, arising in part from incomplete scientific knowledge
concerning natural hazards and their effects on the built environment. Uncertainties also result from approximations and
simplifications that are necessary for a comprehensive analysis (i.e., incomplete inventories, demographics or economic
parameters). Additionally, because NRI data is available at the census tract level, in instances where one or more
municipalities were located within the census tract, loss estimates were divided equally between all municipalities
regardless of population or building density.

ra

ft

O

Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT) Methodology
FEMA’s Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT) is a data and GIS mapping tool used to understand community risk.
RAPT was used in the dam failure section as a vulnerability analysis of dam failure is not within the scope of the HAZUS or
NRI methodologies. RAPT was used to conduct a spatial analysis of each high hazard potential dam to vulnerable
populations and critical infrastructure within the planning area. In order to understand the impact of a potential dam
failure, RAPT’s incident analysis tool was used. The tool allows the user to create a buffer zone (or incident area) around
an incident, in this case, dam failure, by setting an incident location. A 5-mile buffer was selected to estimate the at-risk
area. The tool identifies critical facilities within the buffer zone. Additionally, the population counter tool was used which
provides the estimated number of people with a specific characteristic within a drawn shape, by using the same 5-mile
buffer around the dam. Findings for each hazard are detailed in the hazard-by-hazard vulnerability assessment that follows
each Hazard Profile.

D

7.3.6 HAZARD RANKING
Ranking hazards helps communities set goals and priorities for mitigation based on their vulnerabilities. A Risk Factor (RF)
is a tool used to measure the degree of risk for identified hazards in a particular planning area. RF values were obtained
by assigning varying degrees of risk to five categories for each of the hazards profiled. Those categories include:
probability, impact, spatial extent, warning time and duration. Each degree of risk was assigned a value ranging from 1 to
4. The weighting factor is shown below. To calculate the RF value for a given hazard, the assigned risk value for each
category was multiplied by the weighting factor. The sum of all five categories equals the final RF value, as demonstrated
in the example equation:
Risk Factor Value = [(Probability x .30) + (Impact x .30) +
(Spatial Extent x .20) + (Warning Time x .10) + (Duration x .10)]

Hazards identified as high risk have risk factors greater than 2.5. Risk Factors ranging from 2.0 to 2.4 were deemed
moderate risk hazards. Hazards with Risk Factors 1.9 and less are considered low risk.

7.0-9

Risk Factors for Hazard Profiles

Impact

Spatial
Extent

Warning
Time

Duration

(1-4)

(1-4)

(1-4)

(1-4)

(1-4)

Flood

3

3

3

3

2

2.9

Storm Surge –
Hurricane/Nor’easter/Tropical
Storm

2

4

3

2

2

2.8

High Wind – Straight-Line
Winds

3

2

3

3

1

2.5

Drought

3

1

4

1

4

2.5

Pandemic

1

3

4

1

4

2.5

Extreme Temperature–Cold

3

1

4

1

3

2.4

Extreme Temperature – Heat

3

1

4

1

3

2.4

Severe Storm – Winter
Weather

3

2

3

2

2

2.3

Power Failure

3

1

3

3

2

2.3

Earthquake/Geological

1

2

4

4

1

2.2

Wildfire

2

2

2

3

3

2.2

Cyber Attack

3

1

2

4

1

2.1

4

2

2

2.1

1

3

2

2.2

ft

1

2

3

2

Hazardous Materials Release
– Fixed Site

3

High Wind – Tornado

2

Risk Factor

2

1

2

2

2.1

2

1

4

1

1.9

1

3

1

4

1

1.9

2

2

1

2

2

1.8

2

2

1

1

2

1.7

3

1

1

2

1

1.7

1

2

2

2

2

1.7

Severe Storm – Lightning

2

1

1

3

1

1.5

Erosion–
Hurricane/Nor’easter/Coastal
Storm

2

1

1

1

1

1.3

Landslide (non-seismic)

1

1

1

4

1

1.3

Terrorism

Hail
Nuclear Hazards

D

Civil Unrest
Animal Disease

Low

O

Economic Collapse
Hazardous Materials Release
– Transportation

nl
y

Probability

Hazard

ra

Moderate

High

Risk

Risk Assessment Category

7.4 DAM FAILURE

7.4.1 HAZARD DESCRIPTION
A dam is defined by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as any artificial dike, levee, or other
barrier, which is constructed for the purpose of impounding water on a permanent or temporary basis, that raises the
water level five feet or more above the usual, mean, low water height when measured from the downstream toe-of-dam
to the emergency spillway crest or, in the absence of an emergency spillway, the top-of-dam.
A dam failure can be defined as the unintended release or surge of impounded water. A failure can cause significant
property damage, injury, and in some cases death downstream of where the dam failed. The severity of dam failure can
7.0-10

also vary widely. There is the potential for total collapse of a dam, but less significant failures are more likely as a result of
an overtopping (inadequate spillway design, debris blockage), foundation defects, or seepage. Overtopping of a dam
during a flood event due to clogged debris has the potential to be catastrophic. According to USGS, in 1972 the Dam Failure
in Rapid South Dakota occurred after the Canyon Lake Dam became clogged with debris and the dam was overtopped.
According to DEP, dam failures can result from a variety of causes including lack of maintenance, seismic activity, improper
design or construction, or during large storm events. Significant rainfall can quickly inundate an area and cause flood
waters to overwhelm a reservoir. If the spillway of the dam cannot safely pass the resulting flows, water will begin flowing
in areas not designed for such flows and failure may occur.
According to FEMA, intense storms may produce a flood in a few hours or even minutes for upstream locations. Flash
floods can occur within several hours of the beginning of heavy rainfall, and dam failure may occur within hours of the
first signs of breaching. Other failures can take much longer to occur, from days to weeks, as a result of debris jams or the
accumulation of melting snow.

nl
y

To prevent, or reduce the probability of failure, existing dams are periodically inspected by professional engineers. Table
7.4-1 New Jersey Dam Inspection Schedule summarizes the dam inspection schedule for New Jersey, including Union
County.

Regular Inspection

Formal Inspection

Class I Large Dam

Annually

Once Every Three Years

Class I Dam

Once Every Two Years

Once Every Six Years

Class II Dam

Once Every Two Years

Once Every 10 Years

Class III Dam

Once Every Four Years

Only as Required

Once Every Four Years

Only as Required

Class IV Dam

ra

Dam Class

ft

O

New Jersey Dam Inspection Schedule

Source: DEP – Dam Safety and Flood Control

D

Dams are typically ranked by hazard classification, which is determined by the potential for infrastructure and property
damages downstream if a dam failure were to occur. The three hazard classifications include high hazard, significant, and
low and are defined as follows:
• High-Hazard Potential Dams are those whose failure or operational failure will probably cause loss of life and/or
significant infrastructure losses.
• Significant-Hazard Potential Dams are those whose failure or operational problems are unlikely to cause loss of
human life, but can cause economic loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifelines, or other concerns.
• Low-Hazard Potential Dams are those whose failure would probably cause no loss of human life and only low
economic and/or environmental losses, which would typically be limited to the dam owner’s property.
7.4.2 LOCATION, EXTENT AND MAGNITUDE
Location
According to the DEP there are a total of 23 dams in Union County as of 2024. The DEP – Bureau of Dam Safety separates
New Jersey dams into three hazard classifications. These hazard classifications include high hazard, significant, and low
and are based upon the guidelines outlined in the New Jersey Administrative Code – Dam Safety Standards (NJAC: 7-20):
Dam Classifications. The County contains an additional 7 DEP dams database classified structures which are not technically
dams.
7.0-11

The following table lists the dams, including the municipality name, hazard classification, the river or stream the dam is
located along, the last inspection date and the name of the dam. The table is ordered by hazard classification that ranks
the potential for loss of life and infrastructure and property damages downstream if a dam failure were to occur. The
three hazard classifications include high-hazard potential (H), significant-hazard potential (S), and low-hazard potential
(L); these are defined at the bottom of the table. Other Structures are dams DEP database classified structures that are
not technically dams within their database (O).
Table 7.4-2 Union County Dams Summary summarizes the number of dams by municipality and hazard class while Figure
7.4-1 State Regulated Dams within Union County below shows the location of these structures within Union County.

Total SignificantHazard Potential
Dams

Total Low-Hazard
Potential Dams

Overall Total

Other
Structures

Berkeley Heights Township

0

0

1

1

3

Clark Township

1

2

0

3

0

Cranford Township

0

0

5

5

0

Elizabeth City

0

0

1

1

0

Fanwood Borough

0

0

0

0

0

Garwood Borough

0

0

0

0

0

Hillside Township

0

0

0

0

0

Kenilworth Borough

0

0

0

0

0

Linden City

0

0

1

1

1

Mountainside Borough

0

2

1

3

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

Plainfield City

Roselle Park Borough

D

Rahway City

ra

New Providence Borough

nl
y

Total High- Hazard
Potential Dams

ft

Jurisdiction

O

Union County Dams Summary

0

0

0

0

0

Scotch Plains Township

1

1

1

3

0

Springfield Township

0

1

0

1

0

Summit City

0

0

0

0

0

Union Township

0

0

0

0

2

Westfield Town

0

0

1

1

0

Winfield Township

0

0

0

0

0

Union County Total

3

7

13

23

7

Roselle Borough

Source: 2024 NJDEP–Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood Control

7.0-12

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Figure 7.4-1 State Regulated Dams Within Union County

Magnitude
The extent or magnitude of a dam failure event can be measured in terms of the classification of the dam. The NJDEP
assigns one of four hazard classifications to state-regulated dams in New Jersey. The classifications relate to the potential
for property damage and/or loss of life in the event of a dam failure:
•

Class I (High Hazard Potential) - Failure of the dam may result in probable loss of life and/or extensive property
damage.

•

Class II (Significant Hazard Potential) - Failure of the dam may result in significant property damage; however, loss
of life is not envisioned.

•

Class III (Low Hazard Potential) - Failure of the dam is not expected to result in loss of life and/or significant
property damage.

•

Class IV (Small Dam Low-Hazard Potential) - Failure of the dam is not expected to result in loss of life or significant
property damage.

7.0-13

In Union County, three dams are classified as high-hazard potential by the DEP-Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood Control:
Robinson’s Branch Reservoir Dam (Clark Township), Clearwater Detention Dam (New Providence Borough), and
Shackamaxon Dam (Scotch Plains Township). The Robinson’s Branch Reservoir Dam is owned by Union County and as part
of this plan update, they moved the priority to high for the action to mitigate the risk of dam failure for the dam. The
Clearwater Detention Dam is owned by New Providence Borough and as part of this plan update, they created a new
action to repair and maintain the dam. The Shackamaxon Dam is owned by Heritage Golf Group. The Project Team engaged
the engineer Jeff Derosier from Derosier Engineering, who reviewed the HMP and offered an update on the dam’s
inspection status and recent findings.
Inventory of Union County Dams, Ordered by Hazard Classification
Dam Name

Hazard Class

River/Stream

Clark Township

Robinson's Branch Reservoir Dam

H

Robinsons Branch

New Providence Borough

Clearwater Detention Dam

H

Salt Brook

Scotch Plains Township

Shackamaxon Dam

H

Lambert's Run

Clark Township

Jackson Pond Dam

S

Rahway River

Clark Township

Bloodgoods Pond Dam

S

Rahway River

Mountainside Borough

Echo Lake Upper Dam

S

Nomahegan Creek

Mountainside Borough

Echo Lake Dam

S

Normahegan Brook

Rahway City

Milton Lake Dam

S

Robins Branch Rahway River

Scotch Plains Township

Seeley's Pond Dam

S

Green Brook

Springfield Township

Briant Park Dam

S

Van Winkle Brook

Berkeley Heights Township

Murray Hill Farm Detention Dam

L

Passaic River-TR

Cranford Township

Sperry Pond Dam

L

Rahway River

Hansel Dam

L

Rahway River

Droescher's Dam

L

Rahway River

Nomahegan Park Dam

L

Rahway River-TR

Kenilworth Blvd. Dam

L

Nomaheaan Brook

Ursino Dam

L

Elizabeth River

Linden City

1A Dam

L

Morses Creek

Linden City

Bayway Refinery No. 2 Dam

L

Morses Creek

Mountainside Borough

Surprise Lake Dam

L

Blue Brook

Rahway City

Ritchie Dam

L

Rahway River

Rahway City

Rahway Dam

L

Rahway River-TR

Scotch Plains Township

No Name Dam

L

Green Brook Raritan River

Westfield Town

Mindowaskin Lake Dam

L

Rahway River

Cranford Township
Cranford Township
Elizabeth City

O

ft

ra

Cranford Township

D

Cranford Township

nl
y

Municipality Name

Hazard Classes (Source: New Jersey Administrative Code - Dam Safety Standards (NJAC: 7-20): Dam Classifications)
H = High-Hazard Potential: Loss of life likely (if failure were to occur)
S = Significant-Hazard Potential: Loss of life not likely but the potential for significant property damage
L = Low-Hazard Potential: Loss of life not likely and minimal infrastructure or property damage other than the structure itself
Source: 2024 DEP–Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood Control

7.0-14

7.4.3 PREVIOUS OCCURRENCES AND LOSSES
The DEP indicates there have been no previous catastrophic dam failures in New Jersey, but the number of small failures
has risen over the past few years. This has been primarily due to a combination of lack of inspection and the number of
dams nearing the end of their design life. While not considered a failure, Linden City has reported that several times a
year, water exceeds the limits of the Jackson Pond and Bloodgoods Dams.

nl
y

The DEP–Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood Control lists dam failures in New Jersey from several major flooding events
including Hurricane Floyd in September of 1999 and the Sparta storm in 2000. Review of these floods identified three dam
failures in Union County. The Shackamaxon Dam, Seeley’s Pond Dam, and Bloodgoods Dam all partially failed after
Hurricane Floyd. The partial dam failures are described below:
• Shackamaxon Dam (Scotch Plains Township). This dam partially failed after floodwater eroded the discharge
channel.
• Seeley’s Pond Dam (Scotch Plains Township). Floodwaters partially destroyed the masonry spillway cap and the
upper portion of the dam.
• Bloodgoods Dam (Clark Township). The DEP–Dam Safety and Flood Control Site does not provide a description
for this failure.

O

As part of the 2026 HMP update, the DEP–Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood Control list and the Association of State Dam
Safety Officials (ASDSO) Dam Safety Incident Database were consulted and did not return any additional events beyond
those listed above.

ra

ft

7.4.4 PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES
Dam failures are rare and hard to forecast future occurrence; however, they normally coincide with events that cause
them such as earthquakes, landslides, and excessive rainfall and snowmelt. Dam failures in New Jersey are often caused
by heavy rains or other precipitation. The probability of dam failure in Union County is low (State HMP).

D

7.4.5 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
According to the State HMP, dams are designed partly based on assumptions about a river’s flow behavior, expressed as
hydrographs. Changes in weather patterns can have significant effects on the hydrograph used for the design of a dam. If
the hygrograph changes, it is conceivable that the dam can lose some or its entire designed margin of safety, also known
as freeboard. Loss of designed margin of safety may cause floodwater to more readily overtop the dam or create
unintended loads. Such situations could lead to a dam failure.
According to the 2020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate Change (NJ Climate Change Report) by DEP, the climate of
New Jersey is already changing and will continue to change over the course of this century. Precipitation is expected to
increase over the next several decades in the State. The NJ Climate Change Report states that the frequency of instances
of extreme annual precipitation (“wet years”) has increased, while the frequency of “dry years” has decreased statewide.
The NJ Climate Change Report states that New Jersey’s annual precipitation is expected to increase by 4% to 11% by 2050.
Several studies have found increases in the frequency and amount of heavy precipitation in the Northeastern United
States over the last century. Extreme precipitation events have increased in the Northeastern United States by 71% over
the last 50 years, which is at a faster rate over the past three decades than anywhere else in the United States. As annual
precipitation increases, so will the size and frequency of floods. As a result, the failure probability of low, significant, and
under-designed high hazard dams may increase according to the State HMP.
7.4.6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
7.0-15

Dams can fail with little warning. Intense storms may produce a flood in a few hours or even minutes for upstream
locations. Flash floods can occur within six hours of the beginning of heavy rainfall, and dam failure may occur within hours
of the first signs of breaching. Other failures and breaches can take much longer to occur, from days to weeks, as a result
of debris jams, the accumulation of melting snow, and the buildup of water pressure on a dam with deficiencies after days
of heavy rain, etc. Flooding can occur when a dam operator releases excess water downstream to relieve pressure from
the dam.
Dam failure can cause severe downstream flooding, depending on the magnitude of the failure. Other potential secondary
hazards of dam failure are landslides around the reservoir perimeter, bank erosion on the rivers, and destruction of
downstream habitat. Dam failures can occur as a result of structural failures, such as progressive erosion of an
embankment or overtopping and breaching by a severe flood (State HMP). Earthquakes may weaken dams. Floods caused
by dam failures have caused loss of life and property damage. Dam and levee failures may also cause the release of
hazardous materials into the environment when floodwaters infiltrate development and infrastructure. This may lead to
widespread contamination resulting in costly remediation.

ft

O

nl
y

All assets located in a dam failure inundation zone could be exposed to the risk of a dam failure. The potential for loss of
life is affected by the capacity and number of evacuation routes available to populations living in areas of potential
inundation. Vulnerable populations are all populations downstream from dam failures that are incapable of escaping the
area within the needed timeframe. This population includes the elderly and young who may be unable to get themselves
out of the area of inundation. Economically disadvantaged populations are more vulnerable because they are likely to
evaluate their risk and make decisions to evacuate based on the net economic impact to their family. The population over
the age of 65 is also highly vulnerable because they are more likely to seek or need medical attention, which may not be
available because of isolation during a flood event and difficulties in evacuating (State HMP).

D

ra

There is often limited warning time for a dam failure event. While dam failure is rare, when events do occur, they are
frequently associated with other natural hazard events such as earthquakes, landslides, or severe weather, which limits
their predictability and compounds the hazard. Populations without adequate warning of the event from a television or
radio emergency warning system are highly vulnerable to this hazard
Dam and levee failure inundation maps and downstream hazard areas are considered sensitive information and are not
made available within the Union County HMP. To approximate and assess vulnerability to dam failure in Union County,
the Planning Team used FEMA’s online Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT) to conduct a spatial analysis of each
high hazard dam to vulnerable populations and critical infrastructure within the planning area. In order to assess the
impact of a potential dam failure, RAPT’s incident analysis tool was used. The tool allows the user to create a buffer zone
(or incident area) around an incident, in this case, dam failure, by setting an incident location. A five-mile buffer was
selected to estimate the at-risk area. The tool identifies critical facilities within the buffer zone. Additionally, the
population counter tool was used which provides the estimated number of people with a specific characteristic within a
drawn shape, by using the same 5-mile buffer around the dam.
The table below summarizes the RAPT vulnerability assessment of all three high hazard dams within the County. As shown
in the table, Robinson’s Branch Reservoir Dam has the most significant impact to People at Risk (PAR) closely followed by
Shackamaxon dam which is proximal to a greater amount of critical infrastructure in the county.
Populations at Risk (PAR) and Critical Infrastructure Within a 5-Mile Radius of High Hazard Dam

7.0-16

Dam Name
Clearwater Detention Dam
Robinson's Branch Reservoir Dam
Shackamaxon Dam
Source: FEMA RAPT, 2025

Total
Population

Population
65+

196,473
383,832
360,822

32,105
61,921
59,258

Population
with a
Disability
13,112
36,178
30,768

Population
Below Poverty
Line
6,650
22,019
23,394

Population
Living in
Mobile Homes
182
2,142
701

Critical
Facilities
255
441
465

7.5 DROUGHT

7.5.1 HAZARD DESCRIPTION
A drought is an extended dry climate condition when there is not enough water to support urban, agricultural, human, or
environmental water needs. It usually refers to a period of below normal rainfall but can also be caused by drying bores
or lakes, or anything that reduces the amount of liquid water available. Drought is a recurring feature of nearly all the
world's climatic regions.

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Drought is the result of a decline in the expected precipitation over an extended period of time, typically one or more
seasons in length. There are several different types of droughts. These are listed below:
• Meteorological drought is defined solely on the degree of dryness, expressed as a departure of actual precipitation
from an expected average or normal amount based on monthly, seasonal, or annual time scales.
• Hydrological drought is related to the effects of precipitation shortfalls on stream flows and reservoir, lake, and
groundwater levels. Agricultural drought is defined principally in terms of soil moisture deficiencies relative to
water demands of plant life, usually crops.
• Socioeconomic drought associates the supply and demand of economic goods or services with elements of
meteorological, hydrologic, and agricultural drought. Socioeconomic drought occurs when the demand for water
exceeds the supply as a result of weather-related supply shortfall. This may also be called a water management
drought.

D

Drought differs from other natural hazards in three ways. First, the onset and end of a drought are difficult to determine
due to the slow accumulation and lingering effects of an event. Second, the lack of an exact and universally accepted
definition adds to the confusion of its existence and severity. Third, in contrast with other natural hazards, the impact of
drought is less obvious and may be spread over a larger geographic area. These characteristics have hindered the
preparation of drought contingency or mitigation plans by many governments.
7.5.2 LOCATION, EXTENT AND MAGNITUDE

LOCATION
Droughts may occur anywhere in the United States and is possible throughout the planning area. Effects seen in different
regions vary depending on normal meteorological conditions such as precipitation and temperature, as well as geological
conditions such as soil type and subsurface water levels. The State of New Jersey is divided into six drought regions that
provide a regulatory basis for coordinating local responses to regional water-supply shortages. The six drought regions are
based on watershed and water-supply considerations and coincide with municipal boundaries. Each municipality in New
Jersey is assigned to a drought region based on the watershed covering and supplying water to the municipality. All of
Union County is located in the Central Drought Region (DEP Division of Water Supply and Geoscience). The drought regions
are depicted in the figure below.

7.0-17

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Figure 7.5-1 New Jersey Drought Regions

Source: New Jersey State HMP, 2025

EXTENT AND MAGNITUDE
A drought’s severity depends on numerous factors, including duration, intensity, and geographic extent as well as regional
water supply demands by humans and vegetation. According to FEMA, the severity of drought can be aggravated by other
climatic factors, such as prolonged high winds and low relative humidity. Due to its multi-dimensional nature, drought is
difficult to define in exact terms and also poses difficulties in terms of comprehensive risk assessments.

7.0-18

According to NOAA National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center, one method used by scientists to calculate the
severity and duration of a drought is the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI). The PDSI indicates the prolonged and
abnormal moisture deficiency or excess and indicates general conditions, not local variations caused by isolated rain. The
PDSI is an important climatological tool for evaluating the scope, severity, and frequency of prolonged periods of
abnormally dry or wet weather.
The equation for the PDSI was empirically derived from the monthly temperature and precipitation scenarios of 13
instances of extreme drought in western Kansas and central Iowa and by assigning an index value of -4 for these cases.
Conversely, a +4 represents extremely wet conditions. From these values, 7 categories of wet and dry conditions can be
defined. Table 7.5-1 Palmer Drought Severity Index identifies the values used to define the PDSI.
Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI)
Category

-4.0 or less

Extreme Drought

-3.0 or -3.9

Severe Drought

nl
y

Palmer Drought Severity Index

-2.0 or -2.9

Moderate Drought

-1.9 to +1.9

Near Normal

+2.0 or +2.9

Unusual Moist Spell
Very Moist Spell

O

+3.0 or +3.9
+4.0 or above

Extremely Moist

Source: NOAA, National Weather Service - Climate Prediction Center

D

ra

ft

7.5.3 PREVIOUS OCCURRENCES AND LOSSES
Despite the 2021 plan update reporting Union County has experienced 11 drought events in the period from 1950 to 2021
according to the NCEI Storm Events Database, a search of the database on May 15, 2025, returned zero results. The
database provides no indication as to why these events are no longer to be found. Significant drought events in Union
County since 2010 are detailed in the table below containing information carried over from the previous plan and updated
with information found in the 2024 State HMP:
Drought Events, Union County, 2010-2025
Date of Event

Description

July to October
2010

On August 5, the NJDEP issued a drought watch for northeast New Jersey. At the height of the drought event in
September, over 27 percent of the state was experiencing severe drought conditions while 56 percent and 16 percent of
the state was experiencing moderate drought and abnormally dry conditions, respectively. The meteorological summer
was the 10th driest (8.65 inches) on record dating back to 1895 in New Jersey and was also the driest summer since 1966

March to June
2012

Lowest PDSI of -3.29 in April, with 5 weeks of the entire state experiencing moderate drought conditions across April and
May

May to June 2015

At the height of the drought event in late May, over 29 percent of the state was experiencing moderate drought
conditions

October 2016 to
April 2017

Drought conditions were the worst faced by New Jersey in 14 years. The entire state was experiencing some level of
drought conditions at the height of the drought event in late November and early December, with nearly 38 percent of
the state experiencing severe drought conditions, 34 percent experiencing moderate drought, and 28 percent was
abnormally dry. NJDEP issued a Drought Warning for much of Northern and Central New Jersey due to the severity of this
period of drought

7.0-19

Date of Event

Description

July to December
2022

A statewide Drought Watch was instituted from early August to late December. September was the most severe month,
as 67 percent of the state was under moderate drought conditions and an additional 29 percent were under severe
drought conditions during the first two weeks of the month.

April 2023
June 2024 to June
2025

Parts of northern counties experienced moderate drought for around 2 weeks, with the largest areas in Bergen and
Passaic Counties.
A record dry spell led to driest conditions the state has had in 120 years, with the southern half of the state experiencing
the worst conditions.

Source: NJ SHMP, 2024, NOAA NCEI, 2025.

nl
y

7.5.4 PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES
Based upon risk factors as well as past occurrences, it is likely that droughts can occur across New Jersey in the future. In
addition, as projected temperatures increase, the probability for future droughts will likely increase as well. Therefore, it
is likely that droughts will occur in New Jersey of varied severity in the future. Please refer to Section 7.4.5 Potential Effects
of Climate Change below for a discussion of how climate change may increase the frequency of drought events.

ra

ft

O

7.5.5 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
According to the 2020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate Change (NJ Climate Change Report), the frequency of
drought and heatwave conditions is increasing across the nation, and the Northeastern United States is anticipated to
experience a greater frequency of droughts lasting 3-6 months or longer in the future. Further, as different climate norms
are changing, usually insignificant events occurring simultaneously can create a significant event together. For example,
drought conditions may arise from the concurrence of a heatwave and extended periods of dry weather during the
summer. The NJ Climate Change Report also notes that water consumption has been increasing in some parts of New
Jersey, and that local water supplies may be stressed as changes in precipitation patterns and particularly extended
periods of low rainfall increase the frequency of drought.

D

7.5.6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Because drought impacts large areas and crosses jurisdictional boundaries, all existing and future buildings, facilities and
populations are considered to be exposed to this hazard and could potentially be impacted. Droughts have the ability to
impact many sectors of the economy and reach well beyond the area experiencing physical drought. Drought impacts are
commonly referred to as direct or indirect. Reduced crop productivity, increased fire hazard, reduced water levels, and
damage to wildlife and fish habitat are a few examples of direct impacts. Drought can cause extensive damage to
commercial and residential structure foundations, framing and walls, levees, roads, bridges, pipelines and other integral
infrastructure. Indirect impacts of drought include increased prices for food, unemployment, and reduced tax revenues
because of reduced supplies of agriculture products dependent upon rainfall.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY LIFELINES
Although drought typically has a negligible impact on building stock and infrastructure, it can present a challenge to
community lifelines. Water supply in the county is serviced by public water systems that use groundwater wells, local
surface water supplies, and purchased surface water from other parts of the State. The New Jersey Drought Emergency
Plan, prepared by the New Jersey Departments of Law and Public Safety and Environmental Protection, fully identifies
authority, organization, concept of operations, and responsibilities for any drought emergency and is used as needed in
response to potential drought situations. Drought status information is maintained at http://njdrought.org. Drought
emergencies are implemented when drought begins to affect residents and businesses.

7.0-20

When emergencies are declared, all residents, including those with private wells, are urged to adhere to mandatory
restrictions such as limiting or eliminating lawn watering, driveway washing, and car washing. Often, non-essential
business use may be restricted. When waterways approach historic low flows, groundwater supplies may also be affected.
Table 7.5-3 Total Number of Wells by Jurisdiction shows the total number of wells by municipality based on data collected
for the NJ Private Well Testing Act. The total number of intakes and treatment plants by municipality were not identified
as they are not readily available.
Total Number of Wells by Jurisdiction
Total Number of Wells

Berkeley Heights Township

28

Clark Township

<10

Cranford Township

<10

Elizabeth City

<10

Fanwood Borough

0

Garwood Borough

0

nl
y

Jurisdiction

Hillside Township
Kenilworth Borough

O

Linden City
Mountainside Borough
New Providence Borough

Rahway City

0
<10
<10
0
<10
0
0

Roselle Park Borough

0

Scotch Plains Township

18

D

ra

Roselle Borough

ft

Plainfield City

0

Springfield Township

<10

Summit City

<10

Union Township

<10

Westfield Town

<10

Winfield Township

0

Source: DEP, NJ Private Well Testing Act Data Summary (Sep. 2002-Apr. 2014)

POPULATION AND ECONOMY
While all residents of Union County could be adversely affected by drought conditions, which could limit water supplies
and present health threats during summer drought or hot and dry conditions, elderly persons, small children, infants and
the chronically ill who do not have adequate cooling units in their homes may become more vulnerable to injury and/or
death. However, the NCEI reported no known deaths, injuries or property damage from droughts in the planning area
from any of the past events identified.
Crop failure is not a significant concern for Union County, as there is little agricultural activity. The United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2022 Census of Agriculture reports a total of 15 farms in the county accounting for a
total of 139 acres of farmland (0.2% of the total area of the county). The 2022 market value of agricultural products in the
7.0-21

county totaled $315,000. Using the Agriculture EAL Rate provided by FEMA’s NRI of $1 per $74.88 of agriculture value, it
is possible to estimate the annual loss of agricultural value to drought. Assuming the exposure of crops was equal to the
total value of crops sold ($315,000), the expected annual loss to the county is $4,206.73.

ECOSYSTEMS AND NATURAL ASSETS
Long periods without precipitation can alter the delicate balance of ecosystems. Examples of drought impacts to ecological
systems may include reduced plant growth, local species reduction or extinction, and landscape-level transitions. Drought
impacts to ecological systems may diminish the resources and services provided by those systems, including water
filtration and quality, wildlife habitat, and sufficient water levels for recreation, tourism, and preponderance of aquatic
species. High temperatures, high winds, and low humidity can worsen drought conditions and make areas more
susceptible to wildfire. The vulnerability of natural systems to withstand or adapt to drought disturbances depends on the
sensitivity of the system, exposure to the hazard, and capacity to adapt and recover

7.6 EARTHQUAKE/GEOLOGICAL

D

•

ft

•

Epicenter: The place on the Earth's surface directly above the point on the fault where the earthquake rupture
begins. Once fault slippage begins, it expands along the fault during the earthquake and can extend hundreds of
miles before stopping.
Fault: The fracture across which displacement occurs during an earthquake. The slippage may range from less
than an inch to more than 10 yards in a severe earthquake.
Magnitude: The amount of energy released during an earthquake, which is computed from the amplitude of the
seismic waves. A magnitude of 7.0 on the Richter scale indicates an extremely strong earthquake. Each whole
number on the scale represents an increase of about 30 times more energy released than the previous whole
number represents. Therefore, an earthquake measuring 6.0 is about 30 times more powerful than one measuring
5.0.
Seismic Waves: Vibrations that travel outward from the earthquake fault at speeds of several miles per second.
Although fault slippage directly under a structure can cause considerable damage, the vibrations of seismic waves
cause most of the destruction during earthquakes.
Aftershock: An earthquake of similar or lesser intensity that follows the main earthquake.

ra

•

O

nl
y

7.6.1 HAZARD DESCRIPTION
According to FEMA, an earthquake is “a shaking of the earth's surface by energy waves emitted by slowly moving tectonic
plates overcoming friction with one another underneath the earth's surface.” Earthquakes are often relatively short
duration, but there may be aftershocks and other effects (such as liquefaction) that prolong and exacerbate their effects.
Earthquakes can also trigger secondary hazards such as fires, tsunamis, landslides or avalanches. It is important to
understand all of the terms associated with earthquakes, which include the following:

•

•

7.6.2 LOCATION, EXTENT AND MAGNITUDE

LOCATION
There is some potential for seismic activity virtually anywhere on the earth. Locations that are close to tectonic faults,
however, are much more likely to be impacted by earthquakes than other places. Relative to the rest of the county, New
Jersey faces low to moderate risk. Review of the State HMP and other Source indicates that earthquakes are most likely
to occur in the northern parts of the State (including Union County), where significant faults are concentrated. The entire
planning area is susceptible to the effects of earthquakes.
7.0-22

The 2016 HMP update included the USGS National Seismic Hazard Map produced in 2014 showing peak ground
acceleration (PGA) with a 2% chance of being exceeded over 50 years. Figure 7.6-1 Seismic Hazard in New Jersey displays
the PGA with a 2% probability of being exceeded over 50 years, for a firm rock site. PGA is a measure of the strength of
shaking experienced by a particle on the ground during an earthquake. The map shows that highest hazard areas in the
State can be found in northeastern New Jersey (shaded yellow) and decreases to the south (shaded green). Discussion of
the relationship between PGA and earthquake magnitude and impacts can be found in the following section.

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Figure 7.6-1 Seismic Hazard in New Jersey

Source: NJ SHMP 2024

EXTENT AND MAGNITUDE
The effect of an earthquake on the Earth's surface is called the intensity. The intensity scale consists of a series of certain
key responses such as people awakening, movement of furniture, damage to chimneys, and finally-- total destruction.
Although numerous intensity scales have been developed over the last several hundred years to evaluate the effects of
earthquakes, the one currently used in the United States is the Modified Mercalli (MM) Intensity Scale. It was developed
in 1931 by the American seismologists Harry Wood and Frank Neumann. This scale, composed of increasing levels of
intensity that range from imperceptible shaking to catastrophic destruction, is designated by Roman numerals. It does not
have a mathematical basis; instead, it is an arbitrary ranking based on observed effects.1

1 The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mercalli.php

7.0-23

The Modified Mercalli Intensity value assigned to a specific site after an earthquake has a more meaningful measure of
severity to the nonscientist than the magnitude because intensity refers to the effects actually experienced at that place.
The lower numbers of the intensity scale generally deal with the manner in which the earthquake is felt by people. The
higher numbers of the scale are based on observed structural damage. Structural engineers usually contribute information
for assigning intensity values of VIII or above. Table 7.6-1 below displays the Approximate Relationship Between
Magnitude and Intensity.

D

Source: USGS, 2025

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Approximate Relationship between Magnitude and Intensity

Figure 7.6-2 Standard USGS Conversion of MMI To PGA below displays the standard USGS conversion of the Modified
Mercali Intensity scale to PGA. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) with a 2% probability of being exceeded over 50 years
as shown in Figure 7.6-1 Seismic Hazard in New Jersey generally corresponds to moderate to weak shaking statewide.

7.0-24

Figure 7.6-2 Standard USGS Conversion of MMI to PGA

nl
y

Source: Chock, G. & Kindred, Troy & Robertson, Ian & Iinuma, Gen & Nicholson, Peter & Lau, Ernest & Brandes, Horst & Sarwar, Afaq
& Medley, Edward & Pino, John & Okubo, Paul & Holmes, William & Hirshorn, Barry & Sumada, Jiro. (2006). Compilation of
Observations of the October 15, 2006 Kiholo Bay (Mw 6. 7) and Mahukona (Mw 6.0) Earthquakes, Hawai'i.

O

7.6.3 PREVIOUS OCCURRENCES AND LOSSES
To identify past earthquake occurrences that have potentially impacted Union County, earthquake data from the NJGWS
was reviewed. The NJGWS earthquake data indicates there have been 219 earthquakes with epicenters in New Jersey
between 1783 and May 2025. During this 240-year time period most have been minor with magnitudes ranging from 0.4
to 5.3 and depths up to 25 km below sea level. Of the 219 earthquakes, none had an epicenter in Union County.

D

ra

ft

Figure 7.6-3 Earthquake Epicenters in Northern New Jersey displays historical earthquakes with epicenters in northern
New Jersey during this time period between 1783 and May 2025. The map also highlights earthquakes that have occurred
within a 25-mile buffer extending out from Union County. These earthquake epicenters are included within the area circled
on the map. A total of 145 earthquake epicenters has occurred within this 25-mile buffer.

7.0-25

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Figure 7.6-3 Earthquake Epicenters in Northern New Jersey

Table 7.6-2 Five Most Recent Earthquakes Within a 25-mile Buffer of Union County, 2017-2025 shows the five most
recent earthquakes within a 25-mile buffer of Union County. The most recent event near Union County occurred on April
5, 2024, when a 4.8 magnitude earthquake occurred in Tewksbury Township (Hunterdon County). and Table 7.6-3 Top
Five Magnitude Earthquakes Within a 25-mile Buffer of Union County, 1783-2025 identifies the top five magnitude
events within a 25-mile buffer of Union County between 1783 and 2025. The table shows the third largest earthquake
within this radius was also the April 5, 2024 earthquake. Table 7.6-4 Five Closest Earthquakes to Union County, 1783 2025 includes the five closest earthquakes to Union County between 1783 and 2025 (within 5 miles of Union County). The
closest earthquake epicenter to Union County was a 2.4 magnitude event that occurred on March 5, 1861, in Newark,
New Jersey.

7.0-26

Five Most Recent Earthquakes within a 25-mile Buffer of Union County, 2017-2025
Event Date

Epicenter

Magnitude

4/5/2024

7.7 km ESE of Califon, NJ

4.8

3/14/2024

5 km NNE of Whitehouse Station, NJ

2.2

8/30/2022

1 km WSW of Lake Telemark, NJ

1.7

8/30/2022

4.2 km W of Morris Plains, NJ

2.3

9/5/2022

93 km ESE of Harvey Cedars, NJ

2.3

Source: DEP, New Jersey Geological and Water Survey, May 2025

Top Five Magnitude Earthquake Events within a 25-mile Buffer of Union County, 1783-2025
Event Date

Epicenter

Magnitude

11/30/1783

Rockaway, NJ

5.3

West of New York City
2.1 km SSE of East Freehold, NJ

4/5/2024

7.7 km ESE of Califon, NJ

09/01/1895

Sayreville, NJ
Near South Amboy, NJ

6/1/1927

Rumson, NJ

5
4.8
4.1
3.9

O

Near Asbury Park, NJ

nl
y

9/9/2020

Source: DEP, New Jersey Geological and Water Survey, May 2025

ft

Five Closest Earthquakes to Union County, 1783 - 2025
Epicenter

Magnitude

Newark, NJ

2.4

Bernardsville, NJ

3.1

2 km SE of S. Plainfield, NJ

1.6

3 km W of Jersey City, NJ

1.6

3.5 km N of Bernardsville, NJ

2.7

03/10/1979
06/09/2011
07/08/2014
8/14/2015

D

03/05/1861

ra

Event Date

Source: DEP, New Jersey Geological and Water Survey, May 2025

7.6.4 PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES
Earthquakes cannot be predicted and may occur any time of the day or year. The probability of damaging earthquakes
affecting Union County and the state as a whole is low. However, there is a definite threat of major earthquakes that could
cause widespread damage and casualties. Major earthquakes are infrequent in the State and may occur only once every
few hundred years or longer, but the consequences of major earthquakes would be very high. For the purposes of this
plan update, the probability of future occurrences for earthquakes is defined by the number of events over a specified
period of time. The entire historical record was consulted and there have been zero earthquake-related disasters declared
for New Jersey. The historical record indicates 219 earthquakes recorded for New Jersey from 1783 to 2025.
7.6.5 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
The State HMP notes that it is challenging to provide projections of future climate change for a specific region, and shorterterm projections (linked to existing trends) are less challenging than longer term projections. It is currently unknown how
global climate change may impact earthquake probability. Melting glaciers may induce tectonic activity as large masses of
7.0-27

ice that currently exert pressure on the Earth’s surface turn to water runoff. This can cause the Earth’s crusts to readjust,
which may cause seismic plates to slip.
The State HMP also indicates that future climate changes could magnify the secondary impacts of earthquakes. Increased
soil saturation from repetitive storms could cause liquification during seismic activity. Increased water storage in dams
could cause dam failure during seismic events as well.
7.6.6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

BUILT ENVIRONMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY LIFELINES
The primary cause of earthquake damage to man-made structures is ground shaking. Depending on the severity of ground
shaking, debris and falling building material can create a threat to life and property. Severe enough ground shaking,
particularly for longer periods, can result in the complete collapse of some unreinforced or lightly engineered structures.
The amount of ground-shaking depends on how soft and how deep the soil is, and on the type of bedrock lying beneath
it. Also important is whether the soil type will lose strength, liquefy or slide downhill when shaken.

O

nl
y

Damage can be increased when soft soils amplify ground shaking. FEMA’s National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program
(NEHRP) developed five soil classifications defined by their shear-wave velocity that impact the severity of an earthquake.
The soil classification system ranges from A to E, as noted in Table 7.6-5 NEHRP Soil Classifications, where A represents
hard rock that reduces ground motions from an earthquake and E represents soft soils that amplify and magnify ground
shaking and increase building damage and losses.
NEHRP Soil Classifications
Soil Classification

Description

ft

A

D
E
Source: FEMA

Rock

Very Dense soil and soft rock
Stiff soils
Soft soils

D

C

ra

B

Hard Rock

Figure 7.6-4 Seismic Soils in Northeastern New Jersey identifies the NEHRP soils for New Jersey counties located in the
northeast quadrant the State. The map was produced by the New Jersey Geological and Water Survey (NJGWS) as part of
the Earthquake Loss Estimation Study for New Jersey. The majority of Union County falls within Class C – Very Dense Soil
and Soft Rock. Approximately 20% of the area is located within Class D – Stiff Soil. The far eastern part of the County is
located within Class E – Soft Soil.

7.0-28

O

nl
y

Figure 7.6-4 Seismic Soils in Northeastern New Jersey

Source: New Jersey Geological and Water Survey, 2014

ra

ft

Earthquake vulnerabilities are primarily related to the fragility of structures and infrastructure. Fragility is the tendency of
a structure to be damaged when subjected to shaking. When structures or infrastructure are damaged or fail under such
loads, there is also a high potential for interrupted services, deaths and injuries.

D

Table 7.6-6 Expected Annualized Losses from Earthquake by Jurisdiction shows expected annualized losses for the
earthquake hazard. This data was derived from FEMA’s National Risk Index (NRI). Expected EAL represents the average
economic loss in dollars resulting from natural hazards each year. The table includes EAL for buildings as well as total EAL
which includes building damage as well as damage to agriculture and population equivalency (the monetized cost of injury
and fatality). Loss quantification calculated by the NRI for the earthquake hazard utilizes HAZUS, a geographic information
system-based loss estimation tool that FEMA developed.
Expected Annualized Losses from Earthquake by Jurisdiction
Municipality

Expected Annual Losses (Building)

Expected Annual Losses (Total)

Berkeley Heights Township

$30,471.60

$34,020.53

Clark Township

$50,855.50

$61,522.38

Cranford Township

$113,350.60

$142,660.62

Elizabeth City

$348,651.40

$489,425.44

Fanwood Borough

$10,569.40

$12,239.03

Garwood Borough

$20,905.20

$24,714.29

Hillside Township

$73,247.60

$85,155.32

Kenilworth Borough

$50,538.50

$57,473.48

7.0-29

Expected Annual Losses (Building)

Expected Annual Losses (Total)

Linden City

$208,100.60

$240,245.11

Mountainside Borough

$32,672.00

$37,006.88

New Providence Borough

$19,994.20

$22,499.93

Plainfield City

$79,769.60

$103,372.64

Rahway City

$77,497.30

$94,050.73

Roselle Borough

$51,758.40

$65,922.36

Roselle Park Borough

$29,886.90

$37,372.99

Scotch Plains Township

$54,070.10

$63,672.39

Springfield Township

$75,225.50

$87,455.76

Summit City

$77,761.40

$90,427.58

Union Township

$236,478.00

$283,912.38

Westfield Town

$106,687.10

$126,347.52

Winfield Township

$1,998.10

Union County

$1,750,489.00

$2,852.58
$2,162,349.94

O

Source: FEMA NRI, 2025

nl
y

Municipality

ft

The County-wide potential impact from the earthquake hazard is relatively small because of the low probability of
significant shaking. However, if the area were subject to intense or long-duration ground shaking, there would be high
potential for failure of vulnerable structures, such as those comprised of unreinforced masonry construction.

POPULATION AND ECONOMY

D

ra

There are no known deaths or injuries from earthquakes in Union County. Some of the past earthquake events caused
minor property damage including broken windows or contents falling from shelves. Although the probability of a
significant earthquake occurring in this region is relatively small, the effects on life and property in the area could be
significant.
The entire population is assumed to have equal vulnerability to earthquakes in Union County. The degree of exposure is
dependent on many factors, including the age and construction type of the structures people live in, the soil types their
homes are constructed on, and their proximity to fault locations. Earthquakes have the potential to impact economies at
both the local and regional scale. Economic Losses can include structural and non-structural damage to buildings, loss of
business function, damage to inventory, relocation costs, wage loss, and rental loss caused by the repair and replacement
of buildings. Roads that cross earthquake-prone soils have the potential to be significantly damaged during an earthquake
event, potentially impacting commodity flows. Additionally, economic loss includes business interruption losses
associated with the inability to operate a business because of damage sustained during an earthquake, as well as
temporary living expenses for those displaced.

ECOSYSTEMS AND NATURAL ASSETS
Earthquakes can impact damage or disturb ecosystems, negatively affecting plant and wildlife. In addition, secondary
hazards such landslides, mudslides, slope failure, dam failures, and tsunamis may be triggered by earthquake events which
can be harmful to the environment as well.

7.0-30

7.7 EROSION (INCLUDING HURRICANE/NOR’EASTER/TROPICAL STORM)

7.7.1 HAZARD DESCRIPTION
Coastal erosion is the wearing away of land or the removal of beach or dune sediments by wave action, tidal currents,
wave currents, wind, or drainage. Coastal erosion is a dynamic process that is constantly occurring at varying rates along
the coasts and shorelines of the United States. Numerous factors can influence the severity and rate of coastal erosion
including human activities, tides, the possibility of rising sea levels, and the frequency and intensity of hurricanes. Strong
storms and hurricanes can erode large sections of coastline with a single event. The process of coastal erosion results in
permanent changes to the shape and structure of the coastline. Human activities such as poor land use practices and
boating activities can also accelerate the process of coastal erosion.
7.7.2 LOCATION, EXTENT AND MAGNITUDE

LOCATION

nl
y

The State of New Jersey has over 130 miles of coastline, most of which is within close proximity to major metropolitan
centers of the mid-Atlantic. Beach restoration and maintenance is an ongoing process for New Jersey. The state legislature
provides $25 million annually for beach restoration, and many beaches on the Atlantic are currently under either a design,
engineering, or a construction phase, for this purpose. In Union County the erosion problem is predominately
concentrated along the Arthur Kill River (16 kilometers of shoreline) and Newark Bay (nine kilometers of shoreline), which
are located along the far eastern portion of the Cities of Elizabeth and Linden. Specific areas susceptible to erosion include
Eddy Avenue Park and a portion of the Peach Orchard Brook in Linden City experience fairly significant erosion problems.

D

ra

ft

O

In order to assess the location of shoreline potentially at-risk from coastal erosion within Union County, NOAA’s
environmental sensitivity index (ESI) was used. ESI Categories are ranked one to ten, where lower rankings represent
shorelines that are less susceptible to damage by oiling; and higher rankings become more likely to experience damage
by oiling. There are four main different types of shoreline in Union County. Armored (ESI of 1) is the least vulnerable to
erosion, followed by Beaches (3), Flats (4) and Vegetated (5) shorelines. Of the shoreline types in the county, these are
the most sensitive to coastal erosion. Shorelines can also be a combination of categories. Although this data is primarily
used to identify areas most vulnerable to oil spills, it can provide insight into the location and extent of sensitive shorelines
within the county. Figure 7.7-1 Union County Shoreline and Tidally Influenced Municipalities presents the ESI categories
of Union County’s coastline.

7.0-31

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Figure 7.7-1 Union County Shoreline and Tidally Influenced Municipalities

A GIS analysis was run to calculate the total shoreline of each type within each municipality. Table 7.7-1 presents Summary
of Shoreline Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) by Municipality. About 71.6% of the total shoreline of Union County is
considered environmentally sensitive for the purposes of this analysis (ESI of 3 or above). Linden City had the highest
amount of environmentally sensitive shoreline at 104,106.4 feet total, followed by Rahway City at 49,407.7 feet.
Summary of Shoreline Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) by Municipality
Municipality

ESI Category
1: Armored

Elizabeth City

Total Shoreline
(Feet)
47,973.0

1: Armored/3: Beaches (Sand/Gravel)

855.0

1: Armored/4: Flats (Mud/Sand)

1,264.4

3: Beaches (Sand/Gravel)

2,959.8

3: Beaches (Sand/Gravel)/4: Flats (Mud/Sand)

2,235.1

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)

31,932.9

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)/1: Armored

62.2

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)/1: Armored/4: Flats (Mud/Sand)

370.2
7.0-32

Municipality

ESI Category
5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)/3: Beaches (Sand/Gravel)/4: Flats (Mud/Sand)
5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)/4: Flats (Mud/Sand)

4,514.8
Total

Hillside Township

1,950.8

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)

4,474.0
23,877.6

1: Armored/3: Beaches (Sand/Gravel)

580.2

1: Armored/3: Beaches (Sand/Gravel)/4: Flats (Mud/Sand)

1,321.3

1: Armored/5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)

678.8

3: Beaches (Sand/Gravel)

43.9
96,583.8

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)/1: Armored

741.2

nl
y

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)

286.4

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)/3: Beaches (Sand/Gravel)

741.5

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)/4: Flats (Mud/Sand)

5,709.7
Total

49,275.7

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)/1: Armored

1,31.9

ft

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)

1: Armored

Total

ra

21,717.6
Total

1: Armored/3: Beaches (Sand/Gravel)

1,435.2

1: Armored/3: Beaches (Sand/Gravel)/4: Flats (Mud/Sand)

1,321.3

1: Armored/4: Flats (Mud/Sand)

1,264.4

1: Armored/5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)

678.8

3: Beaches (Sand/Gravel)

3,003.7

3: Beaches (Sand/Gravel)/4: Flats (Mud/Sand)

2,235.1

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)

203,984.0

D

7.0-33

22,049.2
83,503.0

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)/1: Armored

935.3

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)/1: Armored/4: Flats (Mud/Sand)

656.6

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)/3: Beaches (Sand/Gravel)

741.5

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)/3: Beaches (Sand/Gravel)/4: Flats
(Mud/Sand)

234.8

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)/4: Flats (Mud/Sand)

102,24.5
Total

Source: NOAA 2025

58,777.7
3,31.5

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)

1: Armored

Union County

130,564.4
9,370.1

O

1: Armored

Union Township

6,424.8

1: Armored

5: Vegetated (Grass/Marsh/Mangroves/Scrub-Shrub)/1: Armored/4: Flats (Mud/Sand)

Rahway City

92,402.2

1: Armored

Total

Linden City

Total Shoreline
(Feet)
234.8

310,218.3

EXTENT AND MAGNITUDE
Episodic storm erosion generates the most significant erosion along the New Jersey coast. Typically, these storms can
impact the coast over periods of hours (tropical cyclones) to several days (nor’easters). Although the storm events are
short-lived, the resulting erosion can be equivalent to decades of long-term coastal change. The actual quantity of
sediment eroded from the coast is a function of storm tide elevation relative to land elevation, the duration of the storm
and the characteristics of the storm waves. During severe coastal storms, it is not uncommon for the entire berm and part
of the dune to be removed from the beach. The amount of erosion is also dependent on the pre-storm width and elevation
of the beach. If the beach has been left vulnerable to erosion due to the effects of recent storms, increased erosion is
likely. The time necessary for the beach to naturally recover from significant erosion can range from years to decades.
Review of the State HMP indicates a number of factors can determine whether a community experiences vulnerable to
greater long-term erosion or accretion:

nl
y

Exposure to high-energy storm waves;
Sediment size and composition of eroding coastal landforms feeding adjacent beaches;
Near-shore bathymetric variations which direct wave approach;
Alongshore variations in wave energy and sediment transport rates;
Relative sea level rise;
Frequency and severity of storm events; and
Human interference with sediment supply (e.g. revetments, seawalls, jetties, or beach replenishment) (Woods
Hole Sea 2003).

O

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

ra

ft

7.7.3 PREVIOUS OCCURRENCES AND LOSSES
In addition to these larger events described in the previous plan, minor coastal erosion occurred from storm events in
1994, 1998, 2002, and 2012. A review of the NOAA NCEI Storm Events Database from January 2013 through December
2024 yields instances of coastal flooding, high surf, hurricane, storm surge/tide, tropical depression, or tropical storm that
would lead to instance of coastal erosion. A review of flood events during this same time period did not yield any instances
of erosion.

D

Coastal Erosion Events Since 2010

08/31/2011

Corresponding
Hazard Event
Hurricane Irene

10/29/2012

Hurricane Sandy

In late October of 2012, Union County was impacted by Hurricane Sandy, a late season hurricane. Sandy
made landfall as a post-tropical cyclone near Brigantine, New Jersey with 70-knott maximum sustained
winds. Because of its tremendous size Sandy drove a catastrophic storm surge into the New Jersey and
New York coastlines. In New Jersey many areas that had been hit by Hurricane Irene in August 2011 were
again battered by strong waves and surge. The barrier islands were breached in a number of places and
erosion of the beach and dunes occurred all along the Mid-Atlantic coast. This was the most destructive
storm to impact this coastline since an extremely powerful nor'easter in December of 1992. In Union
County, the storm produced 3 to 6 feet of inundation along the Arthur Kill and in the Elizabeth Port
Authority Marine Terminal along Newark Bay in eastern Union County.

March 1-8
2013

Nor’easter

Strong wind and flooding caused significant erosion along the barrier islands.

Date

Description

Hurricane Irene made landfall (second landfall) as a tropical storm on August 28th in the Little Egg Inlet in
southeastern New Jersey. A storm surge of 3-5 feet along the New Jersey shores caused moderate to
severe tidal flooding with extensive beach erosion.

7.0-34

Date
January 23 -30,
2015

Corresponding
Hazard Event
Winter Storm

Description
Widespread dune erosion occurred in parts of the Jersey Shore Monday.

Nor’easter

High winds and flooding from the nor'easter caused damage to many beaches along the shore. Above
normal tidal cycles and onshore flow persisted beyond the storm, creating even more erosion

January 22 -24,
2016

Blizzard

Strong easterly winds combined with high tide levels, resulting in major flooding along parts of New
Jersey. In parts of southern New Jersey, coastal flooding was higher than during post tropical storm
Sandy in 2012.

August 28 September 8,
2016

Tropical Storm
Hermine

Many beaches along the shore experienced severe erosion. A week after Hermine made its way toward
New Jersey, whipping up high waves, the southernmost beaches in Brick Township remain closed
because of severe erosion.

March 14,
2017

Nor’easter

Most shore towns experienced at least some beach erosion. This event provided a short window to
replenish the beaches before tourist season.

September 526, 2017

Hurricane Jose

Of the 66 municipalities and beach areas surveyed after the hurricane, 55 were determined to have
minor beach or dune erosion, 11 had moderate beach or dune erosion and 0 had major beach or dune
erosion

March 6-7,
2018

Nor’easter

Of the 66 beaches surveyed, 55 were determined to have minor beach or dune erosion and 10 had
moderate beach or dune erosion

September 812, 2018

Tropical Storm
Gordon

None. Of the 66 municipalities and beach areas surveyed, 53 were determined to have minor beach or
dune erosion and 13 had moderate beach erosion.

October 8- 13,
2019

Nor’easter/
Subtropical
Storm Melissa

Of the 105 areas surveyed, 82 were determined to have minor beach or dune erosion, 15 had moderate
beach or dune erosion and 8 had major beach or dune erosion.

August 1-6,
2020

Tropical Storm
Isaias

New Jersey experienced strong southernly winds of up to 50mph with gusts over 70mph, heavy rain, and
a period of elevated surf and swells. Of the 79 areas surveyed, 75 were determined to have minor beach
or dune erosion, and 4 had moderate beach or dune erosion.

August 14- 17,
2020

Tropical Storm
Kyle

A low-pressure system that formed southeast of Atlantic City and strengthened enough to be considered
a Tropical Storm. Of the 79 areas surveyed, 73 were determined to have minor beach or dune erosion
and 6 had moderate beach or dune erosion.

September 1116 & 18- 23,
2020

Hurricanes
Paulette and
Teddy

The impacts of Hurricane Paulette along the coast began on September 11th and were felt through the
16th. Short- to medium-period seas began again on September 18th due to Hurricane Teddy and last
through the 23rd. Neither storm made landfall in the United States. Of the 79 areas surveyed, 77 were
determined to have minor beach or dune erosion and 2 had moderate beach or dune erosion.

December 1617, 2020

Nor’easter

The storm had sustained winds over 40 mph with gusts up to 60 mph and generated a sea height peak of
24 feet. Elevated tide levels resulted from the astronomical tide phase and a period of strong offshore
winds. Of the 79 areas surveyed, 70 were determined to have minor beach or dune erosion, 5 had
moderate beach or dune erosion, and 4 had major beach or dune erosion

January 31 –
February 2,
2021

Nor’easter

The storm had sustained winds near 50 mph with gusts over 60 mph and generated sea heigh peak of 23
feet. Tides reached minor to moderate flood stage levels due to astronomical tides, strong onshore
winds, and the proximity of the storm to the coast. Of the 81 sites surveyed, 54 were determined to have
minor beach or dune erosion, 18 had moderate beach or dune erosion, and 9 had major beach or dune
erosion

7.0-35

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

October 2,
2015

Date
May 28 – May
30, 2021

Corresponding
Hazard Event
Nor’easter

Description
The storm generated sustained winds over 40 mph and gust over 50 mph and a sea height peak of 13
feet. Tides reached minor flood stages due to astronomical tide and strong onshore winds. Of the 81 sites
surveyed, 70 were determined to have minor beach or dune erosion and 11 had moderate beach or dune
erosion.

Nor’easter

The storm generated wind gusts over 40 mph and a peak sea height of 15 feet. Tides reached minor flood
stage levels due to astronomical tide and moderate onshore winds. Of the 81 sites surveyed, 79 had
minor beach or dune erosion and 2 had moderate beach or dune erosion.

August 26 –
September 1,
2021

Post Tropical
Storm Ida

The storm resulted in wind gusts of up to 69 mph in Burlington and dropped nearly 10 inches of rain in
Hillsborough. Heavy rainfall led to severe flash flooding and urban flooding across northern New Jersey
and 2 tornadoes were recorded in the southern region of the state. The strongest tornado reached EF-3
level in Gloucester County. In total, the storm caused at least 26 deaths across the state and the flooding
resulted in about $8-10 billion of damage. Federal funding totaled nearly $1 billion, with the goal of
restoring ecosystems and replenishing beaches, along with other flood control measures.

January 16- 17,
2022

Winter Storm

The storm generated wind gusts over 50 mph and a sea height peak of 23 feet. Tides reached minor flood
stage levels due to moderate onshore winds. Of the 81 sites surveyed, 76 had minor beach or dune
erosion and 5 had moderate beach or dune erosion

May 6 – 11,
2022

Coastal Storm

Event result in wind gusts of over 50 mph and peak sea heights of 18 feet. Oceanfront and back bay
flooding reached minor levels due to strong onshore winds, with several back bay locations close to
moderate flood stages. Of the 81 sites surveyed, 68 had minor beach or dune erosion, 5 had moderate
beach or dune erosion, and 8 had major beach or dune erosion.

September 29
– October 5,
2022

Hurricane Ian

The storm resulted in a prolonged period of onshore winds, with gusts near 60 mph and peak sea heights
of 22 feet. All oceanfront and back bay location reached minor flooding stages, with several approaching
moderate flooding due to the several days of strong onshore winds and the proximity of the storm’s
center to the coast. Of the 81 sites surveyed, 63 had minor beach or dune erosion, 6 had moderate beach
or dune erosion, and 12 had major beach or dune erosion.

ra

Source: NOAA NCEI, 2024, NJ SHMP 2024

ft

O

nl
y

October 9- 12,
2021

D

7.7.4 PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES
As mentioned above, the erosion problem is an ongoing problem along many areas of the Union County shoreline along
the Arthur Kill. It is difficult, if not impossible, to assign a probability to the near constant small ongoing erosion that may
occur over a continuous period of time. However, a probability can be assigned to larger storm events such as nor’easters,
hurricanes and coastal storms that can result in significant storm induced coastal erosion.
7.7.5 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
According to the State HMP, climate change may impact coastal areas in different ways. Sea-level rise, storm frequency
and intensity changes, and increases in precipitation and ocean temperatures all impact coastal areas. New Jersey’s 2020
Scientific Report on Climate Change reported that the state should expect more frequent and intense precipitation events
and sea level rise at a rate greater than the global average (NJDEP, 2020). Each of these predictions supports a higher
potential occurrence of coastal erosion, making it likely that the impacts of coastal erosion will increase in severity due to
future episodic storm events as well as the anticipated slow onset, long-term effects of climate change and sea level rise.
7.7.6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Although specific river and stream corridors within Union County periodically experience erosion, the most significant
potential for this hazard to affect structures, infrastructure and people occurs in the easternmost jurisdictions, including
Linden, Elizabeth, and Rahway. The County-wide potential impact of the erosion hazard is small, as impacts related to all

7.0-36

but the most severe events are limited to areas in the eastern County that are not highly populated or developed. See the
applicable jurisdictional appendices for a more detailed analysis of vulnerabilities and potential impacts of this hazard.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY LIFELINES
Average annual building damages directly attributable to the erosion hazard are considered to be negligible for the
purposes of this risk assessment, assuming that ongoing nourishment and shoreline stabilization practices are expected
to be maintained, implemented on an ongoing basis, and encouraged to continue.

POPULATION AND ECONOMY
Death and injury are not typically associated with coastal erosion, as erosive processes along the coast occur over long
durations during which people in the affected areas have sufficient time to evacuate. Erosion can negatively impact the
local economies of communities that rely on the financial benefits of their coastal tourism

ECOSYSTEMS AND NATURAL ASSETS

O

nl
y

Beaches, shorelines and wetlands and other coastal ecosystems are important natural resources for Union County. They
help protect the coast from storms and flooding, provide habitat for birds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and
insects. Coastal erosion can impact a variety of natural systems including beaches, wetlands, marshes, and coastal
habitats, degrading their natural functions through loss of land, and conversion to open water areas. Additionally,
shoreline hardening, while preventing erosion, can also have a negative impact on natural systems.

7.8 EXTREME TEMPERATURE−COLD

ra

ft

7.8.1 HAZARD DESCRIPTION
The extreme cold hazard can be defined as temperatures that are significantly below normal. The severity of extreme
temperature events is measured by temperature, duration and humidity. Most events are for less than a week in duration
but can occasionally last for longer periods up to several weeks.

D

A cold wave is classified as a rapid drop of 20˚F to below between 28˚F and 10˚F, depending on the time of year and whether
the drop occurs in the southern or northern half of the state, within a 24-hour period. When this occurs, outdoor industrial,
commercial, agricultural and social activity must be curtailed, or additional precautions taken.
The consequences of extreme cold on humans are intensified by high winds which increase the rate of heat loss and has
the effect of making it feel colder than the actual air temperature. Wind chills can make extreme cold temperatures even
more dangerous. Very strong winds combined with temperatures slightly below freezing can have the same chilling effect
as a temperature nearly 50˚F lower in a calm atmosphere. Arctic explorers and military experts have developed what is
called the wind-chill factor, which calculates an equivalent calm-air temperature for the combined effects of wind and
temperature. In effect, the index describes the cooling power of air on exposed flesh and to a lesser extent a clothed
person. Wind-chill temperatures throughout New Jersey annually fall below zero degrees Fahrenheit several times each
winter.
At very cold temperatures, the most serious concern is the risk of hypothermia or dangerous overcooling of the body.
Extreme cold temperatures combined with high winds can lead to frostbite or freezing of the exposed extremities such as
fingers, toes, nose and ear lobes. Hypothermia could be fatal in absence of immediate medical attention.
Cold weather injuries are summarized as follows:

7.0-37

•

•

•

Frostnip: The freezing of the top layers of skin tissue and is normally reversible. It mostly affects the cheeks,
earlobes, fingers, and toes. Symptoms include numbness, top layer of skin feeling hard and rubbery, but deeper
tissue is soft. Skin becomes waxy.
Frostbite: The actual freezing of the tissue and/or body part. Ice crystals form inside the skin that can destroy the
tissues, potential for losing skin or part of a finger, toe, or foot. Frostbite affects the ears, nose, fingers, and toes
most often. Superficial frostbite includes all layers of skin, and deep frostbite can include freezing of muscle and/or
bone. Symptoms include skin that is white and has a wooden feel all the way through.
Hypothermia: The general cooling of the body. When the body drops much below the normal temperature of
98.6˚F, serious problems can arise. Severe hypothermia can lead to death. Symptoms of mild hypothermia include
uncontrolled shivering, numbness of hands, and the inability to complete tasks with hands. At the point of severe
hypothermia shivering stops, a person is unable to walk, and pulse and respiration rates decrease.

7.8.2 LOCATION, EXTENT AND MAGNITUDE

LOCATION

nl
y

The entire planning area is subject to the hazards associated with extreme cold temperatures.

EXTENT AND MAGNITUDE

D

ra

ft

Figure 7.8-1 National Weather Service Wind Chill Chart

O

The NWS states that the extent (severity or magnitude) of extreme cold temperatures are generally measured through
the Wind Chill Temperature (WCT) Index. Wind Chill Temperature is the temperature that people and animals feel when
outside and it is based on the rate of heat loss from exposed skin by the effects of wind and cold. As the wind increases,
the body is cooled at a faster rate causing the skin’s temperature to drop.

7.0-38

7.8.3 PREVIOUS OCCURRENCES AND LOSSES
Despite the 2021 plan update reporting Union County has experienced three extreme events in the period from 1950 to
2021 according to the NCEI Storm Events Database, a search of the database on May 15, 2025, returned zero results. The
database provides no indication as to why these events are no longer to be found.
In addition to querying the NCEI for past extreme cold events in NJ, data from the Office of the New Jersey State
Climatologist was also reviewed. Figure 7.8-2 New Jersey’s Extreme Temperature and Precipitation, 1895-2024 below
shows months with both hot and cold temperature extremes over 129 years for the State of New Jersey. The data shows
that the extreme cold months over the past 129 years tend to occur before 1930.

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Figure 7.8-2 New Jersey’s Extreme Temperature and Precipitation Months, 1895-2024

Source: Office of the New Jersey State Climatologist (ONJSC), March 2025

7.8.4 PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES
Extreme temperature events will continue to have a high probability of occurrence in Union County, and the probability
of future occurrences in Union County is certain. Climate change is expected to have an impact on extreme temperature
occurrences. See below for a discussion of the impacts of climate change on future occurrences.
7.8.5 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
As the climate changes, the number of extreme cold events are expected to decrease, and extreme heat events are
anticipated to increase in the State. Global and regional temperatures are expected to continue increasing, with New
Jersey warming faster than the rest of the Northeast region and the global average (NJDEP 2020). Although the trend in
the State is generally towards warmer temperatures, traditional weather phenomena such as the Polar Vortex may be
disrupted leading to events where extremely cold weather patterns can move out of the arctic to lower latitudes such as
New Jersey where they may settle, thus the State could continue to experience extreme cold events despite an overall
warming.

7.0-39

7.8.6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

BUILT ENVIRONMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY LIFELINES
Damages from extreme cold temperatures are generally confined to effects on humans, although occasionally there may
be relatively minor effects on infrastructure such as freezing pipes or electric grids. The County-wide potential impact of
the extreme cold hazard is very small, as evidenced by historical records, which show little or no specific damage from
cold (as opposed to winter storms and snow). With rare exceptions there are no significant or long-term damages
associated with this hazard. There are no significant vulnerabilities to structures from the cold hazard, and no expected
recurrent losses. Given the lack of historical data and limited likelihood for structural losses resulting from extreme cold
occurrences in Union County, annualizing potential structural losses over a long period of time would most likely yield a
negligible annualized loss estimate for the entire County.

POPULATION AND ECONOMY

nl
y

The entire population of the county faces equal exposure to the extreme cold hazard. Primary impacts of concern for
extreme cold temperatures include the life-threatening effects of overexposure hypothermia on people, particularly the
elderly and disadvantaged. Although extreme cold related deaths have not occurred in the county, potential casualties
resulting from extreme cold could result from a lack of adequate heat, carbon monoxide poisoning from unsafe heat
sources and frostbite. The most vulnerable populations to cold casualties are the elderly or infirmed, the homeless, and
low-income households, as they may not be able to afford to operate a heat source on a regular basis and may not have
immediate family or friends to look out for their well-being.

ECOSYSTEMS AND NATURAL ASSETS

ft

O

Other significant impacts include strains on livestock and agriculture which could economically impact communities with
agricultural presence although those are few in Union County. Expected annual losses from the extreme hazard category
of the NRI are negligible at the municipal level and not included in this section.

ra

Extreme cold events can disrupt natural ecosystems. Plant life may be damaged or killed, especially species not adapted
to freezing conditions. Wildlife may struggle to maintain body temperature and find food.

7.9 EXTREME TEMPERATURE−HEAT

D

7.9.1 HAZARD DESCRIPTION
FEMA defines extreme summer heat as the combination of very high temperatures and exceptionally humid conditions.
If such conditions persist for an extended period of time, it is called a heat wave.
In the northeastern United States periods of warmer than normal temperatures typically occur several times a summer.
Extreme heat waves may occur about once every five years or so where maximum daily temperatures exceed 100˚F for an
extended period of time. The passing of a cold front usually moderates temperatures after a few days to a week.
The main impact of extreme heat is its effect on the human body. In a very hot environment, the most serious concern is
heat stroke. In absence of immediate medical attention, heat stroke could be fatal. Heat stroke fatalities occur every
summer in the country. Heat exhaustion and fainting (syncope) are less serious types of illnesses which are not fatal but
interfere with a person's ability to work.
The major human risks associated with extreme heat can be summarized as follows.
• Heatstroke: Considered a medical emergency, heatstroke is often fatal. It occurs when the body’s responses to
heat stress are insufficient to prevent a substantial rise in the body’s core temperature. While no standard
diagnosis exists, a medical heatstroke condition is usually diagnosed when the body’s temperature exceeds 105°F
7.0-40

•

•
•

due to environmental temperatures. Rapid cooling is necessary to prevent death, with an average fatality rate of
15% even with treatment.
Heat Exhaustion: While much less serious than heatstroke, heat exhaustion victims may complain of dizziness,
weakness, or fatigue. Body temperatures may be normal or slightly too moderately elevated. The prognosis is
usually good with fluid treatment.
Heat Syncope: This refers to sudden loss of consciousness and is typically associated with people exercising who
are not acclimated to warm temperatures. Causes little or no harm to the individual.
Heat Cramps: May occur in people unaccustomed to exercising in the heat and generally ceases to be a problem
after acclimatization.

nl
y

Temperatures that are significantly above normal are considered extreme temperatures. There is no specific point when
air temperatures are defined as significantly above normal. However, the National Weather Service (NWS) will initiate
alert procedures such as special weather statements when the heat index is expected to exceed 105°F-110°F (depending
on local climate), for at least two consecutive days according to NOAA’s Heat Wave Description. Heat stress can be indexed
by combining the effects of temperature and humidity.
7.9.2 LOCATION, EXTENT AND MAGNITUDE

LOCATION

O

The entire planning area is subject to the hazards associated with extreme temperatures from high heat.

EXTENT AND MAGNITUDE

ra

ft

The severity of extreme heat events is measured by temperature, duration, and humidity. Most events are less than a
week in duration. In the northeastern U.S., periods of warmer than normal temperatures typically occur several times a
summer. Extreme heat waves may occur about once every five years or so where maximum daily temperatures exceed
100°F for an extended period of time. The passing of a cold front usually moderates temperatures after a few days to a
week.

D

Heat kills by pushing the body beyond its limits. Under normal conditions an internal thermostat produces perspiration
that evaporates and cools the body. The human body dissipates heat by varying the rate and depth of blood circulation,
by losing water through the skin and sweat glands, and as a last resort, by panting, when blood is heated above 98.6°F.
Sweating cools the body through evaporation. However, high relative humidity slows evaporation, robbing the body of its
ability to cool itself. When heat gain exceeds the level the body can remove through sweat evaporation, body temperature
begins to rise and heat related illnesses and disorders may develop.
Most heat disorders occur because the victim has been overexposed to heat or has over-exercised for his or her age and
physical condition. The Heat Index (HI) is the temperature the body feels when heat and humidity are combined. Figure
7.9-1 NWS Heat Index Chart and Table 7.9-1 Heat Index Versus Possible Effects illustrate the heat index and its potential
effects on the human body.

7.0-41

nl
y

Figure 7.9-1 NWS Heat Index Chart

Source: National Weather Service

Heat Index Versus Possible Effects

Possible Heat Disorder

O

High Temperature
80°F - 90°F

Fatigue possible with prolonged exposure and physical activity.

90°F - 105°F

Sunstroke, heat cramps and heat exhaustion possible.

Sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion likely, and heat stroke possible.

ft

105°F - 130°F
130°F or greater

Heat stroke highly likely with continued exposure.

ra

Source: National Weather Service

D

7.9.3 PREVIOUS OCCURRENCES AND LOSSES
The NCEI database indicates there have been 12 recorded extreme temperature events related to heat and excessive heat
in Union County during the period 1950–2025. Although the query results begin in 1950, the first reported event in the
database was in 2011, despite the 2021 plan update reporting that a similar search returned results as far back as 1995.
There are most likely additional extreme heat events prior to 2011 that are not captured in the NCEI database. The
database provides no indication as to why there are no events prior to 2011. One can presume that heat events have
occurred at an increased rate since 1950; the total number of days over 90 degrees Fahrenheit in the state has increased
from 17 to 23 (approximately 36%) according to New Jersey State Health. Table 7.9-2 Reported Extreme Heat Events,
Union County, 2011-2025 lists the extreme heat events from NCEI for Union County.
Reported Extreme Heat Events, Union County, 2011-2025
Date

Location

Hazard Type

Injuries (Direct)

Deaths (Direct)

Property Damage

07/21/2011

County-wide

Excessive Heat

0

0

0

7/18/2012

County-wide

Excessive Heat

0

0

0

07/19/2013

County-wide

Excessive Heat

0

0

0

09/11/2013

Eastern Union

Excessive Heat

0

0

0

7/28/2016

Eastern Union

Heat

17

0

0

8/12/2016

County-wide

Excessive Heat

0

0

0
7.0-42

Date

Location

Hazard Type

Injuries (Direct)

Deaths (Direct)

Property Damage

8/13/2016

County-wide

Excessive Heat

0

0

0

7/20/2017

Eastern Union

Heat

0

0

0

7/19/2019

Eastern Union

Heat

0

0

0

7/19/2019

Eastern Union

Excessive Heat

0

0

0

7/20/2019

Eastern Union

Excessive Heat

0

0

0

7/21/2019

Western Union

Excessive Heat

0

0

0

Total

17

0

0

Source: NOAA/NCEI, 2025

nl
y

According to the 2021 plan, the NCEI reported one of the worst extreme heat-related events occurred in July 1999. A very
strong and oppressive high-pressure system that extended from the surface to aloft gave New Jersey a brutal heat wave
that included the entire Independence Day weekend. High temperatures reached the 90s for the first time on July 3, but
sweltering humidity and record-breaking maximum temperatures of around 100°F degrees occurred from Independence
Day through July 6. During the July 4–6 heat wave, the NCEI database indicates three deaths occurred in Union County.
The combination of the temperature and humidity during this event produced heat indices of around 110°F during the
afternoon of each day.

ra

ft

O

As mentioned in the Previous Occurrences and Losses subsection of the Extreme Temperature (Cold) section, data from
the Office of the New Jersey State Climatologist was also reviewed to identify historical heat events. Figure 7.9-2 New
Jersey’s Extreme Temperature and Precipitation Months, 1895-2024 shows months with both hot and cold temperature
extremes over the past 129 years for the State of New Jersey. The data shows that the extreme warm months over the
past 129 years tend to occur after 1990. This New Jersey trend is consistent with scientific evidence of rising global
temperature averages over the past 30 years.

D

Figure 7.9-2 New Jersey’s Extreme Temperature and Precipitation Months, 1895-2024

Source: Office of the New Jersey State Climatologist (ONJSC), 2024
7.0-43

7.9.4 PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES
Extreme temperature events will continue to have a high probability of occurrence in Union County, and the probability
of future occurrences in Union County is certain. Due to climate change, extreme heat events are becoming more frequent.
See section 7.8.5 below for a discussion of the impacts of climate change on future occurrences.
7.9.5 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
According to DEP’s 2020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate Change, New Jersey’s rate of warming is faster than the
rest of the Northeast region and the world. By 2050, average annual temperatures in New Jersey are projected to increase
by 4.1°F to 5.7°F. By 2050, heatwaves are projected to increase in both frequency and duration and will impact larger
areas. A 55% increase in summer heat-related deaths in the 2020s (as compared to the 1990s) could result from climate
change.
7.9.6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

BUILT ENVIRONMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY LIFELINES

O

nl
y

While all of Union County is exposed to extreme temperatures, existing buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities
are not considered vulnerable to significant damage caused by extreme heat Damages from extreme heat is generally
confined to effects on humans, although occasionally there may be relatively minor effects on infrastructure such as
freezing pipes or electric grids. The County-wide potential impact of the extreme heat hazard is very small, as evidenced
by historical records. With rare exceptions there are no significant or long-term damages associated with this hazard.
There are no significant vulnerabilities to structures from the cold hazard, and no expected recurrent losses. Given the
lack of historical data and limited likelihood for structural losses resulting from extreme cold occurrences in Union County,
annualizing potential structural losses over a long period of time would most likely yield a negligible annualized loss
estimate for the entire County.

D

ra

ft

Community lifelines may be impacted in the county during events, especially in the case of a power outage as a result of
extreme heat. Facilities without a backup generator may be forced to close until power is restored. Damages can occur
when thermal tolerances of various systems are exceeded. Extreme heat can cause softening and traffic- related rutting
of paved surfaces; and buckling of railway tracks. Extreme temperatures can place greater demand on utility systems, with
possible associated power outages. Prolonged periods of extreme heat can also worsen drought impacts when occurring
simultaneously.

POPULATION AND ECONOMY

In 2020, the State of New Jersey passed an Environmental Justice law directing DEP to compile a list of overburdened
communities in the state. The State defines an overburdened community as: “any census block group, as determined in
accordance with the most recent United States Census, in which:
• at least 35 percent of the households qualify as low-income households (at or below twice the poverty threshold
as determined by the United States Census Bureau);
• at least 40 percent of the residents identify as minority or as members of a State recognized tribal community; or
• at least 40 percent of the households have limited English proficiency (without an adult that speaks English “very
well” according to the United States Census Bureau).”
There are 277 census block groups in 15 municipalities in Union County that qualify as overburdened communities. The
15 municipalities with overburdened communities are Clark Township, Cranford Township, Elizabeth City, Hillside
Township, Kenilworth Borough, Linden City, Plainfield City, Rahway City, Roselle Borough, Roselle Park Borough, Scotch
Plains Township, Springfield Township, Summit City, Union Township and Westfield Town.

7.0-44

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Figure 7.9-3 Statewide Overburdened Communities Map

Source: DEP Office of Environmental Justice, EJMAP, 2025

D

Union County’s overburdened communities are concentrated in the eastern portion of the County. These communities
all have at least 40% of the residents that identify as minority or as members of a State recognized tribal community.
Communities with high concentrations of both low-income and minority populations are concentrated in the Elizabeth
City, the Linden City, the Rahway City, Roselle Borough, Hillside Township, Kenilworth Borough and the Plainfield City.
Communities with high concentrations of low-income, minority, and limited English-speaking populations are
concentrated in the Elizabeth City and the Plainfield City.
Union County’s overburdened communities live in the County’s urban areas. According to DEP’s 2020 New Jersey Scientific
Report on Climate Change, heatwaves may be particularly pronounced in urban, densely populated areas, like the cities
of Union County, due to urban heat island effect; areas with more concrete and asphalt absorb more heat and amplify the
effects of heat on urban populations.
According to the Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II,
published by the U.S. Global Change Research Program in 2018, urban populations may experience both heat stress due
to urban heat islands, and poor air quality due to high concentrations of urban air pollutants like ground-level ozone during
extreme temperature events. Young children, older adults, linguistically isolated communities, poor communities and
those with preexisting health conditions (i.e., asthma) are particularly vulnerable to negative health impacts from heat
7.0-45

stress and poor air quality. Households that lack sufficient insulation and air conditioning are also more exposed to heat
stress.
While all residents of Union County could be adversely affected by extreme heat conditions, with rare exceptions there
are no significant or long-term damages associated with this hazard. The extreme heat hazard was prioritized by the
Steering Committee as high, mostly because the hazard occurs regularly and affects nearly everyone in the County. The
County-wide potential impact of the extreme heat hazard is very small, as evidenced by historical records, which show
little or no specific damage from heat. There are no significant vulnerabilities to structures from the heat hazard, and no
expected recurrent losses.

nl
y

As indicated above, excessive heat is not yet a major health threat in the northeastern U.S., although this may change due
to climate change. However, it is possible to estimate risks in Union County by deriving state-level information. The 2016
HMP update referred to derived expected figures on hypothermia deaths in Union County from national statistics, in the
absence of readily available open-source records for the County. The 2016 HMP update used the National Health Statistics
Report entitled Deaths Attributed to Heat, Cold and other Weather Events in the United States, 2006 to 2010 by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In the date range indicated
in the title, there were 3,332 deaths nationwide related to excessive heat. This translates to an annual national figure of
476.

ra

ft

O

Table 7.9-3 Potential Annualized Losses from Extreme Heat by Jurisdiction (Population Equivalence) below summarizes
potential Expected Annual Losses (EAL) in population equivalence by municipality for Heatwave hazard. This data was
derived from FEMA’s NRI. EAL represents the average economic loss in dollars resulting from natural hazards each year,
when expressed in terms of population equivalency, it represents the monetized cost of injury and fatality. Given the lack
of historical data and limited likelihood for structural losses resulting from extreme heat in Union County, annualizing
potential structural losses over a long period of time would most likely yield a negligible annualized loss estimate for the
entire county.
Potential Annualized Losses from Extreme Heat by Jurisdiction (Population Equivalence)
Expected Annual Losses
(Population Equivalence)

Berkeley Heights Township

0.01

$118,307.66

Clark Township

0.01

$145,450.95

Cranford Township

0.02

$214,137.59

Elizabeth City

0.12

$1,364,995.45

Fanwood Borough

0.01

$69,623.51

Garwood Borough

0.00

$39,889.78

Hillside Township

0.02

$223,460.90

Kenilworth Borough

0.01

$75,973.50

Linden City

0.04

$435,238.99

Mountainside Borough

0.01

$62,870.73

New Providence Borough

0.01

$122,151.70

Plainfield City

0.04

$487,652.67

Rahway City

0.03

$292,943.92

D

Est. Municipal Deaths Related to Heat
Exposure

Jurisdiction

7.0-46

Expected Annual Losses

Jurisdiction

Est. Municipal Deaths Related to Heat
Exposure

(Population Equivalence)

Roselle Borough

0.02

$225,839.06

Roselle Park Borough

0.01

$138,986.31

Scotch Plains Township

0.02

$223,611.79

Springfield Township

0.01

$153,773.56

Summit City

0.02

$203,370.64

Union Township

0.05

$556,410.40

Westfield Town

0.02

$277,840.26

Winfield Township

0.00

$14,160.34

Union County

0.47

$5,446,689.70

Source: FEMA NRI 2025

nl
y

ECOSYSTEMS AND NATURAL ASSETS

O

Extreme heat can negatively influence air quality, water quality, and ecosystems such as wetlands and forest. Prolonged
events can disrupt food chains, cause disease outbreak, and increase wildfire risk. Extreme heat can also lead to heat
casualties in livestock and wildlife from dehydration and heat exhaustion, especially amongst species which can’t regulate
their temperatures.

7.10 FLOOD (INCLUDES TIDAL, FLASH, AND RIVERINE FLOODING)

ra

ft

7.10.1 HAZARD DESCRIPTION
Flooding is defined as a condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land, typically in a floodplain, due to
a variety of conditions. The floodplain is the land adjoining the channel of a river, stream, ocean, lake, or other watercourse
or water body that is susceptible to flooding.

D

Flooding is the accumulation of water within a water body (e.g., stream, river, lake, or reservoir) and the overflow of
excess water onto adjacent floodplains. Floodplains are usually lowlands adjacent to water bodies that are subject to
recurring floods. Floods are natural events that are considered hazards only when people and property are affected.
Nationwide, hundreds of floods occur each year, making them one of the most common hazards in the United States
according to FEMA. There are a number of categories of floods in the United States, including the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Riverine flooding (river channel, flash floods, alluvial fan floods, ice-jam floods, dam breaks)
Local drainage or high groundwater levels
Fluctuating lake levels
Coastal flooding (including storm surges)
Debris flows
Subsidence

While there is no sharp distinction between riverine floods, flash floods, alluvial fan floods, ice jam floods, and dam-break
floods, these types of floods are widely recognized and may be helpful in considering the range of flood risk and
appropriate responses. The most common kind of flooding event is riverine flooding, also known as overbank flooding.
Riverine flooding occurs as a result of excess rainfall or rapid snowmelt causing the overflow of rivers, streams, and lakes.
This type of flooding occurs when the flow of rainwater runoff is greater than the carrying capacities of the natural

7.0-47

drainage systems. There are several types of riverine floods, including headwater, backwater, interior drainage, and flash
flooding.
Riverine floodplains range from narrow, confined channels in the steep valleys of mountainous and hilly regions, to wide,
flat areas in plains and coastal regions. The amount of water in the floodplain is a function of the size and topography of
the contributing watershed, the regional and local climate, and land use characteristics. In steep valleys, flooding is usually
rapid and deep, but of short duration, while flooding in flat areas is typically slow, relatively shallow, and may last for long
periods of time. Figure 7.10-1 Characteristics of a Floodplain displays an example of a riverine flood plain.

O

nl
y

Figure 7.10-1 Characteristics of a Floodplain

Source: FEMA, 2009

ft

Different flooding types experienced in Union County include the following:

D

ra

Flash floods involve a rapid rise in water level, high velocity, and large amounts of debris, which can lead to significant
damage that includes the tearing out of trees, undermining of buildings and bridges, and scouring new channels. The
intensity of flash flooding is a function of the intensity and duration of rainfall, steepness of the watershed, stream
gradients, watershed vegetation, natural and artificial flood storage areas, and configuration of the streambed and
floodplain. Dam failure and ice jams may also lead to flash flooding.
Alluvial fan floods occur in the deposits of rock and soil that have eroded from mountainsides and accumulated on valley
floors in the pattern of a fan. Alluvial fan floods often cause greater damage than overbank flooding due to the high
velocity of the flow, amount of debris, and broad area affected. Human activities may exacerbate flooding and erosion on
alluvial fans via increased velocity along roadways acting as temporary drainage channels or changes to natural drainage
channels from fill, grading, and structures.
Ice jam floods occur when an upstream part of a river thaws first (possibly because it flows away from the equator), and
the ice gets carried downstream into the still-frozen part. Masses of ice can become lodged under bridges and other weirs,
causing an ice dam, flooding areas upstream of the jam. After the ice dam breaks apart, the sudden surge of water that
breaks through the dam can then flood areas downstream of the jam. While this usually occurs in spring, it can happen as
winter sets in when the downstream part becomes frozen first. Dam-break floods may occur due to structural failures
(e.g., progressive erosion), overtopping or breach from flooding, or earthquakes.
Local drainage floods may occur outside of recognized drainage channels or delineated floodplains for a variety of reasons,
including concentrated local precipitation, a lack of infiltration, inadequate facilities for drainage and stormwater
conveyance, and/or increased surface runoff. Such events often occur in flat areas, particularly during winter and spring
7.0-48

where the ground is frozen. Drainage floods are found also in urbanized areas with large impermeable surfaces. High
groundwater flooding is a seasonal occurrence in some areas but may occur in other areas after prolonged periods of
above-average precipitation.
7.10.2 LOCATION, EXTENT AND MAGNITUDE

LOCATION
Union County is partially bordered by the Passaic River to the west, Newark Bay and the Arthur Kill to the east. The county
is bordered by the Rahway River to the southeast, and the Green Brook River to the southwest. According to the Union
County FEMA Flood Insurance Study (dated September 20, 2006), numerous areas within Union County are susceptible to
localized flooding from excess rain events, stormwater runoff, local drainage problems, overbank flooding, and other
sources. All municipalities within the county experience some degree of flooding. This section highlights several of the
significant flood areas throughout Union County.

ft

O

nl
y

One of the best sources for determining flood risk for an area is review of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) produced
by FEMA. According to FEMA, the FIRM is the official map of a community on which FEMA has delineated both the special
flood hazard areas (1% annual chance of flooding) and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. Flood
mapping and analyses throughout this HMP utilized a combination of FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM)
floodplain data (effective September 20, 2006) and Preliminary FIRMS (dated February 3, 2015, and April 18, 2016). The
effective FIRM is the official map of a community on which FEMA has delineated both the special hazard areas and the
risk premium zones applicable to the community. The DFIRM data released in 2006 included updates to the Flood
Insurance Study (FIS) based on revised hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for the Rahway River that was completed in March
2006. In addition, updated hydraulic information for the Elizabeth River in Hillside Township was developed by the USACE
– New York District. Previous flood studies in Union County were completed in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

D

ra

Figure 7.10-2 Floodplain Map of Union County shows various flood zones in Union County using the best available data,
a composite of effective and preliminary FIRMs. The flood zone designations are defined by FEMA as follows:
• Zone A (1 % annual chance of flooding). Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance of flooding
over the life of a 30-year mortgage. Because detailed analyses are not performed for such areas; no depths or
base flood elevations are shown within these zones.
• Zone AE (1 % annual chance of flooding). Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance of flooding
over the life of a 30-year mortgage. In most instances, base flood elevations derived from detailed analyses are
shown at selected intervals within these zones.
• Zone AH (1 % annual chance of flooding). Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding where shallow flooding
(usually areas of ponding) can occur with average depths between 1' and 3'.
• Zone AO (1 % annual chance of flooding). Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding, particularly on alluvial fans,
where shallow flooding average depths are between 1' and 3'.
• Zone X (Shaded)/(0.2% Annual Chance). Areas with a 0.2% chance of flooding in any given year.

7.0-49

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Figure 7.10-2 Floodplain Map of Union County

The 100-year floodplain includes areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding and includes zones A, AE, AH and AO. In the
figures above, the A zones are colored blue. The majority of the 1% annual chance flooding areas follow the major rivers
in Union County including the Arthur Kill, Newark Bay, the Rahway River, Passaic River, and the Green Brook River. The
500-year floodplain includes areas with a 0.2% annual chance of flooding. The 0.2% annual chance flooding is shown on
the above figures in light purple and represents the areas between the limits of the 100-year and 500-year floodplains.
Flood maps identifying the most recent flood mapping for each participating municipality can be found in the individual
municipality appendices (See Appendices Volume I-Jurisdictional Information).
The following subsections highlight several of the major flood areas throughout Union County. These include the Rahway
River, Green Brook Sub Basin, and Passaic River.
Rahway River Flooding
The Rahway River is 24 miles long and drains a land area of 41 square miles of Essex, Middlesex, and Union counties. There
are 24 municipalities in the Rahway River watershed including Maplewood, Millburn, South Orange, and West Orange in
Essex County; Carteret and Edison in Middlesex County; and Cranford, Mountainside, Springfield and Rahway in Union
County. The Rahway River consists of four distinct branches. The West Branch begins in Verona and flows south through
7.0-50

South Mountain Reservation and directly through downtown Millburn. The East Branch originates between West Orange
and Montclair and travels South Orange and Maplewood. These two branches converge near Route 78 in Springfield and
flow through the Clark and Union Townships and the City of Cranford. The confluence of the Robinson’s and the South
Branches of the river occurs in Rahway. The river continues through Linden and Carteret forming the boundary between
Middlesex and Union counties and then drains into the Arthur Kill.
In 1999, the USACE-New York District published a Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Study within the
Rahway River Basin. The Rahway Basin is 89.1 square miles and encompasses Essex, Union, and Middlesex counties. The
flooding within the Rahway River Basin has been caused principally by the rapid development of the area, which has
resulted in a large increase of storm water runoff. Floods have caused damage to houses, businesses, municipal facilities,
and public infrastructure. The study identified two potential flood damage reduction sites, one on the Rahway River main
stem in Cranford and one on Robinson’s Branch of the Rahway River in Rahway, according to the USACE’s Flood Damage
Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Study-Fact Sheet from April 2014.

ft

O

nl
y

According to the USACE Rahway River Basin (Tidal), NJ Storm Risk Management Feasibility Study fact sheet dated July 8,
2020, a Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment was released for public and agency review in
May 2017, and a public meeting was held during the review period. After an alternatives analysis was conducted, the New
York District selected the Recommended Plan. The Recommended Plan consists of the construction of a levee segment in
Joseph Medwick Park in Middlesex County, and the elevation, buyout and floodproofing of properties in the Rahway City
(Union County), Borough of Carteret (Middlesex County), and Linden City (Union County). A Final Integrated Feasibility
Report and Environmental Impact Statement and Chief’s Report were both approved. The report is now under review by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The project is authorized
for construction in Section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020.

D

ra

Figure 7.10-3 Rahway River Basin Coastal Storm Risk Management Recommended Plan, reproduced from the Final
Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement, shows the locations of the proposed wet
floodproofing, structure elevation, and structure buyouts in the study area. As of May 2025, no further action has been
taken by USACE on this project.

7.0-51

nl
y

Figure 7.10-3 Rahway River Basin Coastal Storm Risk Management Recommended Plan

O

Source: USACE, April 2020, Final Integrated Feasibility Report & Environmental Assessment, Rahway River Basin, New Jersey Coastal
Storm Risk Management Feasibility Study

D

ra

ft

In Union County, efforts from local, state and federal agencies have helped to reduce flooding within municipalities
impacted by the Rahway River. In Cranford Township and the Rahway City, floodplain management and infrastructure
improvements have contributed to reducing flood related damages. In Cranford Township, improvements have included
a new stormwater drainage system, floodgates, and swale protection between Oak Lane and Herring Avenue. See
municipal appendices for Cranford Township, the Rahway City and Springfield Township for additional details about
specific areas of flood concern, past flooding events along the Rahway River, and ongoing flood studies for this area of the
County.
Green Brook Sub-Basin
In the southwestern portion of Union County, the Green Brook River creates a portion of the border between Union and
Somerset Counties. This portion of the County is part of the Green Brook Sub Basin. The Basin covers an area 65 square
miles and includes portions of three counties and 13 municipalities. In the past, the Green Brook Sub Basin has experienced
severe, and sometimes devastating, flood damages, according to the USACE - Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub Basin,
NJ, Flood Damage Reduction Project – Fact Sheet.
The U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers (USACE)–New York District has studied this area extensively in the past and has
completed several flood control projects within the Basin. Figure 7.10-4 Green Brook Sub Basin: Upper Portion, Stony
Brook Portion, and the Lower Portion is a map that divides the Basin into three areas; Upper Portion, Stony Brook Portion,
and the Lower Portion. The majority of the Upper Portion and the northeastern part of the Lower Portion are within Union
County, and were impacted by major flood events in 1973, 1996, and 1999 (after Tropical Storm Floyd). According to the
USACE, Tropical Storm Floyd caused two deaths and approximately $80 million in damages within the Green Brook Sub
Basin, partially located in Union County.

7.0-52

nl
y

Figure 7.10-4 Green Brook Sub Basin: Upper Portion, Stony Brook Portion, and the Lower Portion

O

Source: USACE–New York District

ra

ft

In response to the 1971 and 1973 floods, the Green Brook Flood Control Commission was authorized by the State of New
Jersey. The Commission is comprised of representatives from Middlesex, Somerset, and Union counties and is comprised
of volunteer representatives appointed by the flood-affected municipalities and counties, as well as the State. The
participating municipalities in Union County include the Plainfield City and Scotch Plains Township, according to the Green
Brook Flood Control Commission website.

D

Most of the flooding problems within Plainfield City originate from the Green Brook River in Scotch Plains and in the area
of Leland Avenue, and flow through streets across the basin before being diverted into Cedar Brook. The diversion leads
to a condition where flood depths are deeper farther from the stream than they are in the immediate area. The result is
a large floodplain throughout the northern portion of the city even though the majority of the Green Brook flows are
contained within and adjacent to its banks, according to the Union County FEMA FIS dated September 20, 2006.
Passaic River Flooding
The banks of the Passaic River are relatively steep and cause the water-surface elevations to rise significantly during
periods of intense rainfall. The Union County Flood Insurance Study (FIS) indicates major floods have occurred along the
Passaic in 1903, 1905, 1907, 1936, 1971, and 1973. The flood of August 1973 was the worst flood event ever recorded at
a gauging station in 45 years. The flood gage in Chatham Borough recorded a peak discharge of 3,380 CFS according to the
Union County FEMA FIS dated September 20, 2006. More recently the Passaic River experienced significant flooding in
August 2011 after Hurricane Irene and in 2021 due to Hurricane Ida. Other recent minor flooding events occurred in March
2010 and March 2011. According to the Passaic River Coalition, flooding in the Passaic River Basin is concentrated in the
Central Basin (in Nearby Essex and Morris Counties) where large wetlands were formed after the glacial period.
Development of these wetlands in many municipalities put homes and businesses at risk.

7.0-53

In the Township of Berkley Heights, the Passaic River flows along the northern town limits in a relatively flat valley. During
high flood stages, the Passaic River floods the adjacent plain, and flooding becomes especially widespread at junction
points between four of the tributaries in this area. Overbank flooding is also common among tributaries of the Passaic
River during medium-to low-frequency flood flows because backwater flow from the Passaic tends to build up sediment
in the downstream portions of the tributaries, according to the Union County FEMA FIS dated September 20, 2006. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been creating plans for flood damage reduction in the Passaic Basin since 1936, with the
most recent reevaluation occurring in 2018. However, no major projects have begun construction.

EXTENT AND MAGNITUDE
Flood severity is measured in various ways, including frequency, depth, velocity, duration, and contamination, among
others. In Union County, the metrics used to characterize the severity of the flood hazard depends on what part of the
county is being considered, but generally the most important factor is how often floods occur.

O

nl
y

In the case of riverine flood hazard, once a river reaches flood stage, the flood extent or severity categories used by the
NWS include minor flooding, moderate flooding, and major flooding. Each category has a definition based on property
damage and public threat:
• Minor Flooding - minimal or no property damage, but possibly some public threat or inconvenience.
• Moderate Flooding - some inundation of structures and roads near streams. Some evacuations of people and/or
transfer of property to higher elevations are necessary.
• Major Flooding - extensive inundation of structures and roads. Significant evacuations of people and/or transfer
of property to higher elevations (NWS 2011).

ra

ft

The extent of flooding associated with a 1% annual probability of occurrence (the base flood or 100-year flood) is used as
the regulatory boundary by many agencies. Also referred to as the SFHA, this boundary is a convenient tool for assessing
vulnerability and risk in flood-prone communities. Many communities have maps that show the extent and likely depth of
flooding for the base flood. Corresponding water-surface elevations describe the water elevation resulting from a given
discharge level, which is one of the most important factors used in estimating flood damage.

D

7.10.3 PREVIOUS OCCURRENCES AND LOSSES
To identify past occurrences of flooding in Union County queries were performed using NOAA’s NCEI Storm Events
Database. The NCEI database indicates that there have been 172 flood events, and 100 days with events, in Union County
in the period from 1950 to 2025, with the earliest event appearing in the database occurring in 1996. The database
provides no indication of why there were no events logged prior to that year. Since the 2016 HMP update, there have
been 43 flood or flash flood events in Union County. If all events occurring on the same day in different locations are
combined, there were 15 days with flood or flash flood events from 2021 to 2025. These events are listed in Table 7.10-1
Flood Events, Union County, 2013-2025 below. No injuries, deaths, or property damage were reported for flood or flash
flood events from January 2013 to August 2012; however, there were five injuries during flash floods in September 2021,
and a flash flood on July 14, 2025, took two lives in Plainfield. Note that additional flood events not listed in the NCEI
database may have occurred and resulted in property and infrastructure damages. Estimated property damages for these
floods may not have been listed in the database because either the data was unavailable or the damages were only minor
and therefore not reported to the NCEI.
Flood Events, Union County, 2013-2025
Date

Location

Hazard Type

Injuries

Deaths

Property Damage

6/2/2013

Linden City, Elizabeth City

Flash Flood

0

0

0

7.0-54

Location

Hazard Type

Injuries

Deaths

Property Damage

6/7/2013

Rahway City, Springfield Township

Flood

0

0

0

7/1/2013

Rahway City

Flash Flood

0

0

0

8/28/2013

Elizabeth City, Union Township

Flash Flood

0

0

0

11/27/2013

Springfield Township

Flood

0

0

0

4/30/2014

Berkeley Heights Township, New Providence
Borough, Garwood Borough, Linden City, Rahway
City, Mountainside Borough, Scotch Plains
Township, Clark Township, Springfield Township,
Cranford Township

Flood

0

0

0

5/1/2014

Cranford Township, Mountainside Borough,
Linden City, Rahway City

Flood

0

0

0

7/2/2014

Garwood Borough

Flash Flood

0

0

0

1/18/2015

Springfield Township, Union Township

Flood

0

0

0

5/31/2015

Union Township

Flash Flood

0

0

0

6/1/2015

Kenilworth Borough, Union Township

Flash Flood

0

0

0

6/15/2015

Summit City

Flash Flood

0

0

0

8/19/2015

Berkeley Heights Township, New Providence
Borough, Mountainside

Flash Flood

0

0

0

2/24/2016

Clark Township

Flash Flood

0

0

0

7/25/2016

Berkeley Heights Township, New Providence
Borough, Garwood Borough

Flash Flood

0

0

0

4/16/2018

Springfield Township

Flood

0

0

0

7/3/2018

Berkeley Heights Township, New Providence
Borough, Clark Township, Garwood Borough

0

0

0

7/27/2018

Garwood Borough

Flash Flood

0

0

0

8/4/2018

ra

Flash Flood

Berkeley Heights Township, New Providence
Borough

Flash Flood

0

0

0

8/11/2018

Fanwood Borough, Scotch Plains Township

Flash Flood

0

0

0

5/29/2019

Garwood Borough

Flood

0

0

0

7/18/2019

Clark Township, Cranford Township, Scotch Plains
Township, Westfield Town

Flash Flood

0

0

0

7/22/2019

Rahway City

Flash Flood

0

0

0

7/31/2019

Elizabeth City, Hillside Township

Flash Flood

0

0

0

7/6/2020

Roselle Borough

Flash Flood

0

0

0

7/22/2020

Cranford Township, Garwood Borough, Union
Township

Flash Flood

0

0

0

08/13/2020

Fanwood, Union Township

Flash Flood

0

0

0

07/17/2021

Elizabeth, Union Township

Flash Flood

0

0

0

08/22/2021

Elizabeth

Flash Flood

0

0

0

09/01/2021

Union Township, Elizabeth, Springfield, Summit,
Scotch Plains, Kenilworth, Mountainside

Flash Flood

4

0

0

7.0-55

D

ft

O

nl
y

Date

Location

Hazard Type

Injuries

Deaths

Property Damage

09/23/2021

Springfield, Rahway

Flash Flood

1

0

0

05/28/2022

Springfield

Flash Flood

0

0

0

08/22/2022

Scotch Plains, Mountainside

Flash Flood

0

0

0

09/25/2022

Kenilworth

Flash Flood

0

0

0

07/04/2023

Garwood, Springfield, Mountainside, Linden,
Springfield, Scotch Plains

Flash Flood

0

0

0

12/18/2023

Rahway, Union Township

Flash Flood

0

0

0

1/13/2024

Eastern Union County

Coastal Flood

0

0

0

08/06/2024

Scotch Plains

Flash Flood

0

0

0

08/18/2024

Garwood, Fanwood, Summit, Mountainside, New
Providence, Scotch Plains, Union Township

Flash Flood

0

0

0

Berkeley Heights, Clark, Cranford, Garwood,
Mountainside, Plainfield, Rahway, Roselle, Scotch
Plains, Summit

Flash Flood

07/14/2025

0

2

0

08/13/2025

Linden

Flash Flood

0

0

0

08/17/2025

New Providence

Flash Flood

0

0

0

Total

5

2

0

O

Source: NOAA/NCEI, 2025. Storm Events Database.

nl
y

Date

ra

ft

In addition to the flood events listed in the NCEI databases between 1950 and 2025, the Union County FIS indicates that
a major flood event also occurred in 1971. The more recent major floods that have occurred in Union County are
summarized below. Incidents that have been declared a Major Disaster by the President are indicated by the disaster
number (DR).

D

1/19/1996 (DR-1088) –Severe Storms and Flooding. The flash flooding of the afternoon and early evening of January 19,
1996, led to larger river flooding that extended through January 21 of the month. Strong southerly winds ushered very
mild and moisture laden air into the region following a blizzard that hit New Jersey just days earlier. Street flooding became
a major problem early on due to the rains and significant snowmelt. River and stream flooding occurred later in the
afternoon of January 19 and continued well into the next day. In Union County, flood damages were estimated at $3
million according to NOAA’s NCEI database.
10/19/1996 (FEMA DR-1145) –Severe Storms and Flooding. A strong low-pressure system slowly moved off the southern
New Jersey coast on October 19. The storm produced heavy rains with rainfall totals of up to 8" in some parts of Union
County. Heavy rainfall produced serious flooding of many rivers and small streams in Union County as well as serious
widespread street and poor drainage flooding. The Rahway River in Springfield reached its' second highest level of record.
In Cranford, downstream of Springfield, 100 homes were evacuated, and in Rahway, further downstream, 75 homes and
one high rise apartment were evacuated due to rising flood waters. The Union County Office of Emergency Management
(OEM) estimated damages within the county at $4 million in damages to private homes and $300,000 to public
infrastructure according to NOAA’s NCEI database.
9/16/1999 (DR-1295) –Hurricane Floyd. This fall hurricane put the entire Eastern Seaboard on flood watch, including every
county in New Jersey. Although downgraded from a hurricane by the time it hit New Jersey, the storm lasted
approximately 18 hours and resulted in rainfall totals of up to almost 12" in parts of Union County. The Rahway River at
7.0-56

Springfield was above its flood stage of 5.5' on the September 16 and September 17. The crest stage of 10.67' occurred
around 10:00pm on September 16. The NCEI database indicates that in Union County initial damage estimates from the
New Jersey OEM at $4.2 million. A more detailed review of the FEMA Project Worksheets indicates that the Public
Infrastructure damages alone totaled just over $8.6 million. Of this amount, slightly more than $5 million in damages
occurred in the Rahway City, where the most significant damages occurred. The downgraded hurricane resulted in over a
foot of rain in the Rahway City, flooding portions of St. Georges and Central Avenues along the Robinson’s Branch of the
Rahway River. Overbank flooding from Robinson’s Branch resulted in water entering the Rahway Public Library, completely
inundating the library basement with about 1.5' of water on the first floor. This was the eighth time the library had
experienced flooding in its 32-year history. The FEMA Public Assistance program determined the library was damaged
beyond repair. FEMA awarded over $4.4 million in funds for construction of a new facility. An additional $558,000 was
also provided by FEMA for content damages such as library books and computers. According to a press release by the
Rahway City data March 20, 2004, in 2005, the new Rahway Public Library was completed outside the floodplain behind
City Hall.

O

nl
y

Table 7.10-2 Project Worksheet Summary for Hurricane Floyd (DR-1295) Applicants in Union County Along the Rahway
River and its Tributaries, Ordered by PW Total identifies the FEMA Public Assistance funds provided to applicants after
Tropical Storm Floyd for municipalities located along the Rahway River (and its tributaries). The PWs indicate that the
majority of the damages are from flooding along the Rahway River. However, some of the damages were attributable to
flooding from other Source, as well as water intrusion into buildings resulting from high winds and rain. The table shows
that the highest amount of FEMA PA funds was provided along the Rahway River, following Hurricane Floyd, to the Rahway
City. Almost all of the PA funds for this applicant were a result of the building damages (Category E) to the City Library
described above, according to the FEMA Region II Public Assistance Program.

Cat. A

Rahway City

$43,577

Springfield Township
Cranford Township

Cat. C

Cat. E

Cat. F

TOTAL

$35,151

$1,665

$5,010,776

$0

$5,091,168

$40,917

$45,573

$3,818

$527,363

$13,194

$630,865

$111,441

$84,298

$151,800

$1,418

$0

$348,956

$79,974

$44,176

$0

$10,161

$7,254

$141,565

$15,196

$26,047

$0

$28,218

$2,000

$71,461

Clark Township

$29,726

$0

$0

$39,042

$0

$68,768

Linden City

$35,742

$18,583

$0

$0

$0

$54,325

Kenilworth Borough

$26,379

$26,339

$0

$0

$0

$52,719

Union Township CAO, Inc.

$0

$0

$0

$15,903

$0

$15,903

Cranford First Aid Squad

$0

$1,808

$0

$5,009

$0

$6,817

Rahway Board of Education

$0

$1,198

$0

$0

$0

$1,198

Total

$382,952

$283,172

$157,283

$5,637,890

$22,448

$6,483,745

Garwood

D

Union Township

Cat. B

ra

Applicant Name

ft

Project Worksheet Summary for Hurricane Floyd (DR-1295) Applicants in Union County along the Rahway River and its
Tributaries, Ordered by PW Total

Note: For these applicants, no damages were reported for FEMA Categories D and G.
Source: FEMA Region II–Public Assistance Program

The FEMA Public Assistance categories are generally defined as follows:
•
7.0-57

Category A: Emergency work, primarily debris clearance.

•
•
•
•
•
•

Category B: Emergency protective measures.
Category C: Permanent repair work, roads, and bridges.
Category D: Permanent repair work, water control facilities.
Category E: Permanent repair work, public buildings.
Category F: Permanent repair work, utilities.
Category G: Permanent repair work, parks, and recreation facilities

04/02/2005–Severe Storms and Flooding. On April 2 and April 3 heavy rains from an intense low pressure system caused
widespread flooding throughout northern New Jersey. The NJOEM estimated that the flooding forced 6,000 residents
from their homes and caused a total of $60 million in damages. In Union County the damages were estimated at $12
million according to NOAA’s NCEI database.

O

nl
y

4/15/2007 (DR-1694) –Severe Storms and Inland and Coastal Flooding. A seven-day Nor’easter deluged New Jersey with
up to 9" of rain, causing millions of dollars of damage and killing three residents. Statewide damage was estimated at $180
million. In Union County maximum rainfall totals were 7.3" near Cranford Township in the central part of the county. The
NCEI database estimated damages in Union County at $2.7 million. The most significant damages occurred in Cranford
Township where the storm resulted in a total of 66 residential homes flooded above their first-floor elevations, 427 homes
with flooded basements, and over $2.3 million in public infrastructure damage according to the Cranford Township
Engineering Report on Tax Day Storm (April 15-17, 2007).

ft

04/02/2010 –Severe Storms and Flooding. A slow-moving storm moving north along the Atlantic coast produced heavy
rains from March 12 - 15, 2010. Rainfall amounts were greatest in central and northeastern New Jersey. One of the highest
rainfall totals was reported at USGS gage in Mountainside, New Jersey.

D

ra

08/28/2011 (DR-4021) – Hurricane Irene. Hurricane Irene made landfall along the Outer Banks of North Carolina on August
27, 2011, as a Category 1 hurricane. The storm re-emerged over the Atlantic and made a second landfall as a tropical
storm on August 28th in the Little Egg Inlet in southeastern New Jersey. Large portions of the county experienced flooding,
with the most severe occurring in the municipalities of Cranford, Springfield, and Rahway. These areas were mainly
impacted by flooding from the Rahway River. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) indicated the peak flood stage
along the Rahway River at Rahway was 2.5 feet higher than the previous peak of record. The storm flooded thousands of
residential homes in Cranford including the downtown area. The event was considered the worst flood event in Cranford’s
history with an estimated $75 million in property damages. In other areas of the county, police used boats to rescue nearly
90 people from their homes on flooded streets in Rahway and Springfield. In Rahway significant flooding occurred along
West Grand Avenue and Rahway Avenue. An estimated 30,000 Union County residents were left without power according
to an article on the Union County, NJ website titled “Union Continues Response in Aftermath of Hurricane Irene”. Table
7.10-3 Project Worksheet Summary for Hurricane Irene (DR-4021) Applicants in Union County Along the Rahway River
and its Tributaries, Ordered by PW Total identifies the FEMA PA funds provided to applicants after Irene for municipalities
located along the Rahway River (and its tributaries). The table shows that as of June 2014 Cranford Public Schools has
received the highest amount of FEMA PA funds of any applicant located along the Rahway River. As a result of Irene,
Cranford Public Schools has received a total of $1,536,824. The majority of these funds ($1,487,461) were associated with
emergency protective measures. Compared to Tropical Storm Floyd, infrastructure damages from Irene along the Rahway
River were less than half of the total damages from Floyd. As of the 2016 HMP update, development of PWs for these
applicants was ongoing and the total estimated damages for this region may increase significantly once all damages are
identified and PWs completed by FEMA.

7.0-58

Project Worksheet Summary for Hurricane Irene (DR-4021) Applicants in Union County along the Rahway River and its
Tributaries, Ordered by PW Total
Applicant Name

Cat. A

Cat. B

Cat. C

Cat. D

Cat. E

Cat. F

TOTAL

Cranford Public Schools

$0

$1,487,461

$0

$0

$49,363

$0

$1,536,824

Cranford Township

$487,706

$134,446

$32,385

$34,146

$59,814

$0

$748,497

Clark Township

$116,931

$93,654

$0

$0

$1,847

$0

$212,432

Kenilworth Borough

$59,430

$60,613

$4,697

$0

$0

$0

$124,741

Cranford First Aid Squad

$0

$2,884

$0

$0

$35,023

$0

$37,907

Union Township DPW

$0

$0

$0

$0

$25,873

$25,873

Clark Public Schools

$3,742

$2,467

$0

$0

$5,017

$0

$11,225

Union Township Board of Ed.

$0

$0

$0

$0

$5,456

$0

$5,456

Grand Total

$667,810

$1,781,525

$37,082

$34,146

$156,520

$25,873

$2,702,956

D

Source: SternAssociates.com

ra

ft

O

Figure 7.10-5 Hurricane Irene, Flooding in Cranford Township

nl
y

Source: FEMA Region II–Public Assistance Program

Figure 7.10-6 Hurricane Irene, Flooding in Downtown Cranford

Source: SternAssociates.com
7.0-59

10/29/2012 (DR-4086)- In late October of 2012, Union County was impacted by Hurricane Sandy (DR-4086), a late season
hurricane that originated as a tropical wave from the west coast of Africa. Sandy traveled across Cuba and other parts of
the Caribbean, before moving northeastward, parallel to the coast of the southeastern United States. Sandy reached a
secondary peak intensity of 85 knots while it turned northwestward toward the mid-Atlantic states. Sandy weakened
somewhat and then made landfall as a post-tropical cyclone near Brigantine, New Jersey with 70-knot maximum sustained
winds on October 29, 2012. Because of its tremendous size, however, Sandy drove a catastrophic storm surge into the
New Jersey and New York coastlines.

nl
y

With the highest storm surge levels on record, Sandy produced widespread damage to coastal and inland communities in
New Jersey. In Union County the storm surge flooded the coastal areas of the County. See Section 7.18 Storm Surge for
additional information about the storm surge flooding associated with Hurricane Sandy including a Union County
inundation map. Although the flooding was substantial along the coastal portions of Union County, review of FEMA Public
Assistance records indicates that infrastructure damages (including public facilities) related to flooding from Sandy was
relatively minimal. In Union County the majority of the public infrastructure damages from Sandy were related to high
winds. In the City of Elizabeth, project worksheets related to Hurricane Sandy totaled $7,189,980.23, with most damage
along the Arthur Kill waterfront.

O

The City of Linden suffered substantial residential damage and after the storm, entered into New Jersey DEP’s Blue Acres
Program to buyout the substantially damaged structures. The Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority had substantial damage
and the City requested a FEMA TAC team to assist the Authority in writing their claim, which resulted in HMGP grant
funding. The Department of Public Works had a very large Category E claim as Sandy washed through the facility.

D

ra

ft

Information provided by the NFIP can be used as an indication of the potential for flooding in Union County, and the
amount of damage it has caused in the past. It is recognized that relying on just NFIP data may not provide as
comprehensive a picture as possible as not all people with flood damage belong to the NFIP or have submitted claims to
the NFIP. But review of prior NFIP flood claims can help reveal areas of the county that are vulnerable to damages from
flooding. In recent years, FEMA has focused considerable attention to insured, repetitive loss properties. By definition,
these are properties that have had two or more flood insurance claim payments of at least $1,000 each over a ten-year
period. In Union County, 434 residential and commercial properties have been identified as repetitive loss properties.
Collectively, claim holders have received payments of just over $20.3 million (the figure includes claim payments for both
building and contents damages).
9/1/2021 (DR-4614) -- Extremely heavy rainfall associated with the remnants of Hurricane Ida overspread northeast New

Jersey during the evening of September 1 and continued through the early morning hours of September 2. Rainfall totals
ranged from 5-8+ inches across much of the region, with much of that rain falling in just a few hours. The Automated
Surface Observing System (ASOS) at Newark Airport recorded 8.44 inches of rain, while the ASOS at Teterboro Airport
recorded 7.14 inches. A COOP observer in Harrison recorded 8.72 inches of rain. This resulted in widespread flash flooding
leading to numerous road closures and water rescues in addition to extensive river flooding. Statewide thirty people died
as a result of the flash flooding – more than in any other state. In Elizabeth in Union County, five people died, four in one
flooded basement apartment. In total, Ida, a Category 4 hurricane when it hit Louisiana, was the fourth costliest Atlantic
hurricane in the United States, causing $75.25 billion in damage. In New Jersey, according to the state, Ida caused about
$2.02 billion in damage. In Union County, 383 businesses had $83.6 million in damage and 2,350 tenants of rental
properties filed for FEMA assistance. The state received about $228 million in federal dollars for storm recovery and
disaster mitigation.

7.0-60

nl
y

7.10.4 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM INSURED STRUCTURES AND REPETITIVE LOSS
PROPERTIES
FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established by Congress in 1968, for the purpose of enabling
property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses in exchange for
State and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages. Participation in the NFIP is
based on an agreement between communities and the Federal Government. If a community adopts and enforces a
floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risk to new construction in floodplains, the federal government
will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. As of Spring 2025,
every incorporated jurisdiction in Union County (except Winfield) was a participating member of the NFIP. Because the
NFIP has existed since 1968, flood insurance claims offer a rich source of quantitative information about past flood losses.
These data are displayed in the series of tables below. It should be recognized that this information should not be
considered a perfectly reliable measure of flood risk, because it relies upon flood insurance data, in particular claims
submitted to the NFIP. Not all owners of potentially flood prone property in a community purchase flood insurance, and
in some cases they purchase insufficient insurance to cover their losses when a property does flood. Additionally, some
homeowners purchase private flood insurance. Data related to private flood insurance claims is not represented in these
tables. Nevertheless, there in a large enough data set in Union County that the information provides a relatively good
picture of the areas where flooding has occurred, and its magnitude.

O

Table 7.10-4 National Flood Insurance Statistics as of October 17, 2024, Union County, New Jersey provides basic NFIP
statistics for all jurisdictions in Union County, current as of October 17, 2024. The column entitled “Total $ in Force”
indicates the sum of all coverage for structure and contents losses, i.e. the maximum current claims value. It does not
represent actual claims, which are discussed later.

Total Number of Active
Policies

Number of Losses

Total Payments

ra

ft

National Flood Insurance Statistics as of October 17, 2024, Union County, New Jersey

3/1/1978

120

100

$1,482,935.39

12/23/1971

51

125

$2,243,532.52

6/25/1971

508

1,640

$53,174,837.89

5/7/1971

69

328

$7,761,724.25

10/28/1977

18

13

$53,332.91

Garwood Borough

2/1/1977

44

60

$992,827.53

Hillside Township

9/14/1979

32

241

$3,144,720.06

Kenilworth Borough

3/2/1983

62

184

$2,331,415.76

Linden City

11/24/1976

107

341

$7,735,242.78

Mountainside Borough

2/16/1977

21

29

$330,458.77

New Providence Borough

11/23/1973

87

96

$733,659.75

Plainfield City

6/25/1971

715

1,026

$8,656,404.99

Rahway City

12/23/1971

333

1,014

$27,261,907.85

Roselle Borough

7/17/1978

33

461

$6,887,982.40

Roselle Park Borough

6/4/1980

102

84

$758,637.80

Scotch Plains Township

9/30/1977

167

286

$5,783,816.76

Joined NFIP

Berkeley Heights Township
Clark Township
Cranford Township
Elizabeth City
Fanwood Borough

7.0-61

D

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

Joined NFIP

Total Number of Active
Policies

Number of Losses

Total Payments

Springfield Township

10/1/1971

118

409

$8,907,251.13

Summit City

2/2/1977

52

101

$814,680.98

Union Township

8/1/1978

184

517

$12,258,707.16

Westfield Town

12/18/1979

86

49

$1,701,351.99

Winfield Township

N/A

0

0

$0.00

Union County Total

-

2909

7,104

$153,015,428.67

Source: FEMA – NFIP Policy and Loss Data by Geography

O

nl
y

Table 7.10-5 Community Rating System (CRS) Participation, Union County, NJ, as of April 2024 describes CRS
participation by municipality. Out of the 21 municipalities in Union County, five municipalities currently participate in the
CRS program: Cranford Township, City of Linden, Rahway City, Roselle Borough, and Roselle Park Borough. Berkeley
Heights Township, Plainfield City, and Scotch Plains Township joined CRS in the 1990s but do not currently participate in
the program. CRS participants gain points based on their community’s flood mitigation practices. These points are used to
determine the community’s Class, a categorization from 10 (lowest) to 1 (highest) that comes with corresponding
discounts for NFIP policyholders in the community. Of the participating municipalities in Union County, three (Cranford
Township, Rahway City, and Roselle Borough) are Class 7, meaning that their NFIP policyholders in the Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA) receive a 15% discount and policyholders outside the SFHA receive a 5% discount. Linden is Class 8, meaning
their NFIP policyholders receive a 10% (in the SFHA) or 5% (outside the SFHA) discount on their flood insurance.
Community Rating System (CRS) Participation, Union County, NJ, as of April 2024
Current
Effective Date

Class

Percent
Discount for
SFHA

Percent
Discount for
Non-SFHA

Rescinded

10/1/1994

5/1/1999

10

0

0

Current

10/1/2016

10/1/2016

7

15

5

340467

Current

10/1/1991

10/1/2002

8

10

5

Plainfield City

345312

Rescinded

10/1/1991

10/1/1998

10

0

0

Rahway City

345314

Current

10/1/1992

10/1/2018

7

15

5

Roselle Borough

340472

Current

10/1/1992

5/1/2013

7

15

5

Roselle Park Borough

340473

Current

10/1/2015

10/1/2015

10

0

0

Scotch Plains Township

340474

Rescinded

10/1/1994

10/1/1995

10

0

0

Berkeley Heights
Township

340459

Cranford Township

345291

D

Linden City

Participation
Status

ra

Community
Number

ft

CRS Entry
Date

Jurisdiction

Source: Appendix F: Community Rating System, April 1, 2024, NFIP Flood Insurance Manual

National Flood Insurance Program Repetitive Loss and Severe Repetitive Loss Properties
FEMA requires a discussion of NFIP Repetitive Loss and Severe Repetitive flood loss statistics in hazard mitigation plans.
Table 7.10-6 Repetitive Loss (RL) & Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Statistics below includes the number of repetitive loss
properties and severe repetitive loss properties as well as the total RL and SRL combined. Definitions for RL and SRL are
as follows:
7.0-62

•

FEMA defines a Repetitive Loss (RL) property as any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than
$1,000 were paid by the NFIP within any rolling 10-year period, since 1978.
Severe Repetitive Loss is defined as a residential property that is covered under an NFIP flood insurance policy
and:
o That has at least four NFIP claim payments (including building and contents) over $5,000 each, and the
cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeds $20,000; or
o For which at least two separate claims payments (building payments only) have been made with the
cumulative amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the market value of the building.
o For both (a) and (b) above, at least two of the referenced claims must have occurred within any ten- year
period and must be greater than 10 days apart.

•

This table also contains a column including the total number of mitigated properties in each jurisdiction. Note that the
table includes only those jurisdictions that have repetitive loss properties, so not all municipalities are listed. The following
two sections go into more depth on either Repetitive Loss statistics or Severe Repetitive Loss statistics.

Total RL Properties

Total SRL Properties

Total RL and SRL
Combined

Total Mitigated Properties

Berkeley Heights Township

3

1

4

0

Clark Township

8

4

12

0

Cranford Township

181

103

284

9

Elizabeth City

18

2

20

0

Garwood Borough

2

1

3

0

Hillside Township

31

3

0

Kenilworth Borough

11

ft

34

0

11

0

22

5

27

0

2

0

2

0

7

0

7

0

74

8

82

0

Rahway City

88

20

108

0

Roselle Park Borough

2

0

2

0

Roselle Borough

36

5

41

0

Scotch Plains Township

19

1

20

0

Springfield Township

13

5

18

0

Summit City

5

1

6

0

Union Township

29

9

38

0

Westfield Town

2

0

2

0

Total

556

168

724

9

Mountainside Borough
New Providence Borough
Plainfield City

ra

Linden City

O

Jurisdiction

D

nl
y

Repetitive Loss (RL) & Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Statistics

Source: Provided by FEMA Region II, 10/17/2024

Flood Risk to Repetitive Loss Properties in Union County
FEMA defines a Repetitive Loss (RL) property as any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000
7.0-63

were paid by the NFIP within any rolling 10-year period, since 1978. RL property may or may not be currently insured by
the NFIP. According to FEMA RL property records there are 556 RL properties located in Union County (as of October 17,
2024). These properties are associated with a total of 1,547 losses and approximately $36.5 million in claims payments
under the NFIP since January 1978 (the earliest recorded date of loss).
Summary of NFIP Repetitive Loss Statistics, Union County
Total RL
Properties

Mitigated RL
Properties

RL-Total Losses

RL-Total Paid

Average Claim

% County
Average

Berkeley Heights Township

3

0

9

$724,334.30

$80,481.59

2.0%

Clark Township

8

0

22

$282,675.42

$12,848.88

0.8%

Cranford Township

181

1

536

$16,266,725.15

$30,348.37

44.6%

Elizabeth City

18

0

43

$1,463,079.39

$34,025.10

4.0%

Garwood Borough

2

0

5

$369,400.72

$73,880.14

1.0%

Hillside Township

31

0

89

$732,204.98

$8,227.02

2.0%

Kenilworth Borough

11

0

30

$293,829.38

$9,794.31

0.8%

Linden City

22

0

58

$1,493,397.83

$25,748.24

4.1%

Mountainside Borough

2

0

5

$41,476.77

$8,295.35

0.1%

New Providence Borough

7

0

17

$442,394.83

$26,023.23

1.2%

Plainfield City

74

0

197

$1,687,082.22

$8,563.87

4.6%

Rahway City

88

0

247

$9,409,687.26

$38,095.90

25.8%

Roselle Park Borough

2

0

5

$47,870.26

$9,574.05

0.1%

Roselle Borough

36

0

90

$499,243.55

$5,547.15

1.4%

Scotch Plains Township

19

0

54

$1,030,059.27

$19,075.17

2.8%

Union Township
Westfield Town
Total

O

ft

ra

Summit City

13

0

38

$479,258.14

$12,612.06

1.3%

5

0

13

$196,828.57

$15,140.66

0.5%

29

0

74

$905,376.11

$12,234.81

2.5%

2

0

4

$37,674.13

$9,418.53

0.1%

556

25

1547

$36,482,198.61

$23,582.55

---

D

Springfield Township

nl
y

Jurisdiction

Source: Provided by FEMA Region II, 10/17/2024

Flood Risk to Severe Repetitive Loss Properties in Union County
The National Flood Insurance Program defines Severe Repetitive Loss as a residential property that is covered under an
NFIP flood insurance policy and:
• That has at least four NFIP claim payments (including building and contents) over $5,000 each, and the cumulative
amount of such claims payments exceeds $20,000; or
• For which at least two separate claims payments (building payments only) have been made with the cumulative
amount of the building portion of such claims exceeding the market value of the building.
• For both (a) and (b) above, at least two of the referenced claims must have occurred within any ten- year period
and must be greater than 10 days apart.

7.0-64

Fourteen of Union’s communities have Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) properties as of October 2024. These communities
and associated SRL statistics are shown in Table 7.10-8 Summary of NFIP Severe Repetitive Loss Statistics, Union County
below.
Summary of NFIP Severe Repetitive Loss Statistics, Union County
Total SRL
Losses

Mitigated
SRL
Properties

SRL-Total
Losses

SRL-Total Paid

Average Claim

% County
Average

Berkeley Heights Township

1

0

4

$62,546.50

$15,636.63

0.2%

Clark Township

4

0

25

$637,258.28

$25,490.33

1.6%

Cranford Township

103

8

451

$21,108,319.60

$46,803.37

51.9%

Elizabeth City

2

0

16

$796,979.31

$49,811.21

2.0%

Garwood Borough

1

0

4

$218,542.73

$54,635.68

0.5%

Hillside Township

3

0

15

$194,801.02

$12,986.73

0.5%

Linden City

5

0

31

$2,056,209.71

$66,329.35

5.1%

Plainfield City

8

0

39

$824,847.66

$21,149.94

2.0%

Rahway City

20

0

103

$4,475,525.34

$43,451.70

11.0%

Roselle Borough

5

0

77

$6,241,969.26

$81,064.54

15.4%

Scotch Plains

1

0

5

$117,326.80

$23,465.36

0.3%

Springfield Township

5

0

26

$778,656.57

$29,948.33

1.9%

Summit City

1

0

4

$74,898.65

$18,724.66

0.2%

Union Township

9

0

48

$3,066,351.22

$63,882.32

7.5%

Total

168

8

848

$40,654,232.65

$47,941.31

--

O

ft

ra

Source: Provided by FEMA Region II, 10/17/2024

nl
y

Jurisdiction

D

7.10.5 PROBABILITY OF FUTURE OCCURRENCES
Based on past and recent history, certain parts of Union County clearly have a high probability of flooding repeatedly in
the future. Several areas adjacent to the Rahway River and portions of the Green Brook River area of the county have
flooded several times in the past. Historical data may not accurately reflect future probability due to climate change.
Please refer to Section 7.9.6 Potential Effects of Climate Change below for a discussion of how climate change may increase
the frequency of flood events.
7.10.6 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
According to DEP’s 2020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate, by 2050, annual precipitation in New Jersey is expected
to increase by 4%-11%. Further, both the intensity and frequency of precipitation events is expected to increase. As a
result, flood size and frequency are also expected to increase.
The 2020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate also reports that sea level is rising at a faster rate in New Jersey than in
other parts of the world, and coastal New Jersey will experience “sunny day” flooding more often as a result of sea level
rise. For more discussion on projected sea level rise in New Jersey, please see the subsection below.
Inland Design Flood Elevation
On July 17, 2023, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) adopted its Inland Flood Protection
Rule which, among other actions, establishes a new Design Flood Elevation (DFE) standard for specific types of new
7.0-65

construction and redevelopment. The new DFE is 3 feet above the elevation of the 1% Chance Annual Flood for New Jersey
(which is also known as the 100-year flood) or, where NJDEP flood mapping is available, 2 feet above NJDEP’s flood hazard
area design flood elevation, if that results in a DFE higher than FEMA’s 1% flood plus 3 feet. To help visualize the new rule,
Rutgers University created the NJ Inland Design Flood Elevation Layer, to be used as a non-regulatory planning tool which
helps visualize potential future conditions in the state. Figure 7.10-7 NJ Inland Design Flood Elevation in Union County
shows the new NJ Inland Design Flood Elevation in bright sky blue in comparison to the existing BFE which is depicted in
navy blue. This map is intended to demonstrate the potential impacts of climate change on riverine and inland flooding.

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Figure 7.10-7 NJ Inland Design Flood Elevation in Union County

Sea Level Rise
Sea level rise continues to impact areas along the Atlantic coast of New Jersey including communities in Union County
that border the Newark Bay or Arthur Kill or contain tidally influenced waters. Effects will reach some low lying and inland
communities as rivers such as the Rahway and Elizabeth Rivers that empty into either the Atlantic Ocean or adjoining
waterbodies will experience a subsequent rise in their water levels. Figure 7.10-8 Permanent Inundation Under Sea Level
Rise Scenarios in Union County visualizes three potential flooding from sea level rise scenarios, at the 2-, 3- and 5- foot

7.0-66

levels (measured from current mean higher high water levels), and their resulting areas of permanent inundation in Union
County. This map is intended to demonstrate the potential impact of climate change-driven sea level rise in the County.

D

ra

ft

O

nl
y

Figure 7.10-8 Permanent Inundation under Sea Level Rise Scenarios in Union County

7.10.7 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

BUILT ENVIRONMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY LIFELINES
Flooding is one of the most significant and recurring natural hazards in Union County, with a long history of damage to the
built environment. Repeated flood events have caused widespread basement flooding, roadway washouts, damage to
building foundations, and infiltration of sewer systems. In communities with older housing stock or dense development,
water damage is more difficult to mitigate, and post-flood mold issues create long-term structural and health concerns.
Public infrastructure is also highly vulnerable. Roads, culverts, bridges, and stormwater systems may be overrun or
structurally compromised during high-intensity rainfall or prolonged storm events. Critical transportation corridors as well
as local NJ Transit lines are frequently disrupted. Water treatment facilities and electrical substations located within or
adjacent to floodplains may also be affected, creating cascading service interruptions.

7.0-67

Vulnerability of Development to Flood
In order to assess flood vulnerability, a GIS-based analysis was used to estimate exposure to flood events using FEMA's
best available floodplain data in combination with local tax assessor records. The parcel level data was filtered to exclude
undeveloped parcels such as open space or vacant parcels to determine the number of parcels in the town which were
considered developed. The developed parcels were then intersected with the 1% and 0.2% annual chance floodplain layers
to determine the percentage which lie at least partially within the floodplain. Table 7.10-9 Flood-Related Spatial
Information by Jurisdiction, Union County, New Jersey contains the results of this analysis. Plainfield City, Cranford
Township, and Rahway City contained the highest percentage of developed parcels located within the floodplain while
Winfield Township, Westfield Township and Summit City contained the lowest. This data helps to understand which
municipalities contain the highest exposure to flood hazard and can help in identifying which communities have developed
in areas which are more or less flood-prone when compared to total floodplain area numbers.

Developed Parcels
within 0.2% Annual
Chance Floodplain

Percent Developed
Parcels within 0.2%
Annual Chance
Floodplain

10.1%

635

13.5%

4.5%

239

4.6%

11.1%

1285

15.9%

342

1.8%

801

4.2%

2650

84

3.2%

65

2.5%

Garwood Borough

1465

243

16.6%

37

2.5%

Hillside Township

6377

152

2.4%

321

5.0%

Kenilworth Borough

3005

394

13.1%

334

11.1%

Linden City

12085

911

7.5%

825

6.8%

Mountainside Borough

2754

163

5.9%

190

6.9%

Developed Parcels
within 1% Annual
Chance Floodplain

Berkeley Heights
Township

4720

476

Clark Township

5246

234

Cranford Township

8072

900

Elizabeth City

19058

Fanwood Borough

New Providence
Borough

D

ft

O

Jurisdiction

Number of Developed
Parcels

nl
y

Percent Developed
Parcels within 1%
Annual Chance
Floodplain

ra

Flood-Related Spatial Information by Jurisdiction, Union County, New Jersey

4027

382

9.5%

0

0.0%

Plainfield City

10517

2719

25.9%

213

2.0%

Rahway City

8227

1075

13.1%

1080

13.1%

Roselle Borough

5795

685

11.8%

584

10.1%

Roselle Park Borough

3649

116

3.2%

235

6.4%

Scotch Plains Township

8034

833

10.4%

887

11.0%

Springfield Township

5317

625

11.8%

727

13.7%

Summit City

6905

306

4.4%

0

0.0%

Union Township

17125

1030

6.0%

1182

6.9%

Westfield Town

9957

86

0.9%

116

1.2%

Winfield Township

703

0

0.0%

1

0.1%

Total

145,688

11,756

8.1%

9757

6.7%

Source: 2024 NJOGIS Parcels and MOD-IV Composite of New Jersey, FEMA 2025

7.0-68

Table 7.10-10 Expected Annualized Losses from Riverine Flood Hazard by Jurisdiction and Table 7.10-11 Expected
Annual Losses for Coastal Flood Hazard by Jurisdiction show expected annualized losses for the flood hazard. This data
was derived from FEMA’s NRI. EAL represents the average economic loss in dollars resulting from natural hazards each
year The table includes EAL for buildings as well as total EAL which includes building damage as well as damage to
agriculture and population equivalency (the monetized cost of injury and fatality) where applicable.

Expected Annual Losses – Building

Expected Annual Losses- Total

Berkeley Heights Township

$33,856.27

$240,523.92

Clark Township

$18,155.85

$201,077.20

Cranford Township

$65,831.61

$604,844.76

Elizabeth City

$60,072.34

$169,131.45

Fanwood Borough

$3,477.98

$38,907.08

Garwood Borough

$13,645.95

$106,816.07

Hillside Township

$12,648.14

$134,251.78

Kenilworth Borough

$58,216.19

$255,869.57

Linden City

$101,512.14

$378,843.02

Mountainside Borough

$9,736.27

$36,295.48

New Providence Borough

$27,732.12

$195,255.76

$252,908.50

$3,641,429.91

$72,573.68

$859,054.14

$24,424.21

$364,480.50

$11,802.46

$149,782.04

$87,556.54

$689,616.42

$73,752.19

$564,877.78

$18,717.07

$119,289.75

Union Township

$112,605.12

$766,999.74

Westfield Town

$5,280.38

$26,765.60

Winfield Township

$0.00

$0.00

Union County Total

$1,064,506.62

$9,544,114.21

nl
y

Jurisdiction

O

Expected Annual Losses for Riverine Flood Hazard by Jurisdiction

Plainfield City
Rahway City

ft

Roselle Borough

Scotch Plains Township
Springfield Township

D

Summit City

ra

Roselle Park Borough

Source: FEMA NRI, 2025

Expected Annual Losses for Coastal Flood Hazard by Jurisdictions

7.0-69

Jurisdiction

Expected Annual Losses – Building

Expected Annual Losses- Total

Berkeley Heights Township

$0.00

$0.00

Clark Township

$835.69

$1,032.38

Cranford Township

$0.00

$0.00

Elizabeth City

$3,490,393.06

$3,649,981.55

Fanwood Borough

$0.00

$0.00

Garwood Borough

$0.00

$0.00

Expected Annual Losses – Building

Expected Annual Losses- Total

Hillside Township

$1,822.51

$2,321.42

Kenilworth Borough

$0.00

$0.00

Linden City

$2,888,126.11

$2,900,060.80

Mountainside Borough

$0.00

$0.00

New Providence Borough

$0.00

$0.00

Plainfield City

$0.00

$0.00

Rahway City

$219,260.55

$269,677.04

Roselle Borough

$7,454.48

$10,645.41

Roselle Park Borough

$0.00

$0.00

Scotch Plains Township

$0.00

$0.00

Springfield Township

$0.00

$0.00

Summit City

$0.00

$0.00

Union Township

$34,963.30

$36,800.35

Westfield Town

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$6,642,858.43

$6,870,521.99

nl
y

Jurisdiction

Winfield Township

O

Union County Total
Source: FEMA NRI, 2025

D

ra

ft

During the planning process of this HMP, jurisdictions were asked to identify critical facilities within their communities
using FEMA community lifelines as a framework. Lifelines are the most fundamental services in the community that, when
stabilized, enable all other aspects of society to function. Should these lifelines become disrupted following a hazard event,
priority action may be needed to stabilize them during incident response. These facilities were geolocated and intersected
with FEMA’s Special Flood Hazard Area best available data layer. Table 7.10-12 Community Lifeline Vulnerability to 1%
Annual Chance Flood and Table 7.10-13 Community Lifeline Vulnerability to 0.2% Annual Chance Flood illustrates the
percentage of critical facilities located within the 1% and 0.2% floodplain. In accordance with FEMA guidance, all analyses
in this plan have been conducted using the best readily available data
Community Lifeline Vulnerability to 1% Annual Chance Flood
Number of Lifelines within 1% Annual Chance Floodplain

Total
Identified
Community Lifelines

Communications

Energy

Food,
Hydration,
Shelter

Hazardous
Materials

Health and
Medical

Safety and
Security

Transportation

Water
Systems

Total

Berkeley
Heights
Township

14

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

2

Clark
Township

16

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

Cranford
Township

28

0

1

0

0

0

2

0

1

4

Elizabeth
City

51

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

Jurisdiction

7.0-70

Energy

Food,
Hydration,
Shelter

Hazardous
Materials

Health and
Medical

Safety and
Security

Transportation

Water
Systems

Total

Fanwood
Borough

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Garwood
Borough

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Hillside
Township

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Kenilworth
Borough

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Linden City

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Mountainsid
e Borough

37

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

New
Providence
Borough

8

0

0

0

0

Plainfield
City

16

0

0

0

0

Rahway City

37

0

1

0

0

Roselle
Borough

21

0

0

0

Roselle Park
Borough

14

0

0

0

Scotch Plains
Township

11

0

0

Springfield
Township

32

0

Summit City

21

0

Union
Township

34

Westfield
Town

1

4

0

0

5

1

5

0

0

6

1

2

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

2

ft
0

ra

Jurisdiction

nl
y

Communications

O

Number of Lifelines within 1% Annual Chance Floodplain

Total
Identified
Community Lifelines

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

0

2

4

40

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Winfield
Township

36

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Union
County Total

441

0

2

0

0

5

24

1

3

35

D

0

Source: FEMA, Union County Municipalities

7.0-71

Community Lifeline Vulnerability to 0.2% Annual Chance Flood

Energy

Food,
Hydration,
Shelter

Hazardous
Materials

Health and
Medical

Safety and
Security

Transportation

Water
Systems

Total

Berkeley
Heights
Township

14

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

Clark
Township

16

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Cranford
Township

28

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

Elizabeth
City

51

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

Fanwood
Borough

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Garwood
Borough

4

0

0

0

0

Hillside
Township

10

0

0

0

0

Kenilworth
Borough

1

0

0

0

0

Linden City

5

0

0

0

Mountainsid
e Borough

37

0

0

0

New
Providence
Borough

8

0

0

Plainfield
City

16

0

Rahway City

37

Roselle
Borough

21

Roselle Park
Borough

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

3

1

0

5

0

1

1

0

0

2

ft

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ra
0

D

Jurisdiction

nl
y

Communications

O

Number of Lifelines within 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain

Total
Identified
Community Lifelines

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

1

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

14

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Scotch Plains
Township

11

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

1

6

Springfield
Township

32

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

2

Summit City

21

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Union
Township

34

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

2

6

Westfield
Town

40

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Winfield
Township

36

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7.0-72

Jurisdiction

Number of Lifelines within 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain

Total
Identified
Community Lifelines

Communications

Energy

Food,
Hydration,
Shelter

Hazardous
Materials

Health and
Medical

Safety and
Security

Transportation

Water
Systems

Total

441

0

0

0

1

1

21

1

4

28

Union
County Total

Source: FEMA, Union County Municipalities

O

nl
y

Vulnerability of Development to Sea Level Rise
In order to assess the county’s risk to sea level rise (SLR), a GIS-based analysis similar to the analysis performed for flood
risk was conducted. This analysis seeks to estimate exposure to flood events using NOAA’s sea level rise inundation data
in combination with local tax assessor records. The parcel level data was filtered to exclude undeveloped parcels such as
open space or vacant parcels to determine the number of parcels in the town which were considered developed. The
developed parcels were then intersected with the delineated projection of 2- foot and 5-foot SLR layers to determine the
percentage of developed parcels which are at least partially within the SLR inundation areas. Table 7.10-14 below displays
the percent of total land area and percent of developed parcels at risk from sea level rise, it should be noted that the table
only includes coastal communities or those with tidally influenced waters, including Elizabeth, Linden and Rahway Cities.
This data helps to understand which municipalities contain the highest exposure to flood hazard and can help in identifying
which communities have developed in areas which are more or less vulnerable to sea level rise when compared to total
land area inundation numbers. For example, Rahway City has the smallest amount of land area exposed to sea level rise,
but the highest percent of vulnerable developed parcels.
Sea Level Rise-Related Spatial Information by Jurisdiction, Union County, New Jersey
Percent of Parcels
considered developed

Elizabeth City

4720

Linden City

5246

Rahway City

8072

Percent Developed
Parcels within 2ft
SLR

Percent Developed
Parcels within 5ft
SLR

Percent Total Land
area within 2ft SLR

Percent Total Land
area within 5ft SLR

0.7%

1.1%

11.6%

13.3%

0.6%

1.4%

8.9%

18.6%

1.1%

2.8%

2.5%

4.9%

ra

ft

Jurisdiction

D

Source: 2024 NJOGIS Parcels and MOD-IV Composite of New Jersey, NOAA

During the planning process of this HMP, jurisdictions were asked to identify critical facilities within their communities
using FEMA community lifelines as a framework. Lifelines are the most fundamental services in the community that, when
stabilized, enable all other aspects of society to function. Should these lifelines become disrupted following a hazard event,
priority action may be needed to stabilize them during incident response. These facilities were geolocated and intersected
with NOAA’s 5 feet of sea level rise data layer. Table 7.10-15 Community Lifeline Vulnerability to 5 Feet of Sea Level Rise
(SLR) illustrates the area projected to be permanently inundated under a scenario resulting in 5 feet of sea level rise.
There was a single identified community lifeline in this area in Linden City. It should be noted that the table below only
communities expected to be impacted by sea level rise.
Community Lifeline Vulnerability to 5 feet of Sea Level Rise (SLR)
Jurisdiction

Elizabeth
City

7.0-73

Number of Lifelines within 5 feet of SLR

Total
Identified
Community Lifelines

Communications

Energy

Food,
Hydration,
Shelter

Hazardous
Materials

Health and
Medical

Safety and
Security

Transportation

Water
Systems

Total

51

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Number of Lifelines within 5 feet of SLR

Total
Identified
Community Lifelines

Communications

Energy

Food,
Hydration,
Shelter

Hazardous
Materials

Health and
Medical

Safety and
Security

Transportation

Water
Systems

Total

Linden City

5

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

Rahway City

37

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Union
County Total

441

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Jurisdiction

Source: NOAA, Union County Municipalities

The Union County Transportation Master Plan (2016) assesses the resilience of Union County’s infrastructure, noting that,
while all the county’s transportation assets are vulnerable to climate change impacts, those assets near the coast are
particularly vulnerable to flooding. Coastal transportation assets in the region include local roads, the New Jersey
Turnpike, Newark Liberty International Airport, and freight rail lines.

nl
y

POPULATION AND ECONOMY

ft

O

Flooding can be dangerous to human health and livelihood. Flash flooding in particular can be dangerous to persons stuck
in cars or basement apartments as seen during Hurricane Ida which caused the death of multiple people in a basement
apartment in Elizabeth. Exposure to flood waters can pose health risk due to contamination from sewage and other
hazardous substances. The most vulnerable population of those exposed to the hazard include the economically
disadvantaged and the elderly. Economically disadvantaged populations are more vulnerable because they are likely to
evaluate their risk and make evacuation decisions based on the net economic impact to their family. Those over 65 are
also more vulnerable because they are more likely to seek or need medical attention which may not be available during a
flood event, and they may have more difficulty evacuating.

ra

Flooding can negatively impact the economy, from direct losses such as property damage, business closures, and
disruption to commercial transportation functions to indirect losses such as disrupted supply chains, reduced property
values, loss of tourism revenue, and negative impacts to agricultural productivity.

D

ECOSYSTEMS AND NATURAL ASSETS

While some flooding can be beneficial for certain ecosystems, excessive or sudden flooding can have significant negative
environmental impacts. Loss of biodiversity and overall habitat degradation can be caused by soil erosion, destruction of
vegetation, contamination of water supply by pollutants, leveling of dunes and erosion of beaches, and harm to wildlife.

7.11 HAIL

7.11.1 HAZARD DESCRIPTION
Hail is defined as balls or pieces of ice falling as precipitation from a thunderstorm. Known as hailstones, these ice balls
typically range from 5 mm-50 mm in diameter on average, with much larger hailstones forming in severe thunderstorms.
The size of hailstones is a direct function of the severity and size of the storm.
Hail is an outgrowth of severe thunderstorms and develops within a low-pressure front as warm air rises rapidly into the
upper atmosphere and is subsequently cooled, leading to the formation of ice crystals. According to FEMA, these are
bounced about by high-velocity updraft winds and accumulate into frozen droplets, falling as precipitation after
developing enough weight. The National Weather Service (NWS) defines severe thunderstorms as those with downdraft
winds in excess of 58 mph and/or hail at least .75″ in diameter. While only about 10% of thunderstorms are classified as

7.0-74

severe, all thunderstorms are dangerous because they produce numerous dangerous conditions, including one or more
of the following: hail, strong winds, lightning, tornadoes, and flash flooding.
Hailstorms occur most frequently during the late spring and early summer. During this period, extreme temperature
changes occur from the surface up to the jet stream, resulting in the strong updrafts required for hail formation.
The size of hailstones varies and is related to the severity and size of the thunderstorm that produced it. The higher the
temperatures at the earth’s surface, the greater the strength of the updrafts, and the greater the amount of time the
hailstones are suspended, giving the hailstones more time to increase in size. Hailstones vary widely in size, as shown in
Table 7.11-1 Estimating Hail Size. Note that penny size (.75″ in diameter) or larger hail is considered severe.
Estimating Hail Size
Inches in Diameter

Pea

.25 inch

Marble/mothball

.50 inch

Dime/Penny

.75 inch

nl
y

Size

Nickel
Quarter

Golf Ball
Tennis Ball

Softball

1.75 inches
2.5 inches
2.75 inches
3 inches
4 inches
4.5 inches

D

Source: NOAA

ra

Grapefruit

ft

Baseball
Tea Cup

1 inch

1.5 inches

O

Ping-Pong Ball

.875 inch

7.11.2 LOCATION, EXTENT AND MAGNTUDE

LOCATION

Hailstorms occur more frequently during the late spring and early summer, when the jet stream migrates northward across
the Great Plains. This period has extreme temperature changes from the ground surface upward into the jet stream, which
produces the strong updraft winds needed for hail formation. The land area affected by individual hail events is not much
smaller than that of a parent thunderstorm, an average of 15 miles in diameter around the center of a storm.
The potential for hail exists over the entire planning area, although the probability is relatively low compared to other
parts of the U.S. There are at least a few occurrences of hail almost every year in the planning area, although for the most
part they are minor.

EXTENT AND MAGNITUDE
The severity of hailstorms is measured by duration, size of the hail itself, and geographic extent. All of these factors are
directly related to the weather phenomena that create the hail that occurs as part of thunderstorms. The National
Weather Service (NWS) and the Tornado and Storm Research Organization (TORRO) have developed tables measuring the
intensity of hail. Table 7.11-2 Hail Intensity Scales below combines the two intensity scales.
7.0-75

Hail Intensity Scales
Size Code

Intensity Category

Typical Hail Diameter (inches)

Approximate Size

Typical Damage Impacts

HO

Hard Hail

Up to 0.33

Pea

No Damage

H1

Potentially

0.33 - 0.66

Marble or

Slight damage to plants, crops

Damaging
H2

Mothball

Potentially

0.60 -0.80

Dime or Grape

Significant damage to fruit,

Damaging

crops, vegetation
Severe damage to fruit and crops,
damage to glass and

H3

Severe

0.80 – 1.20

Nickel to Quarter

plastic structures, paint and wood
scored

H4

Severe

1.2 – 1.6

Half Dollar to Ping

Widespread glass damag