(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Massachusetts Section 406 : hazard mitigation plan"


UMASS/AMHERST 





31EDLb DE7D filM^ fi 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 



v 



1331 27SE85 3SA-1 02423 25284 GLORIA 




Section 406 



Got,, 



f/? %% 



HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 



HOV 



m '^ Ts 



1986 



Um 



6 



'Vers 



1987 



% 




:HAEL S. DUKAKIS 
GOVERNOR 



The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 
STATE HOUSE • BOSTON 02133 

February 9, 1987 



Mr. Henry G. Vickers 

Regional Director 

Federal Emergency Managment Agency 

Region I 

J.W. McCormack Post Office and Court House 

Boston, MA. 02109 

Dear Mr. Vickers: 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has completed its 
Hazard Mitigation Plan. The plan has been prepared in ac- 
cordance with the Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1974, Sec- 
tion 406 of Public Law 93-288. Gloria was identified as 
Major Disaster No. FEMA-751 DP. 

The hazard mitigation plan reviews current federal, 
state and local hazard mitigation programs. These programs 
compliment one another providing a diversity of protective 
measures which reduce flood losses and hardships to a mini- 
mum. 



The recommendations section of the plan present hazard 
mitigation steps that build on already existing programs 



and develop new initiatives to 

I am pleased to presen 
which will satisfy FEMAan 



dress existing deficiencies . 

lis cohesive planning document 
)6 requirements. 




MASSACHUSETTS 

Section 406 
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 



Prepared by 



EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 



Division of Water Resources 
and 
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office 

1987 
Michael S. Dukakis James S. Hoyte 
Governor Secretary 



PUBLICATION : #14 , 806-100-1 37-4-87-CR 
Approved by the State Purchasing Agent 






«, 



-II- 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 



This document has been compiled by Michael Beshara and William Lesser 
of the Massachusetts Division of Water Resources within the Department of 
Environmental Management, Jeff Benoit of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone 
Management Agency and Stan Humphries Consulting 

Environmental Scientists. 

The following individuals and agencies provided valuable 
contributions toward the content of this hazard mitigation plan. 



Kathy Abbott 

Steven Asen 
Sherrie Alaboh 

Tim Barnicle 
Charles Barry 
Patsy Bisceglia 
Robert Boulay 
Antonio Castro 
Tom Coyne 



Dept. Environmental Mgt., Div. of 
Planning and Development 

D.E.M. Div. of Water Resources 

Massachusetts Coastal Zone 
Management Agency 

Governor's Office 

Secretary of Public Safety 

D.E.M. Bureau of Fire Control 

Mass Civil Defense 

D.E.M. Bureau of Fire Control 

Executive Office of 
Environmental Affairs 



Bill Creamer 
Ronald Depris 
Paul DiPietro 
Jim Donovan 
Bill Everberg 
Charles Hood 
Leslie Gray 

Andrew Horvitz 



Mass. Civil Defense 

Town of Wellsley 

Metropolitan District Commission 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

D.E.M. Div. of Water Resources 

D.E.M. Bureau of Insect Pest Control 

National Flood Insurance 
Computer Science Inc. 

National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration 



-ill- 



Peter Leavitt 



Theda Leonard 



Robert Maroney 



Tom McGuire 



Robert Rice 



Peter Phippen 
Faye Siegfriedt 
Henry Vickers 



Jim Wesolosky 



Vicki Zaloawa 



Weather Services Corporation 

D.E.M. Div. of Planning & 
Development 

Town of Manchester 

National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration 

Weather Services Corporation 

D.E.M. , Div. of Water Resources 

D.E.M. , Div. of Water Resources 

x Federal Emergency Management 
Agency 

U.S. Soil Conservation Services 

Farmers Home Administration 



Special appreciation is extended to the many agencies who responded 
to the Hazard Mitigation Questionnaire. 



iv- 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 



PAGE 



11 



LIST OF FIGURES 



VI 



LIST OF TABLES 



VII 



CHAPTER I 

Introduction 
Authority 
Purpose 
Scope 

CHAPTER II 

Background 

Description of Event 

Cost of Disaster 

Description of Previous Events 



CHAPTER III 

Problem Identification 
Extent of Damage 
Cause of Damage 
Additional Hazard Identification 



17 



CHAPTER IV 

Inventory of Existing Mitigation Measures 
Principal State Program Activities 
Principal Regional Program Activities 
Principal Local Program Activities 
Principal Private Program Activities 
Principal Federal Program Activities 



23 



J 



-ill- 



Peter Leavitt 



Theda Leonard 



Robert Maroney 



Tom McGuire 



Robert Rice 



Peter Phippen 
Faye Siegfriedt 
Henry Vickers 



Jim Wesolosky 



Vicki Zaloawa 



Weather Services Corporation 

D.E.M. Div. of Planning & 
Development 

Town of Manchester 

National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration 

Weather Services Corporation 

D.E.M. , Div. of Water Resources 

D.E.M. , Div. of Water Resources 

N Federal Emergency Management 
Agency 

U.S. Soil Conservation Services 

Farmers Home Administration 






Special appreciation is extended to the many agencies who responded 
to the Hazard Mitigation Questionnaire. 



-iv- 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 



PAGE 



11 



LIST OF FIGURES 



VI 



LIST OF TABLES 



VII 



CHAPTER I 

Introduction 
Authority 
Purpose 
Scope 

CHAPTER II 

Background 

Description of Event 

Cost of Disaster 

Description of Previous Events 



CHAPTER III 

Problem Identification 
Extent of Damage 
Cause of Damage 
Additional Hazard Identification 



17 



CHAPTER IV 

Inventory of Existing Mitigation Measures 

Principal State Program Activities 

Principal Regional Program Activities 

Principal Local Program Activities 

Principal Private Program Activities 

Principal Federal Program Activities 



23 



-v- 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



CHAPTER V 

Relationship Between Existing Measures and Damages 



PAGE 
70 



CHAPTER VI 

Implementation Measures 



77 



APPENDICES 



81 



-vi- 



LIST OF FIGURES 



1. Historic Hurricane Tracks. 



PAGE 



2. Complete Track of Hurricane Gloria, September 22-27, 1985. 8 

3. Rainfall Distribution - Hurricane Gloria, September 27, 1985. 10 

4. Wind Speeds - Hurricane Gloria, September 27, 1985. 11 



vii- 



LIST OF TABLES 



PAGE 

1. Cost Sharing For Eligible Damages. 12 

2. Damage Reimbursement Catagories. 13 

3. Agriculture Service Buildings Damaged. 14 

4. Natural Disasters In Massachusetts (FEMA,DMIS Report 02/26/86). 16 

5. Agricultural Production Losses: Bristol, Middlesex and 
Worcester Counties. 18 

6. Hazard Identification Capability Assessment and Multi-Year 
Development Plan For Local Governments. 20 

7. Local Capability For Implementing Hazard Analysis 

and Mitigation. 22 

8. Summary Of Selected State and Local Program Activities In 
Floodplain Management. 25 

9. Principal State Program Activities in Floodplain Management 

(From ASFPM). 26 

10. Key Elements In State Floodplain Management Programs. 27 

11. Status Of Community Participation In The NFIP. 40 

12. Selected Community Review. 71 

13. Qestionnaire Results. 74 



- 



-1- 



CHAPTER I 



INTRODUCTION 



AUTHORITY 

This hazard mitigation plan has been prepared by the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs through the 
cooperative efforts of the Department of Environmental Management, 
Division of Water Resources and the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management 
Office pursuant to: 

Public Law 93-288 (Section 406), as amended; 

Federal-State Disaster Agreement dated 

October 29, 1985 for FEMA Disaster No. 

FEMA-751-DR-MA 

PURPOSE 

On October 28, 1985 the President determined that damages resulting 
from high winds, storm surge and flooding as a result of Hurricane Gloria 
on September 27, 1985, caused a major disaster in Massachusetts. A 
Federal-State Disaster Agreement was entered into on October 29, 1985 
between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and FEMA providing for Public 
Assistance to the Commonwealth. In return for Federal Assistance the 
Commonwealth agreed, in part, to ..."evaluate the natural hazards... ". 

The preparation of this document fulfills the legal obligations of 
the Federal-State Agreement and further, identifies measures that will 
minimize and/or eliminate flood hazards through the implementation of long 
and short term recommendations. This hazard mitigation plan is intended to 
provide Federal, State and Local governments as well as the general public 
with proper hazard mitigation strategies. 



-2- 



SCOPE 



This hazard mitigation plan is a systematic identification of 
policies, programs, strategies and actions to be carried out by 
Massachusetts and its 351 communities to use the legal authorities, 
financial capabilities and political leadership available to reduce or 
avoid long term vulnerability to hazards. The plan attempts to include 
all the feasible and cost-effective measures available to limit hazard 
vulnerability. To meet the requirements of Section 406, this plan 
includes the following major elements: 

(1) evaluation of Hurricane Gloria and other natural hazards in 
Massachusetts. This hazard evaluation includes: 

(a) descriptive information concerning the nature, severity and 
extent of GLORIA, as well as the frequency and historical 
occurence of natural hazard events that are expected to 
cause damage and loss to people and property. 

(b) an analysis of hazard vulnerability trends and changes in 
vulnerability that can be expected to occur through time 
under current conditions of planning and hazard management. 
This analysis incorporates hazard analysis or hazard 
identification performed as part of a FEMA funded Hazard 
Identification/Capability Assessment/Multi-Year Development 
Plan (HICA MYDP). 

(2) description of current State/local hazard management 
policies/programs/capabilities. Many official policies or 
programs of State or local government influence development in 
hazard prone areas and contribute to either increasing or 



-3- 



decreasing vulnerability to hazards. This analysis summarizes 
the following: 

(a) land use planning and zoning practices; 

(b) state and local environmental codes; 

(c) wetland and floodplain protection practices; 

(d) construction codes and building requirements; 

(e) hazard awareness and public information/education programs; 

(f) public works programs for hazard control and damage 
prevention. 

(3) proposed hazard mitigation strategies, programs, and 
recommendations. Based upon the problems of hazard 
vulnerability defined in the hazard evaluation and the review of 
current programs, policies and capabilities for managing 
hazards, the plan proposes a specific set of actions or measures 
for addressing each of the major current areas of need in 
Massachusetts hazard management programs. For each of the 
functions or activities identified in (2)(a-f) above, the plan 
includes proposed improvements, modifications or changes which 
would help to reduce or avoid vulnerability to hazards 
identified in (1) above. For each proposed new hazard 
mitigation strategy, program or action, the plan includes an 
identification of: 

(a) anticipated completion dates or implementation schedules; 

(b) the department, agency or official of State or local 
government responsible for implementation; 

(c) anticipated costs of carrying out the recommendation; 

(d) the proposed source of funding. 



-4- 



CHAPTER II 



BACKGROUND 



DESCRIPTION OF EVENT 

As hurricane Gloria developed off the coast of Africa it was reported 
as possibly becoming one of the worst hurricanes to hit the eastern 
seaboard during this century. The hurricane of 1938 has long been 
considered the most devastating to hit Massachusetts. The likilihood of 
Gloria equalling, if not surpassing, the 1938 hurricane was reported as 
great. 

Gloria's potential threat was evident by the warnings issued by the 
National Weather Service (NWS) on Thursday September 26, 1985 at 6:46 A.M. 
Eastern Daylight Time. 

Because of the uncertainity of the forecast track and 
strength of Gloria, it is imperative that Massachusetts 
residents keep very close tabs on the progress of this 
dangerous hurricane. If the hurricane turns north earlier 
than expected and begins to increase its forward speed, a 
dangerous situation could develop rapidly. The N.W.S. 
cannot emphasize enough the importance of monitoring local 
statements from the weather service office in Boston, and 
the advisories raised by the National Hurricane center in 
Miami, FLA. 

Gloria was initially classified as a tropical depression (a tropical 
cyclone in which the maximum sustained wind is 38 mph or less) with 
sustained winds of 35 mph just west of the Cape Verde Islands about 1,000 
miles west of Africa. The storm moved westward while steadily increasing 
its sustained wind speed. On September 22nd the storm was classified as a 



-5- 



full hurricane (a tropical cyclone in which the maximum sustained wind is 
74 mph or more) with sustained winds of 75 mph when it reached a point 400 
miles east of Puerto Rico. 

Two days later on September 24, 1985 Gloria had achieved sustained 
winds of 125 mph and progressed northwestward to a point east of the 
Bahama Islands. At this point the storm had created a great deal of 
concern on the part of meteorologists because of the system's similarities 
to the devastating 1938 hurricane. The most devastating hurricanes to hit 
Massachusetts have originated in roughly the same location as Gloria 
(Figure 1). As these systems build they have thousands of miles to travel 
westward over warm water with no landmass obstructions. Gloria took full 
advantage of these conditions covering an Liner.se area and building into a 
Class 5 hurricane (winds greater than 155 miles per hour; which is the 
highest rating on the Saf fir/Simpson scale (Appendice A). 

On Wednesday September 25th the recorded depression of the system was 
27.11 inches, the lowest on record for the greater east coast area. 
Clearly there was good cause for the following steps to be taken as 
reported by the National Weather Service at 7:30 a.m. Friday September 27, 
1985. 

Hurricane Gloria is a very serious threat to Massachusetts. 
The Massachusetts livil Defense Ager. has ordered 
evacuation of low lying areas and vulnerable coastal areas 
in the following Massachusetts counties; Eerr.stable, 
Bristol, Plymouth, Suffolk, 'ii-lesex, Essex, and, Norfolk. 
Civil Defense shelters and armories are now open to shelter 
evacuees. In addition, all public schools in Massachusetts 
are closed. All nonessential state and federal offices are 
closed and all non-essential state empl. reel 2r.ould remain 
at home. Persons in Duke's and Nantucket counties should be 
prepared to move to higher ground away from the coast. 



-6- 






The tale of three hurricanes 

*3£v*£jt ! :. >>-/""• v" : • r?=- : n Sept. 21, 1938. 

"i the worst storm in 
,-s.New England's %- 
- history destroyed 
hundreds of miles 
of beachfront r , 

groperty along 
ape Cod and the 
South and North 
Shores and caused 

Boston' 4 60 ° deaths - :.. V 



f • •:• iff, • •-•r=v; ~<<t I'M 



v.:. i-f 



N.Y. 



New. 



PA. 



W.VA. 



VA. 

Norfolk' 



1955 
* Hurricane , . 

:m Diane £ rv -v 
; * From August 17 |J 
-through 19. 1955, 
V-:.ywNew England "^Xi\. 
.:%. :--"- >-■' experienced severe 
7- * i> ;; v f flooding as a result . 
of Hurricane Diane. 
Damages were est- 
imated at $831 
million. 310 ,. 
"-. V-'- . 5 ? * persons died. J - 






4S* Cji*« 



.Cape 



;■& 



N.C. 



*s.c. 



Charleston ( 



GA. 



A^ ^1985 ■r^y--^;^; 

Hattera& " "/.Hurricane ^" . 
XvJ'-fi r j Gloria ^v-v • 
"',,,' --J" : .-fc .'• : '.^ With windsof 135 
5 ' M ¥f?-ri& ; <v\ ^ivmjpJh., Hurricane. 
■ \ h t^SSb** ;> •.; .-. ^£':-V Gloria has been- ; a . 
" r ; ■: i9. ste , - : -^ ' ■ ^ gaining strength 

- steadily since it was 



christened Sept. 17 
and is catagorized 
as a catastrophic 
storm. 



Diane 



Jacksonville 



BAHAMAS 



Glorias 



Figure 1. Historic hurricane tracks. 



-7- 



On September 25th the storm's sustained winds reached 150 mph with 
gusts up to 172 mph. This would be Gloria's highest sustained winds. The 
storm progressed northwestward toward Charleston, South Carolina and then 
made a marked turn north toward Cape Hatteras (Figure 2) arriving there at 
2:00 a.m. EDT as the following National Weather Service announcement 
indicates. 

"The center of Gloria is over the Cape Hatteras area of 
North Carolina. At 2 AM EDT... Gloria was centered near Lat. 
35.3 North, Long. 75.6 West. Gloria is moving at 20 to 25 
mph and is expected to be near the New Jersey coast by mid 
day and over New England late today." 

At this point there was a fear that Gloria might return to sea, rebuild 
its strength and move back into the mainland at Long Island, Rhode Island 
or Massachusetts bringing with it renewed strength. Such a pattern would 
be similar to that of the 1938 hurricane. 

Since the storm was clearly a threat to most of the Eastern Seaboard, 
weather forecasters issued hurricane warnings from the Carolina's north to 
Plymouth, Massachusetts. The states of Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey and 
Rhode Island declared states of emergency. 

When the storm passed near the vicinity of New York it did so during 
low tide. This significantly reduced the effects of tidal surge. If the 
storm travelled through this coastal area at high tide the flooding 
damages could have been devastating. A seven to nine foot above average 
tide was reportedly possible. Such a storm surge would have had severe 
consequences for low lying areas. Fortunately Gloria started to lose 
strength just after the storm passed Long Island. 



-8- 




Figure 2. Complete track of Hurricane Gloria, September 22-27 , 1985. 



-9- 



According to Peter Leavitt of Weather Services Corp in Bedford, 
Gloria's strength diminished when the storm encountered the cooler 
northern waters. 

Leavett also said he believes a shallow trough of cool air lying 
along the south shore of Long Island may have pushed Gloria's more 
forceful hot spinning winds higher , diminishing their impact on land 
(Appendice B). 

A hurricane warning went into effect from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EDT 
on Friday, September 27, 1985. The path of GLORIA followed the 
Connecticut River Valley and entered Massachusetts at approximately 2:00 
p.m. September 27, 1985, passing on to Vermont at approximately 4:00 p.m. 
Because the Connecticut River Valley does not have a high degree of 
development, the damage sustained by the region was less than it might 
have been otherwise. Tornados were reported in southeastern Massachusetts 
from the towns of Seekonk and Rehobeth. 

The rainfall in Massachusetts which accompanied Gloria was minor 
although several towns west of the Connecticut River did receive 
substanial amounts of rainfall (Figure 3). Clearly the peak wind speeds 
from the storm had diminished significantly with the highest speeds 
occuring along the coast (Figure 4). 

The storm moved on to New Hamphsire and Maine diminishing 
significantly as it travelled. Despite the rapid deterioration of this 
system, the following item from the October 4, 1986 Boston Globe attests 
to the lasting effect of Gloria. 



Around here, we sort of lost interest in Hurricane Gloria after 
it moved up to Canada, but it didn't end its journey there. 
According to meteorologists in Switzerland, after Gloria left our 



-10- 




m 
oo 
en 



CM 

i_ 

<v 

a 

£ 

o. 

<u 

en 

JO 

i_ 
^o 

U 

V 

c 
u 

5- 

3 
I 

*- 
O 

c 
o 

+■< 
3 
A 

*E 



c 
a: 

<u 

S- 

3 

il 



-11- 




-12- 



neighbor to the north, it formed a low pressure zone between 
Iceland and the Irish coast that brought warm air up into Europe 
from the south. It was 86 degrees in Basel yesterday, the 
warmest October 3 in Switzerland this century. 



COST OF DISASTER 

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Damage Survey 
Report of August 26, 1986 the total eligible damage of GLORIA was 
$23,511,929.00. This figure does not include the damages which occurred 
statewide that were not considered eligible for federal assistance. State 
and local governments were responsible for contributing a 12.5% match each 
of the $23,511,929.00. Accordingly, the breakdown of expenses are shown 
in Table 1. 



Table 1. Cost Sharing For Eligible Damages 

$17,633,949.00 Federal share ( 75%) 

2,938,990.00 State share (12.5%) 

2,938,990.00 Local share (12.5%) 

$23,511,929.00 100% 



The categories these monies could be expended for are listed in 
Table 2. 



-13- 



Table 2. Damage Reimbursement Catagories 



Disaster Reimbursement 
Categories 

Debris removal 
Protective measures 
Roads & bridges 
Water control fac. 
Public buildings 
Public utilities 
Private non profit 
Other 



% of Total 




Total Eligible 


Federal 


Re imbur semen 


it 






Share 


77% 


$ 


18,142,882 


$ 13,607,162 


7% 






1,610,589 


1,207,942 


7% 






1,550,006 


1,162,505 


less than 


1% 




10,540 


7,905 


2% 






560,584 


420,438 


6% 






1,432,842 


1,074,632 


less than 


1% 




5,685 


4,264 


1% 






198,801 


149,101 



The percentages of monies committed for the designated catagories 
suggests the type of damages GLORIA produced. Wind damage was the most 
prevalent form of damage statewide as the 77% value for debris removal 
demonstrates. 

Wind damage severely affected Massachusetts Electric Companies 
knocking out power and utility poles. According to Boston Edison's 
President and Chief Executive Officer, repairs would cost the company $6 
million. 



Massachusetts agriculture also suffered significant losses from 
Hurricane Gloria. Although significant crop losses occurred, physical 
damage to farm buildings and facilities was also prevalent. The following 
information is taken from a U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural 
Disaster Damage Assessment Report of October 1985. 



-14- 



Table 3. Agriculture Service Buildings Damaged 

County Minor Major Loss 

Bristol 5 5 $50,000 

Middlesex 7 1 $ 3,500 

Worcester 7 $10,000 



$63,500 



The impact of Gloria on agriculture translates into financial 
hardship in primarily two ways, one a drastic reduction in cash-flow for 
the upcoming year due to the reduced harvest and two, a shortage of feed 
for dairymen through the winter. 

DESCRIPTION OF PREVIOUS EVENTS 

Approximately 75% of development in Massachusetts has historically 
occurred along its coastal areas resulting in property and structures 
which are situated in locations highly susceptible to the effects of 
natural flood disasters. Extensive river systems exist across the state 
which often have their floodplains developed. Further inland, ravines and 
creeks are present which are prime sites for violent flash flooding 
incidents. Other non-flood hazards in Massachusetts include forest and 
urban fires, oil spills, earthquakes, tornadoes, toxic algae, and gas 
explosions. 

Historically the worst natural disasters have been those which 
include the combination of several debilitating variables or environmental 
extremes. These variables include: low temperature, high wind, tidal 
surge, large amounts of precipitation, storm driven waves, and 
earthquakes . 



-15- 



In some cases the occurance of only one of these environmental 
extremes is enough to produce a natural disaster. For instance, an 
unusually high tidal surge has been known to cause significant damage 
within coastal communities even if no additional environmental extremes 
were present. Typically though the disasters on record include the 
occurances of more than one environmental extreme. 

Table A presents historical disaster information in chronological 
order for Massachusetts. Refer to Appendices C and D for further 
information concerning historical storms and disasters in Massachusetts. 
Appendix E includes disbursement information from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency concerning seven (7) specific natural and technological 
hazards. 

The Blizzard of February 6th and 7th, 1978 will long be considered 
the most devastating natural disaster to hit Massachusetts in recent 
memory. This Blizzard caused nearly $300 million worth of flood and wind 
related damage in 46 coastal communities from Orleans, Massachusetts to 
New Castle, New Hamphire. See Appendix F for a summary from Blizzard of 
'78 Coastal Storm Damage Study prepared by the New England Division of the 
Corps of Engineers, February 1979. The Blizzard of '78 shocked the 
Commonwealth with the need to establish flood mitigation policies and 
strengthen its Coastal Zone Management Program. Since the 1978 storm, 
many coastal zone management measures have been implemented which will 
mitigate losses if a blizzard of equal characteristics as the '78 Blizzard 
repeats itself. Further information regarding these measures is presented 
in Chapter IV of this report. 



16- 



Table 4. Natural Disasters In Massachusetts (FEMA DMIS Report 02/26/86) 



Tornado 

Hurricane 

Hurricane/Floods 

Forest Fire 

Tidal Flood 

Severe Storm/Flooding 

Toxic Algae 

Fire (City of Chelsea) 

Urban Fire 

(Middleborough) 
Natural Gas Explosion 
Fire 
Fire (Jamaica Plain - 

Boston) 
Fire (Palmer) 
Fire (Brockton) 
Oil Spill 
Ice Conditions 
Fire 

High Winds 
Urban Fire 
Fire 
Fire 
Fire 
Coastal Storms, 

Ice & Snow 
Blizzard & Snowstorms 
Urban Fire 
Hurricane( Gloria) 



06/11/53 
09/02/54 
08/20/55 
05/15/57 
01/02/60 
03/06/72 
09/28/72 
10/16/73 

01/09/75 
10/10/75 
12/15/75 

02/06/76 
04/28/76 
04/29/76 
01/14/77 
03/11/77 
03/22/77 
06/02/77 
06/24/77 
08/16/77 
09/19/77 
02/06/78 

02/10/78 
02/07/78 
12/03/81 

10/28/85 



■■ 



-17- 



CHAPTER III 



PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 



The nature of the damage caused by hurricane GLORIA varied across the 
state. High winds, and to a lesser degree flooding, were the chief 
environmental extremes which produced the most damage. If significantly 
greater amounts of precipitation and the resulting flooding occurred 
statewide, GLORIA could have been a historically devastating event. 

EXTENT OF DAMAGE 

Power lines of Massachusetts power companies were destroyed 
statewide. During the evening of Friday, September 27, 1985 the major 
Massachusetts electric companies reported that approximately 33% of their 
customers were affected by power outages. Boston Edison had to hire out of 
state contractors from Quebec, New York, Chicago and Cleveland to assist 
with the re-establishment of power to 200,000 of its 600,000 customers. 
That company received 2,000 calls an hour from its customers. As of Sunday 
evening September 28, 1985, 61,700 of Boston Edison's 850,000 
Massachusetts/Rhode Island district customers were still without power, 
according to the Boston Globe of Monday September 29, 1985, outages in 
Southeastern Mass continued through the week. 

Massachusetts agriculture was also severely affected. According to 
information from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service the counties of 
Bristol, Middlesex and Worcester suffered the combined losses illustrated 
in Table 5. The crops affected by these losses included field corn, sweet 
corn, apples, vegetable, cranberries, nursery stock, hay and pears. 
Apples, pears and corn suffered the most damage. 



-18- 



Table 5. Agricultural Production Losses: 

Bristol, Middlesex, and Worcester Counties 



Percent Production Loss Number of Farmers 



100 % 


90 


- 99 


80 


- 89 


70 


- 79 


60 


- 69 


50 


- 59 


40 


- 49 


30 


- 39 


20 


- 29 


Less 


than 20 



6 





30 

60 

150 

131 

235 

389 

105 



1,106 



Town roads were severely damaged in those communities which received 
heavy rains. Damage varied between dirt roads and paved roads. Dirt roads 
became severely eroded. Paved roads became undermined and in some cases 
buckled. 

The term "damage" suggests the destruction of property. However, 
during GLORIA significant costs were associated with cleaning up debris and 
paying Public Safety officials for protective measures. In these cases 
damage to property did not occur yet costs were incurred. 



-19- 



CAUSE OF DAMAGE 

Most of the damage caused by GLORIA was wind related and more 
difficultly addressed. City and town tree maintenance funding cutbacks have 
resulted in reduced tree care and increased public safety risks. Although 
some state funding exists to assist communities it does not replace the 
lost funding due to local shade tree program cutbacks. 

Placement of utility wires underground, which is easily done in new 
developments, is one of the most effective mitigation options available for 
protection against wind damage. 

Although flooding during GLORIA was minor statewide, it severely 
impacted several communities. Since hurricane characteristics differ 
widely it was not unusual for heavy precipitation to be confined to a 
relatively small area. According to information from Guidelines for Soil 
and Water Conservation in Urbanizing Areas of Massachusetts (S.C.C., 1975) 
the storm frequency in the vicinity of Chester and Blandford was 
approximately a 30 year frequency. Since this rainfall occurred in a 
relatively small watershed it was reasonable that Chester and Blandford did 
experience the flash flood difficulties they had. 

Fortunately there were conditions during GLORIA which prevented the 
storm from causing greater damage. For instance, if more rain had fallen 
statewide a greater number of tree blowdowns would have occured because the 
moist soil would have permitted tree roots to loosen more readily. Also, 
the passage of GLORIA through Massachusetts coincided with low tide. If 
GLORIA hit Massachusetts during high tide the tidal surge would have 
undoubtedly flooded low lying coastal areas. This factor alone may have 
held the damage costs of GLORIA to a fraction of what they would have 
otherwise been. 



-20- 



ADDITIONAL HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 



The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requested from the 
Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency (MCDA) information relating to hazard 
identification by local communities. MCDA distributed a questionnaire and 
received responses from seventy seven (77) communities. This data was used 
to compile the Hazard Identification Capability Assessment and Multi-Year 
Development Plan for Local Governments (November, 1985). According to this 
data (Table 6) hurricanes and winter storms were ranked as the top two 
priority hazards by virtually all the reporting communities. 

Table 6. Hazard Identification Capability Assessment and 
Multi-Year Development Plan For Local Governments 

Number of Communities 
Priority Disaster Selecting Priority 



1 Hurricane/Tropical storm 77 

2 Severe Winter Storm 77 

3 Highway Hazardous Material Incident 72 

4 Hazardous Material Incident Stationary 53 

5 Rail Hazardous Material Incident 50 

6 Urban Fire 40 

7 Power Failure 38 

8 Flood 31 

9 Pipeline Hazardous Material Incident 27 
10 Tornado 27 
14 Earthquake 16 
16 Dam Failure 13 



21- 



Some hazards have a greater possiblity of occuring in communities 
because of the geography of the community or the character of the 
community's development. For example, hazardous materials incidents are 
high on the priority list not only because of increased awareness 
concerning public health and toxic materials safety but because all 
communities have highways and nearly all have industrial facilities and 
railways. Just over half of the questionnaire respondents excluded urban 
fires as a priority hazard. This is likely since many of the reporting 
communities do not have densely developed urban areas. Similarly, some 
communities may not have waterways of a significant size to present a 
threat of flooding. Although tornados do occur in Massachusetts they have 
not tended to be the destructive power houses associated with tornados in 
other parts of the nation. 

Based upon a brief analysis of this hazard identification information 
it is obvious why hurricanes/tropical storms and severe winter storms are 
ranked as number one and number two respectively on the priority list. 
These hazards impact all communities and all residents. Local governments 
can easily deplete their financial resources to contend with the 
consequences of these hazards. The responsibility for clean up of other 
hazards (i.e. hazardous materials, power failure, pipeline hazards) may be 
in the hands of business, industry, or utility companies. In these cases 
government expenditures would not occur until the private sector 
demonstrated an inability to address an incident at hand. An additional 
reason why hurricanes and winter storms may be such high priority is that 
their recurrance is assured sooner or later and town officials must attempt 
to plan accordingly. 

As part of the previously referenced Hazards Identification Study, 
municipalities were surveyed for their ability to prepare and respond to 
certain hazards. The data in Table 7 is presented to illustrate the number 
of communities reporting high, moderate and low capabilities for hazard 
analysis and mitigation. 



-22- 



Table 7. Local Capability For Implementing 
Hazard Analysis and Mitigation 



Implementation Capability 



Responding Communities 
Total Coastal 



High range - strong program 



19 



3 



Moderate range - general ability 
exists but weaknesses prevail 



53 



10 



Low range - limited ability to 

conduct basic emergency activities 



77 



13 



The data presents three initial observations. The figures indicate 
that none of the coastal communities are in the low range which is 
encouraging since coastal communities have historically been highly 
vulnerable to hurricanes and winter storms. The figures also present the 
discouraging fact that a substantial bulk of the communities are in the 
moderate range. The fact that only 77 of 351, or roughly 31%, of the 
Massachusetts municipalities returned the questionnaire infers a 
disappointing conclusion that municipalities view hazard identification as 
a low priority in their long-term planning efforts. 



-23- 



CHAPTER IV 



INVENTORY OF EXISTING MITIGATION MEASURES 



PRINCIPAL STATE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 

Flooding problems in Massachusetts are addressed by over 22 agencies 
in two major areas: 1) emergency response and recovery and 2) flood 
hazard mitigation. Five of these are specifically cited for their respon- 
sibilities and authority during emergency conditions. Three agencies are 
cited for a combination of responsibilities in disaster response and miti- 
gation. Fourteen agencies are cited for their responsibilities and author- 
ity in flood hazard mitigation to a limited extent. Since the primary 
objective of this agency assessment is directed toward making 
recommendations to improve coordination among agencies in flood hazard 
mitigation activities, only those 14 agencies responsible for mitigation 
will be further summarized and addressed for specific recommendations. 

Executive Office Of Environmental Affairs 

To a limited extent, floodplain management activities in the Common- 
wealth are addressed through both regulatory and nonregulatory functions 
within the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. Wetland Protection 
legislation is the primary legislative authority to condition and prohibit 
development in the floodplain. Permitting responsibilities exist within 
the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. Four regional 
offices maintain technical and planning staffs to review orders of 
conditions written for individual projects by local Conservation 
Commissions. Storm damage prevention and flood control are just two of 
seven statutory interests protected. 



-24- 



Nonregulatory functions including wetland mapping, data collection and 
storage, acquisition, education, and technical assistance exist within the 
Secretary's office and the Department of Environmental Management. The 
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program (MCZMP) and the Division of 
Water Resources have lead roles in coordinating project review, technical 
assistance and education and maintaining an inventory of National Flood 
Insurance Program (NFIP) studies, a federal liasion and an interpretive 
service of flood data, respectively. Staff expertise and program 
involvement in coastal and riverine flooding problems distinguish one 
program from the other. The MCZMP is exclusively concerned with coastal 
flooding issues, whereas, The Division of Water Resources also addresses 
riverine flooding issues. 

No single state division or department coordinates all floodplain 
management activities therefore several conflicts and gaps within 
principal program activities exist. Areas of conflict or overlap include 
permitting of private and public uses, educating public officials, and 
interpreting floodplain management information. The primary gaps in 
floodplain management include: 1) coordination of other state, federal 
and local efforts, per se; 2) preparing model ordinances; 3) undertaking 
land acquisition specifically for flood hazard mitigation purposes; and A) 
monitoring development. 



A summary of selected agencies and the floodplain management activi- 
ties for which they are responsible has been compiled in Table 8. 



-25- 



Table 8. Summary Of Selected State and Local Program Activities 
In Floodplain Management. 



DEPTS . /DIV. /PROGRAMS 



State: Executive Office 

Environmental Affairs 

Administration 

Coastal Zone Management 
Conservation Services 
Environmental Policy Act 

Dept. Environmental Quality 
Engineering 

Wetlands Protection 

Waterways 

Water Pollution 

Dept. Environmental 
Management 

Water Resources 

Wetlands Restriction 

Scenic Rivers 

Planning 

Metropolitan District 
Commission 
Parks 

Local 

Conservation Commission 
Planning Board 
Health Board 
Building Inspector 
Zoning Board of Appeals 



•k 



PRINCIPAL STATE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 



1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 



X X 
X X 



XX X 
XX X 
X XX' 



X 
X X 


X X 
X 


X 


X X 
X 



X 



X 



X 


X 


X X 
X 


X X 
X 


X 
X 



X 



X 
X 



X 



See Table 9. for explanation of Program Activities in Floodplain 
Management . 



-26- 



The following assessment of the key programs within the Executive 
Office of Environmental Affairs is based on material presented in 
Strengthening State Floodplain Management , a report compiled by the 
Association of State Floodplain Managers. Concise listings of principal 
program activities (Table 9) and key elements (Table 10) in floodplain 
management enable a consistent approach to assessment and serve as a basis 
for recommendations to improve agency coordination. 

Table 9. Principal State Program Activities in Floodplain Management 
(from ASFPM). 



1) Disseminating information on the National Flood Insurance Program 

and assisting FEMA to implement the Program; 

2) Mapping floodplains and providing assistance to federal mapping 

efforts ; 

3) Establishing and maintaining data storage and retrieval systems; 

4) Establishing minimum standards for local programs; 

5) Preparing model ordinances and manuals; 

6) Assisting in the interpretation and use of floodplain data; 

7) Processing permits for private floodplain uses; 

8) Reviewing and regulating public uses such as roads and bridges; 

9) Educating local officials and the general public through work- 

shops, preparation of materials and one-on-one consultations; 

10) Preparing disaster mitigation plans and assisting other agencies 

in preparation of such plans; 

11) Assisting localities in evaluating various flood damage reduction 

alternatives; 

12) Coordinating other state, federal and local floodplain management 

efforts; 

13) Monitoring floodplain development and; 

14) Undertaking supplementary floodplain management measures such as 

land acquisition. 



-27- 



Table 10. Key Elements In State Floodplain Management Programs 
(From ASFPM). 



10 



A "lead" floodplain coordinating agency to provide technical 

assistance and education; 
Adequate funding to provide expert staff and mapping, monitoring 

and enforcement; 
Expert staff with specific training in floodplain regulation; 
Statutory authority to directly regulate floodplain uses; 
Statutory authority to provide for nonregulatory floodplain 

management techniques; 
Adopted rules or regulations to supplement statutory provisions; 
Mapping and data collection capabilities; 
Technical assistance provided to communities, other state agencies 

and private landowners; 
Continuing educational support for anyone dealing with floodplain 

activities and; 

Pre- and Post-flood hazard mitigation planning. 



Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program (MCZMP) 



Under authority of the CZM Act of 1972, (P.L. 92-583 Section 306) 
MCZMP has a purpose to protect and carefully manage the development and 
use of the Commonwealth's coastal zone. This is largely accomplished 
through existing government programs guided by 27 coastal zone management 
policies, of which thirteen are regulatory and fourteen are 
non-regulatory. The thirteen regulatory policies include 1) protection of 
ecologically significant resource areas, 2) protection of complexes of 
marine EESource areas of unique productivity and 3) conditioning of 
construction in water bodies and contiguous land areas. Three of the 
nonregulatory policies are: 1) ensuring proper use of funds for State and 



-28- 



Federal public works projects within the 100 year coastal floodplain, 2) 
encouraging acquisition of hazard prone areas and 3) providing technical 
assistance for hazard mitigation and funding for non-structural flood and 
erosion measures. These regulatory and non-regulatory policies are 
specifically cited for better planning and management approaches to 
solving coastal hazard problems. 

The MCZMP also provides direct and indirect financial, administrative 
and technical assistance to coastal communities as well as other state 
agencies. The MCZMP is implemented through a variety of tasks which 
include support of appropriate coastal development, wetlands protection 
and restriction programs, a tidelands licensing program, an improved 
fisheries management program, planning for the siting of energy facilities 
in the coastal zone, identification of areas of critical environmental 
concern, improved management of and consistency between State and Federal 
projects and activities, improved administration of existing laws, and 
provision for the continuing review of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas 
exploration and development. 

The MCZMP plays a large advocacy role in promoting sensible management 
of land use in the coastal zone. One of the main issues they advocate is 
improved coastal hazard planning (i.e. storm prevention and flood control) 
and for purposes of discussion, is considered as floodplain management. 
The principal activities include: 1) assisting in the interpretation and 
use of floodplain data, 2) educating local officials and the general 
public through workshops and the preparation of materials and one-on-one 
consultations, and, 3) assisting localities in evaluating various flood 
damage reduction alternatives. To a limited extent, MCZMP is establishing 
and maintaining data storage and retrieval systems and through Executive 
Order No. 181, the program is prioritizing a supplementary floodplain 
management measure of promoting the acquisition of barrier beaches. 



■■ 



-29- 



In August, 1980, the signing of Gubernatorial Exective Order No. 181 
directed state agencies to adopt strict policies to limit state subsidized 
development of hazard prone barrier beach areas. Priority status was also 
accorded these areas for Self-Help and other state and federal acquisition 
programs and were also incorporated into the Statewide Outdoor 
Comprehensive Recreation Plan. Controls were also placed on the use of 
state and federal funds, engineering structures and dredging in the areas 
of barrier beach systems. The non-regulatory technique of implementing 
Executive Order No. 181 on Barrier Beaches highlights the innovative 
capability of the MCZM Program. 

The key elements in the MCZM floodplain management efforts have been 
endangered due to a doubtful future for the continuance of federal 
funding. In 1983 the Commonwealth established the MCZM program by 
legislation and now supports 50% of the program funds. It is important to 
recognize the strong part CZM plays in floodplain management. ' 

Since its inception in April 1978, the MCZMP has maintained a 
coordinating function in all aspects of its program, particularly wetland 
protection and environmental regulation. Much of this responsibility is 
related to Federal Consistency Review requirements. It has had the 
authority to coordinate activities and provide technical assistance and 
education. An obvious limitation to this office serving the state as a 
sole floodplain management coordinating agency is its concentration on the 
coastal zone only and no participation in inland flooding problems. 

Although short-term, federal funding is a limiting factor, expert 
staffing, some mapping, technical assistance and public education are 
currently supported. Presently a full time coastal geologist, marine 
biologist, cartographer and several regional planners comprise the CZM 
staff and are available for assistance to floodplain management problems. 



-30- 



Also, coastal hazard mapping is being exclusively produced within the 
program. In 1985 a coastwide historic shoreline change mapping project 
was completed. A total of 231 map panels cover the coast of Massachusetts. 
Each map is at a scale of 1:5000 (one inch equals 400 feet) and identifies 
three historic shorelines and one recent shoreline. Other maps and 
resource data stored in house include topographic maps, nautical charts, 
some soil maps and shoreline erosion maps and data. 

As one of the strongest capabilities within the program, MCZMP assists 
town boards, government agencies and the general public in map 
interpretation, acquisition strategies, and case-by-case project review. 

A continuing educational support for understanding environmental laws, 
rules, and regulations, wetland resource functions, coastal hazards and 
state policy is another strength of the MCZMP. 



Division of Conservation Services 



Under the authority of MGLA Ch. 2, S. 18-25, three major activities 
are handled by this division, two of which are grant programs. They 
include: 1) Land and Water Conservation Funds (federal law), 2) Self -Help 
funds (MGLA Ch. 132, S.ll) and, 3) Conservation Restrictions (MGLA Ch. 
184, SS. 31-33). These activities give one state division the authority 
to preserve lands for recreation, open space and restricted use. The Self 
Help program is primarly an acquisition fund. The Land & Water 
Conservation Fund which is partially federally funded is for both 
acquisition and recreation facilities construction. Additionally, the 
Urban Self Help Program funding is to be directed to projects which are of 
regional or statewide significance. Projects have involved barrier 
beaches, wetlands, recharge areas and forests. 



-31- 



The understanding of supplementary floodplain management measures such 
as land acquisition is a direct responsibility of the Division. The Self 
Help program has awarded millions of dollars since the program's beginning 
in 1976. Much of this money has been spent for the acquisition of low 
lying floodplain areas. Indeed the protection of "water resources" is a 
high priority item considered during the application rating procedure. 
Under the "water resources" section of the rating process an application 
can earn a full ten points. "Water resources" include floodplain 
management as well as aquifer recharge areas, access for water-based 
recreation etc. 

A random sampling of Self Help and Urban Self Help acquisitions 
include the following. 

Municipality Description of Acquisition 

Newton 3/4 mile along Charles River 

Mashpee 1 mile along intertidal river in high growth 

Cape Cod region 
Dennis 3/4 mile along intertidal river in high growth 

Cape Cod region 
Norwell 3/4 mile riverfront along North River 
Taunton 1/4 mile riverfront along Taunton River near 

urban downtown area 
Dover 1/2 mile riverfront along Charles River, 
upstream of urban area 

These riverfront acquisitions address only a small sample of the Self 
Help program accomplishments of the Divisions. Many of the Self Help 
riverfront acquisitions include not only riverfront land but substantial 
amounts of upland or non floodplain areas. 



-32- 



The inflation of coastal property values in Massachusetts has risen 
drastically since the inception of the Self Help Program. This has caused 
the original fund for the Self Help program to become depleted earlier 
than anticipated. According to the September 1986 issue of Coastlines , a 
journal from the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Agency, the amount 
of money available for coastal acquisitions is far behind the need. "By 
the July 1st (application) deadline, 54 fundable Self-Help applications 
had been received for 1987 proposing to purchase 2,500 acres valued at 
more than $31 million. Half of these proposals are for properties valued 
at an astounding $21 million." Certainly the acquisition of coastal areas 
would be an effective floodplain management action the Commonwealth could 
take. With the passing of Executive Order No. 181 on barrier beaches, 
the Division is developing a policy for use of Self-Help and Urban 
Self-Help conservation funds toward projects involving barrier beaches, 
water supplies, and natural heritage areas. Reimbursements ranging from 
75-90% of the cost of acquisition of barrier beaches will be provided. 
Clearly, this is an established flood hazard mitigation policy. 

Any community which applies for one of the grant programs must have an 
approved "Open Space and Recreation Plan" on file with the Division. 
These plans are a detailed inventory of open space and recreation 
resources of a given community with projections of goals and objectives 
which the community intends to implement. These plans address a wide 
range of issues including water supply and water resources issues. The 
intent of requiring the plan is to have the community demonstrate how 
thorough and well thought out their open space and recreation planning is 
before awarding grant money. 



The Division of Conservation Services also provides funding for 
Conservation Districts. The sixteen Conservation Districts were created 
in 1947 to assist farmers and private landowners with soil erosion and 



-33- 



water problems. The districts coordinate the delivery of technical and 
financial assistance from several State and Federal natural resource 
agencies. Today the districts provide technical assistance and also 
financial assistance for municipal planning through the Open Space 
Planning Grants. Municipalities address floodplain management in their 
Open Space and Recreation Plans. 

The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) 

Under the authority of MGLA Ch. 30, S. 61 and 62, MEPA establishes 
an environmental review process for State actions, projects with State 
funding, or projects requiring permits or licenses from State agencies. 
Essentially an environmental full disclosure law, the intent of MEPA is to 
improve environmental planning and design "so as to minimize and prevent 
damage to the environment." 

MEPA does process permits for private floodplain uses and reviews 
public uses (i.e. infrastructure) through an Environmental Notification 
Form (ENF) process. This greatly contributes to the synthesizing of 
information and coordination of review comments by state agencies and the 
public. Citing key elements of a floodplain management program is 
difficult, however. Competent staff seek and obtain technical knowledge 
in order to process reviews and then are able to educate project 
proponents, but, the central issue of floodplain management is only one of 
many issues (ie. air quality, groundwater protection, traffic impacts, 
etc.) that must receive consistent attention. 

Department of Environmental Quality Engineering 



Division of Wetlands and Waterways Regulation 

Wetlands Protection Program . Under MGLA Ch. 131, S. 40, DEQE gives 
Conservation Commissions authority to review proposals for projects 



-34- 



in wetlands (including permitted use projects in restricted wetlands). 
The purview of the Act extends to 100 feet beyond either the 100 year 
floodplain or the landward edge of a wetland, whichever distance is the 
greatest. All dredging, filling or other alteration in these areas is 
unlawful without first filing a Notice of Intent, both with the local 
Conservation Commission and the Commissioner of the Department of 
Environmental Quality Engineering. The Conservation Commission issues an 
Order of Conditions either conditioning or prohibiting the activity based 
on the probable impact on the seven interests of the Wetlands Protection 
Act -- public and private water supply, flood control, storm damage 
prevention, prevention of pollution, protection of land containing 
shellfish, or the protection of fisheries. An Order of Conditions may be 
appealed to, or by, the Commissioner of DEQE. 

As the primary state permitting authority in wetlands, DEQE is 
probably the most active department in floodplain management for the state 
and has five direct and three indirect responsibilities in floodplain 
management. Processing permits for private and public floodplain uses is 
the principal activity, with interpretation of floodplain data, 
establishing minimum standards and educating the public as secondary 
activities. In limited cases, maintenance of data, assistance to 
localities in evaluating flood damage reduction alternatives and 
monitoring floodplain development are also pursued. 

Wetlands Restriction Program . Under the authority of MGLA. Ch. 130, 
S.105, the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Management, 
after a public hearing is authorized to restrict wetland areas against 
most types of environmentally harmful development. Barrier beaches, 
dunes, salt marshes, shellfish beds, salt ponds and fresh water wetlands 
in Massachusetts will be restricted under this program, with the exception 
of those in designated port areas, those under MDC control, or mosquito 
control projects operating under MGLA C. 252. Approximately 40Z 



-35- 



of all eligible coastal areas have been restricted to date. In general, 
filling, draining, or dredging of wetlands, the discharge of hazardous 
substances, or any act that would destroy natural vegetation, alter 
existing tidal flow, or otherwise result in the alteration of the natural 
and beneficial character of these areas, is prohibited. Permitted uses 
include piers, wharves, duck blinds and so on, essential energy 
transmission lines and upkeep of existing roads. 

Local Conservation Commissions issue an Order of Conditions for 
permitted uses. A landowner can appeal to the Commissioner within 60 days 
after restriction orders are proposed. Specific language of Restriction 
Orders is developed on a town by town basis. A two-thirds vote of 
Massachusetts Legislature can repeal a restriction order. 

One direct and several indirect activities occur within the 
Restriction Program. Educating local officials and specific landowners 
having wetland property of the habitat value and hazard vulnerability 
through information and public hearings, preparation and distribution of 
informative materials and one-on-one consultations during on-site visits 
are a major focus of the program. Other activities include mapping 
wetlands on orthophoto base maps at a scale of 1:5000, maintaining wetland 
data and statistics, and assisting in the use of floodplain data upon 
request. Currently, the program is funded by a 50/50 federal state match 
with supplementary funds for mapping. 

The program is unique in its deed restriction approach. The landowner 
is fully aware of the projects which may be regulated and those that are 
directly prohibited. The order also gives guidance to regulatory 
authorities on the range of possible projects that are appropriate. 



-36- 



Although not required by statute, the coastal program promulgated 
regulations in 1978 based on a recommendation by the Attorney Generals 
office. Shortly thereafter, rules for the inland program were also 
passed. The prime source for wetland mapping for the state exists within 
the Restriction Program. Contracts are let on a regional basis and since 
1978, three quarters of the state's coastline has been mapped. Progress 
in the inland areas is slow. Sets of topographic, nautical and some soils 
maps are maintained. In addition, a collection of ground and aerial 
oblique photos (in slide form) have been cateloged for a majority of the 
coastline south of Boston, including' the islands. 

Waterways Program (Coastal) . Under authority of MGLA Ch. 91, S. 
1-59 the program is administered by DEQE, has jurisdiction over filling, 
construction of any new structure, dredging, or removal of sand and 
vegetation in tidelands, harbors and certain rivers below the high water 
mark. All land below extreme low water is managed as a Public Trust by 
DEQE and permission to utilize these lands is given in the form of 
licenses. Although land between high and low water is privately held, no 
activity that interferes with the reserved public rights for fishing, 
fowling and navigation in this area is permitted. 



Waterways is involved in two principal floodplain activities: 1) 
processing permits for private floodplain uses and 2) assisting localities 
in evaluating various flood damage reduction alternatives. Permits 
relating to flood control projects and shore protection works have 
primarily been structural in nature. In addition, the technical 
assistance to localities has centered upon structural alternatives to 
solve shore protection problems. An emphasis on the use of non-structural 
solutions as a primary method on barrier beaches has recently been adopted 
in response to Executive Order No. 181 and the hiring of new expert 
staff. Any shore protection and flood control structures located below 



-37- 



mean high water must receive a chapter 91 license as authorized by MGLA 
Ch. 21A, S.2. The promulgation of rules and regulations occurred with 
assistance from MCZMP in 1980 to clarify the program's standards for flood 
control works. As a result of Legislative ammendments to Ch. 91 in 1983, 
new regulations are being drafted and are scheduled for promulgation in 
early 1987. These new regulations will reflect a higher awareness of 
coastal flooding problems. 

Waterways Program (Inland). M.G.L. Ch. 253, S. 44-47 transfers the 
responsibility of the inspection of dams, public or private, from the 
county commissioners to DEQE and directs the Commissioner to promulgate 
regulations classifying dams according to the potential for damage to life 
or property. 

Division of Water Pollution Control 



Grants For Construction of Collection Systems - M.G.L. C.21, s. 30A 
authorizes the Division to "make grants to public entities for the 
cost of constructing collection systems." Grants can not exceed 
fifty percent of the project cost and are made in accordance with a 
priority system. 

Grants For Construction of Wastewater Treatment Facilities - Subject 
to the provisions of P.L. 97-117, the Division awards financial 
assistance to municipalities for planning design and construction of 
wastewater treatment facilities. 

Both of these grant programs provide financial assistance for the 
construction of facilities that could be located in flood hazard areas. 
The Division presently scrutinizes grant applications and construction 
designs to ensure flood hazards are eliminated or mitigated. It is 
essential for this practice to continue. 



-38- 



Department of Environmental Management 

Division of Water Resources 

The Division of Water Resources (DWR) is responsible to the 
Massachusetts Water Resources Commission for the study of the needs, 
supplies and resources of the Commonwealth with respect to flood damage 
prevention. This responsibility is implemented by the following: 

(1) actively encouraging and participating in the planning phase of 
floodplain management through studies made by organizations such 
as the U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Soil Conservation Service 
and adjoining states. 

(2) accumulation of basic data including the recording of 
precipitation, stream gauging snow surveys and flood monitoring 
for the purpose of flood control planning. 

(3) implementation of P.L. 566 Watershed Protecton and Flood Control 
Prevention Act Program, which funds the construction of flood 
control structures. 

(4) state coordinating agency cooperating with the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) in selection of priorities for rating 
studies and the distribution of completed 

flood maps and reports. 



(5) the Flood Hazard Management Program (FHMP), under DWR, is 
involved with reviews under Executive Order 11988. 



-39- 



The Commonwealth's concern regarding flood hazard mitigation was 
further expressed in November, 1978 when Governor Michael S. Dukakis 
issued Executive Order No. 149 which provided for "state coordination and 
participation with the federal administration under the National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968." The order designated the Massachusetts Water 
Resources Commission as the state coordinating agency to assist in the 
implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program NFIP, to implement 
the floodplain management criteria for state-owned properties in special 
hazard areas and to make recommendations as to areas eligible for 
hydrologic rate making studies as required by Flood Insurance 
Administration (FIA). 

Flood Hazard Management Program (FHMP). The FHMP is the primary 
state program established for the specific purpose of floodplain 
management practices concerning the National Flood Insurance Program. 
Since 1978 the FHMP has provided the following floodplain management 
assistance measures to municipalities and or individuals: 

* development of floodplain management by-laws 

* interpretation of National Flood Insurance Regulations 

* interpretation of Massachusetts Building Code Section 744.0 Design 
Requirements for Floodplains and Coastal High Hazard Areas 

* field inspections of community floodplains and follow up discussions 
with town officials 

* distribution of technical publications and Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

* coordination of floodplain management policy understanding between 
various state agencies involved with wetlands, floodplains, coastal 
high hazard areas, etc. 

* direct the conversion of municipalities from the emergency phase of 
the National Flood Insurance Program to the regular phase of the NFIP, 
which affords property owners greater flood insurance protection 



-40- 



* identify flood hazard mitigation land use options for coastal 
communities through development of municipal "open space and 
recreation plans" with municipal planning staff 

* coordinate acquisition of floodplain property through the FEMA 1362 
program in Massachusetts communities. 

Table 11 lists the status of community participation in the NFIP (based 
upon March 1986) of which the FHMP facilitates. 



Table 11. Status Of Community Participation In The NFIP 



Number of Massachusetts municipalities 

Number in NFIP 

Number in regular program 

In regular program but having no Special Flood 

Hazard Area 

In regular program but minimally flood prone 

In emergency program 

Suspended from NFIP 

Not in NFIP but have Special Flood Hazard Area 

identified 



351 
320 
295 

1 

6 

25 

6 

24 



As real estate values soar, coastal and high growth communities are 
under severe pressure to develop marginal lands. The municipal officials 
of these communities (i.e. building inspectors, planning boards, 
conservation commissions) often do not have the time and/or support staff 
to thoroughly monitor floodplain management issues under their authority. 
The FHMP's role in providing community assistance in these cases is 
critical for flood hazard mitigation statewide. 



-41- 



Scenic Rivers Program. Under the authority of MGLA Ch. 21, S. 17b, 
the program provides for the designation and restriction of rivers for 
scenic and recreational purposes. The Scenic Rivers Program designates 
irreplaceable Massachusetts river resources and subsequently identifies 
procedures for protective stewardship of these resources. Rivers are 
classified according to the following five catagories: 

Category 1 Natural 

Category 2 Scenic Natural Landscape 

Category 3 Scenic Cultural 

Category 4 Recreational Natural Landscape 

Category 5 Recreational Urban 

Currently forty eight (48) rivers have been classified with a total of 
1,700 miles of corridors established. Numerous other rivers have been 
nominated but were not considered eligible. This program is valuable for 
floodplain management purposes because it recognizes the importance of 
Scenic River floodplains maintained in their natural condition. Through 
citizen interest groups, property owner awareness and ordinance and zoning 
bylaw adoption the Scenic River floodplains are protected in a manner 
which monitors development closely and encourages the continued flood 
storage capabilities of these floodplains. Although the above mentioned 
local protection measures are the most prevelent for these river corridors 
a state protective order exists which records specific restrictions on 
deeds of land bordering a scenic river. Clearly this authority would more 
thoroughly protect Scenic River floodplains. 



Land Acquistion Program. The D.E.M. land acquisition program has 
specifically defined criteria used to evaluate a possible acquisition. 
The most important criteria is whether or not the property is of regional 
or statewide significance. Significance of the resource could be a 



-42- 



combination of recreational, cultural and or natural value. Coastal 
properties have recently received aggressive attention by the program 
because so few significant coastal properties remain which become 
available for acquisition. The property evaluation and rating procedure 
enables floodplains, wetlands and coastal resources to receive extra 
points. If a proposed property does not score very high during the 
evaluation review the program staff coordinates the investigation of 
alternative property protection options such as management by private non 
profit organizations, establishing a Conservation Restriction or 
Agricultural Preservation Restriction. In some cases a commission of 
interested parties will evolve to protect a region such as the 
Connecticut River Action Program which has 37 active members. 

Division of Waterways 

The Division of Waterways administers a variety of programs many of 
which have clear flood mitigation objectives. The following outline lists 
the Division's programs: 

Rivers and Harbors Program. Identifies the needs for improvements 

and renovations to waterways (ie. dredging, construction, and 

maintenance of structures). 

Waterways Program. Involves dredging and channelization; design and 
construction or rehabilitation of piers, wharves, bulkheads, seawalls, 
groins or jetties; river and streambank erosion control; pond dredging 
and rehabilitation; beach nourishment, boat ramps and public access 
facilities; harbor debris removal; and river and stream clearance. 

Dams. Includes the study, design and rehabilitation of existing 
structures. 

State Piers. DEM has authority over state piers at Gloucester, New 
Bedford and Fall River. 

Public Access. Includes the design and construction of marinas, boat 
ramps, boatways on coastal and inland waters. 



-43- 



The Division's time is split between coastal projects and inland 
projects. Along the coast most of the projects involve dredging and 
clearing of channels for recreational purposes. For inland projects 
waterways dredging and stream bank protection have required most of the 
Division's time. These inland projects are specifically to mitigate flood 
hazard risks. The Division acts as an administering agency which 
represents the Commonwealth in contractural agreements. Because the 
Division does not have the heavy equipment, staff, etc., to perform the 
duties outlined in the program it therefore hires consultants. 

Division of Forest and Parks 
Bureau of Recreation 
The state Division of Forests & Parks manages approximately 140 open 
space recreation areas totaling approximately 260,000 acres. Of these 140 
areas, 112 (80%) contain water resources which may be an ocean beach, 
inland river or pond. These floodplain areas are protected from 
alterations because they are state owned properties. Additionally the 
presence of Division staff enhance floodplains management by performing 
some of the following duties: 

* conduct beach grass planting and sand dune preservation projects 

* patrol remote areas to prevent filling, encroachment, etc. 

* clear culverts, channels, etc. of brush and obstructions 

* control visitor activities which accelerate run-off (i.e. trail 
use, high density group recreation, unauthorized use of resource 
protection zones). 

Division properties have long range management plans created to 
understand what the most appropriate use of a park's resources may be. 
The development of these plans has been standardized according to a 
planning program entitled Guidelines for Operations and Land Stewardship 
(G.O.A.L.S. ) . Through this program a team of forest and park management 



-44- 



and planning professionals together with technical specialists and 
interested representatives from the public designate the following special 
use and protection zones: 

* Unique resource zone 

* Environmental Protection Zone 

* Natural Resource Management Zone 

* Development Lands Zone 

Watercourses, ponds and wetlands are identified through this planning 
procedure and recognized for their flood storage value. 



Bureau of Shade Tree Management 
Although floodplain management programs are considered the primary 
natural hazard mitigation initiatives in the state there are programs which 
attempt to address shade tree maintenance which results in improved public 
safety. Each city and town in Massachusetts has a designated shade tree 
warden. This person is responsible for monitoring the health and public 
safety risks of shade trees on public property. An important aspect of 
this duty includes addressing nuisance insects and tree disease. An 
un-healthy or weak tree has a greater liklihood of falling and must 
therefore be carefully monitored. Town Tree Wardens receive a variety of 
support and funding depending on individual town policies and priorities. 
However in 1980 a referendum vote approved a property tax cap by cities 
and towns which seriously affected the generation of local revenue. 
"Proposition 2 1/2" restricted local property taxes to rise no more than 
2 1/2 percent each year. Shade tree management programs are often 
considered a low priority and have not received adequate funding since 
Proposition 2 1/2 became effective. Since 1980, when pruning activity 
began to diminish, trees have had many years to grow beyond a safe level. 
Therefore GLORIA'S high winds were hitting communities at a time when 
trees had become vulnerable because of five years of less than perfect 



-45- 



attention. Commonwealth employees and tree crews through the Bureau of 
Shade Tree Management and the University of Massachusetts Extension 
Service are available for field visits to towns to assist with tree 
condition assessment and to a limited degree with pruning activities. 
Unfortunately the six crews are not enough to adequately cover the state. 
A funding source is being pursued at the state level which would permit 
partial or total reimbursement to cities and towns for monies expended for 
pruning operations and tree work performed on public trees by private 
companies under the direction of local Shade Tree Wardens. 

Metropolitan District Commission 

Among its many duties, the MDC is responsible for the maintenance and 
operation of the Charles River Dam. The flood control structure mitigates 
flooding in the Charles River Basin area of Boston and Cambridge. 

The MDC also provides flood mitigation benefits similar to those pro- 
vided by Fisheries and Wildlife. The purchase of land for watershed pro- 
tection has resulted in the preservation of floodplain along the Ware 
River and Charles River tributaries. 



Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement 

Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 

Neither the Department or Division has statutory responsibility for 
flood hazard mitigation. The authority of MGL Ch. 131, SS. 6-8 allows for 
the acquisition of land for the purpose of protecting any species of use- 
ful fish, birds or mammals, or for public fishing and shooting grounds. 
Many areas acquired for these purposes contain large acreages of flood 
plain which is retained in a natural state. This ensures that flood re- 
tention capabilities remain intact. 



-46- 



Executive Office Of Public Safety 

Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency 

Massachusetts General Law (Chapter 579, Acts of 1968) amended and 
defined the duties and function of the MCDA. 

Chapter 579. AN ACT CLARIFYING AND ENLARGING THE SCOPE OF THE 
POWER OF CIVIL AUTHORITY UNDER EMERGENCY CONDITIONS ARISING OUT 
OF RIOTS OR OTHER CIVIL DISTURBANCES. 
Be it enacted, etc., as follows: 



SECTION 1. "Civil defense" shall mean the preparation for and 
the carrying out of all emergency functions, other than functions 
for which military forces other than the national guard are 
primarily responsible, for the purpose of minimizing and 
repairing injury and damage resulting from disasters caused by 
attack, sabotage or other hostile action; or by riot or other 
civil disturbance; or by fire, flood, earthquake or other natural 
causes. Said functions shall include specifically, but without 
limiting the generality of the foregoing, firefighting and police 
services other than the actual control or suppression of riot or 
other civil disturbance, medical and health services, rescue, 
engineering and air-raid warning services, evacuation of persons 
from stricken areas, emergency welfare services, communications, 
radiological, chemical and other special weapons of defense, 
emergency transportation, existing or properly assigned functions 
of plant protection, temporary restoration of public utility 
services and other functions; 
Although the responsibilities of the MCDA are numerous, only duties 
during flood emergency will be considered in this report. 



-47- 



The Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan (CERP) prepared by MCDA states that 
the basic mission of the Agency is to prepare, warn, respond and recover. 
The Agency promotes preparation by encouraging disaster prevention or 
flood mitigation programs. These efforts may range from local zoning to 
structural solutions. 

Initiation of alert procedures depend primarily on monitoring of 
National Weather Service reports. The procedure as stated in the CERP 
follows: 

A. AGENCY TASK ASSIGNMENTS 

I. General 

a. Activities at the Direction of the Governor 

Under provisions of the Civil Defense Act, the Governor may 
direct any agency of State government to prepare for and 
carry out a variety of disaster functions, including: 

1. Those for which there is an obvious functional parallel 
(e.g. the Division of State Police with the Police and 
Security function). 

2. Those for which agency resources are useful for various 
disaster response purposes (e.g. agency mobile radio cars 
for emergency communications). 

3. General support of disaster reponse and preparedness 
operations (e.g. clerical support to agency representatives 
during disaster relief operations). 



-48- 



b. Agency Disaster Plans 

Each State agency with disaster task assignments will 
develop and maintain an Agency Disaster Response Plan 
detailing agency organizational arrangements for emergency, 
specific emergency task assignments, and such special 
procedures for implementation as my be necessary. 

c. Continuity of Activity 

All State officials and agencies will provide for continuity 
of management and control of governmental activities, and of 
public services, during periods of emergency. If 
necessary, provision will be made for the conduct of such 
operations from the State and/or from an alternate State 
Emergency Operating Center (EOC). 

d. Coordination with the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency 
(MCDA) 

Upon the request of the Director, MCDA, each agency with 
assigned emergency response functions will appoint personnel 
to provide liaison between MCDA at the Headquarters and Area 
level, and headquarters and district elements of the agency 
they represent. The authorities and responsibilties of such 
personnel will be set forth in the agency's Disaster 
Response Plan. 



-4S- 



e. Assistance to Political Subdivisions 

State agencies having emergency reponsibilities will render 
direct assistance, in their areas of responsibility, to 
political subdivisions of the State, when so required by the 
situation and so requested by local authorities. 

f . Mutual Emergency Field Support Plans 

Those agencies having geographically decentralized 
operations (divisions, districts, local offices, etc.) will 
direct the supervisors in charge of such operations to 
develop mutual emergency field support plans in cooperation 
with MCDA Area personnel. 

Division of Inspections 

The Massachusetts State Building Code clearly outlines standards for 
construction in floodplains and coastal high hazard areas. According to 
Section 744.0, Design Requirements for Floodplains and Coastal High Hazard 
Areas , specific construction criteria are placed upon structures to be 
substanially improved or constructed within the 100 year floodplain and 
Coastal High Hazard Areas (see Appendix G). The objective of these 
criteria is to limit development which would incur substantial property 
damages in the event of a severe flood. Elevating structures, 
f loodproof ing electrical boxes, anchoring mobile homes and retaining 
records of floodproof ing measures are all required elements of Section 
744.0. Municipal building inspectors are responsible for ensuring 
compliance by property owners and builders. Typically building inspectors 
receive assistance from conservation commissions regarding flood zone 
determination, particularly if a property site is on a border between a 



-50- 



flood zone and an upland zone. Under the Flood Hazard Management Program 
Building Inspectors are visited periodically by the FHMP staff to discuss 
the level of floodplain encroachment in their community. At that time the 
FHMP staff person explains any changes in regulations which may effect the 
Building Inspector's duties. Additionally the FHMP staff reviews the 
Building Inspector/ town floodplain management performance to determine if 
it complies with the expectations set forth through the National Flood 
Insurance Program. The Massachusetts Board of Building Regulations and 
Standards publishes a newsletter entitled Code Word which periodically 
discusses floodplain management issues. Massachusetts Building Inspectors 
also have conferences intended to inform and educate its participants. 
Floodplain management practices as they may apply to Building Inspectors 
are also discussed during conference workshops. 



Executive Office Of Transportation And Construction 



Department of Public Works 



The Massachusetts Department of Public Works has no legistative re- 
sponsibilities regarding the implementation of flood hazard mitigation 
programs. The department is, however, responsible for carrying out the 
policies of the Federal Highway Administration and meeting the require- 
ments of M.G.L. Ch. 131, S. 40A. The MPDW is exempt from M.G.L. Ch. 130, 
S. 105. 



The FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) policy toward floodplain - 
management, implemented through DPW, is as follows: 



a. to encourage a broad and unified effort to prevent 

uneconomic, hazardous or incompatible use and development of 
the Nation's floodplains; 



-51- 



b. to avoid longitudinal encroachments, where practicable; 

c. to avoid significant encroachments, where practicable; 

d. to minimize impacts of highway agency actions which adversely 
affect base floodplains; 

e. to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial floodplain 
values that are adversely impacted by highway agency actions; 

f. to avoid support of incompatible floodplain development; 

g. to be consistent with the intent of the standards and 
criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program, where 
appropriate; and 

h. to incorporate "A Unified National Program for Floodplain 
Management" of the Water Resources Council into FHWA 
procedures. 

The FHWA and MDPW are also subject to E.O. 11988 which requires Fed- 
eral executive agencies "to avoid, to the extent possible, the long-and- 
short term adverse impacts associated with the occupany and modification 
of floodplains and to avoid the direct or indirect support of floodplain 
development whenever there is a practicable alternative." If the flood- 
plain cannot be avoided, the agencies must minimize potential harm to 
people and property and to natural and beneficial floodplain values. To 
assure compliance, the order requires Federal and public review of 
proposed projects. 

It should be noted that M.G.L. Ch. 131, S. 40 (the Wetlands Act) has 
had an impact on MDPW highway design. The requirement of providing 
compensatory flood storage for any flood storage lost within the 100-year 
floodplain has resulted in the design of flood detention basins as part of 
proposed quantity of flood water so that natural drainage courses are not 
subjected to flooding conditions any sooner than would occur previous to 
the construction of the highway. 



-52- 



Office Of The Lieutenant Governor 

State Disaster Recovery Program 

This program was instituted through the Lieutenant Governor's office 
in response to the 1978 Blizzard and was phased out in 1982. During its 
operation, many grants were handled through the Massachusetts Office of 
State Planning, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD), and state Executive Office of Administration and Finance. 

Assistance such as the "Unmet Needs Program" was provided with HUD 
funding in grant amounts up to $10,000 to complement aid not available 
elsewhere. Grants for Floodproof ing of structures was obtained by those 
eligible low income individuals. An effort was made to coordinate these 
activities with FEMA. 

Records of many blizzard expeditures and community aid have been re- 
tained by this program. The primary function was one of coordination 
between various federal, state, and local authorities to ensure adequate 
response and follow-up of the '78 storm. In line with this role, the pro- 
gram, working with the Lieutenant Governor's Office and FEMA, developed a 
booklet entitled "A Coastal Homeowner's Guide to Floodproof ing. " 

Executive Office Of Communities And Development 

The Intergovernmental Review Monitor (Formerly A-95) 

The Executive Office operates the State Clearinghouse through which 
federal agencies are required to submit plans for certain federally 
financed programs/projects. This function is a result of Presidential 
Executive Order 12372. Publication of the Massachusetts Intergovernmental 



-53- 



Reviev Monitor is designed to promote maximum coordination between 
federal, federal-assisted, state, areawide, and local programs. This 
clearinghouse is intended to provide a forum for federal, state, 
municipal, and private interests to review specific projects and to 
address potential conflicts. 

Often project information submitted to the state clearinghouse may 
include only financial data, occasionally a brief written account of the 
project, and site map. However, the Clearinghouse will request additional 
data if a reviewer so desires. 

Proposal files do not appear to be routinely examined by any govern- 
ment agency with the possible exception of the Massachusetts Historial 
Commission. As a result nearly all proposals are labeled as no 
conflict 1 . Federal agencies proposing backing of projects within 
floodplain areas do not usually publicly notify and provide information to 
the Clearinghouse as required by federal Executive Order 11988. 

Department of Community Affairs 

Under Communities and Development, a single existing development, that 
of Community Affairs (DCA), handles several forms of community assistance. 
The Division of Community Services and Community Development actually 
share these Department responsibilities. 

Division of Community Services 

The Division of Community Services furnishes both technical assistance 
to municipal governments and disaster response. The EOCD/DCS, as part of 
its legislative mandate under Chapter 23B of the General Laws, during 



-54- 



non-disaster times, can and does provide assistance to local governments 
of the Commonwealth in a variety of ways. This includes acting as liaison 
between federal, state and local agenices; planning and zoning; analyzing 
and helping solve municipal management and fiscal problems; grantsmanship; 
and dissemination of information. 

Generally non-emergency technical assistance encompasses limited aid 
in dealing with zoning and land use problems for a specific area. The 
limitation in assistance is due to low staffing. An involved community 
usually will request such state input to clarify local responsibilities. 
Floodplain problems have not arisen in past cases handled. Model bylaws 
and ordinances were originally supplied through this office but that 
practice has been discontinued. 

The General Laws mandate the keeping of a central file on all zoning 
regulations which the Division personnel have responsibility for maintain- 
ing. There can be up to a six month delay in updating such records due to 
town delays in forwarding new changes. 

Workshops for Regional Planning Agencies and Massachusetts building 
officials are occasionally held by the Division's staff. 

A Disaster Response Plan has been formulated by the Community Service 
staff. This report reviews response abilities and responsibilities to 
assist Civil Defense and the Office of Emergency Preparedness. In the 
event of a disaster, the DCS ' s initial area of assistance would be to 
notify local officials of the status of the situation, and where and how 
to request aid. The Local Liaison Section (LLS) of the Division has on- 
going contracts and relationships with city and town officials. The LLS 
maintains an 800 TOLL-FREE telephone line on which local officials can 
call for assistance. The capacity of this service could be expanded with 



-55- 



additional lines, if needed. (This was done in response to the 1978 
Blizzard Disaster). The toll-free number is presently well-known to 
officials, but in times of disaster, it could be publicized over an 
emergency broadcast system. 

After the initial phase of a disaster has been handled, the DCS can 
help prepare and disseminate needed follow-up information to communities. 
The Division maintains computerized mailing lists of thousands of local 
officials that can be utilized. Another important function is to arrange 
the use of disaster processing centers to facilitate community applica- 
ions for post-disaster federal assistance. 

Division of Community Development 

Through Community Development, assistance programs are provided to 
build, rehabilitate, modernize, 'and manage public housing under normal 
conditions. In the event of a disaster situation, this Division may also 
place victims in the few public housing units available. The majority of 
the displaced utilize rental assistance subsidies (Ch. 707) and are re- 
located in temporary quarters such as motels. 

Public housing projects currently being developed fall under the 
Massachusetts Family Housing Program - Ch. 705, the state Handicapped 
Housing Program - Ch. 689 state Elderly Housing - Ch. 667, and HUD Section 
8 funding. 

These facilities are constructed and operated by Local Housing Author- 
ities (LHA) which obtain funding and guidance from Community Development. 
The Department of Community Affairs selects which LHA will receive a Con- 
tract for Financial Assistance (CFA). Under the CFA, the community com- 
pletes the initial planning and obtains local approvals. Then the 
Division's Bureau of Housing Development has the authority to review and 



-56- 



approve such planning including property selection, environmental assess- 
ments, and appraisals. The planning stage requires the completion of an 
Environmental Data Form (EDFj that questions placement within a floodplain 
and if so located requests boundary maps showing the 10, 15, 25, 50 or 100 
year flood boundary. If significant environmental impact is likely then a 
more detailed EDF requests new and old contours displayed on a map with 
one foot intervals and also delineating finished floor elevations. 

Under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA-Ch. 301), cer- 
tain DCA projects are excluded which involve not more than 200 residential 
units in a conversion/rehabilitation project where not more than 10% of 
new floor area is added, and those projects involving construction of not 
more than 100 new residential units without limitation as to cost. Accor- 
ding to DCA if an EIR is required under MEPA, the Department will not fund 
the project due to the amount of time and money needed to complete such a 
report. 



PRINCIPAL REGIONAL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 



Regional Planning Authorities (RPA). 

Massachusetts has established Regional Planning Authorities in order 
to assist municipalities in a variety of ways including economic 
development, social services, environmental review and transportation 
planning. The RPA's have a water resources contact person at each agency. 
These individuals play varying roles in coordinating regional floodplain 
management issues. Appendix H contains the geographic boundaries of the 
RPA's. 



-57- 



PRINCIPAL LOCAL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 

V ' 

i 

Local government officials in Massachusetts have very active roles in 
floodplain management activities. These roles are best defined by the in- 
dividual responsibilities each board, commission or department has in the 
permit system. The Conservation Commission has the most responsibility 
through its legislative mandate in environmental protection. Decision 
making will differ from town to town largely because of nontechnical, 
volunteer, part-time staffing; however, it does appear that floodplain 
management as it relates to environmental protection is being adequately 
addressed statewide, as a whole. 

Two principal program activities appear to be lacking at the local 
level. One is the establishing and maintaining of data storage and retri- 
eval systems. This is understandable since adequate funding, expert 
staffing and resource data collection do not often exist in communities. 
The other activity is coordinating local floodplain management efforts. 

Conservation Commissions (MGLA Ch. 40, S. 8C) 

Commissions have the authority to review proposals for projects in 
wetlands (Ch. 131, S. 40), assist in the drafting and enforcing of local 
floodplain and wetland by-laws and acquire land for open space and 
recreation purposes at the local level. Although water supply issues are 
addressed the most, protection from the hazards of floods by preservation 
of floodplains are included within a water management function. In a 
court decision (Turnpike Realty Company, Inc. vs. Town of Dedham, 362 
Mass. 221, 1972), it has been shown there is a tendency to weight the 
petitioner's loss against the possible loss to the whole community. The 
Turnpike case gave approval to three basic public policy objectives: (1) 
protection of occupants of a floodplain, (2) protection of other 



-58- 



landowners from damages resulting from development of the floodplain, and 
(3) protection of the entire community from individual choices of land use 
which require subsequent public expenditures for public works or disaster 
relief. 

The Act charges the commission to "... seek to organize the activities 
of unofficial bodies organized for similar purposes" so therefore a 
description of the Commissions' relations with other municipal bodies has 
been included in this section. By bid 1985, 334 of the 351 cities and 
towns in the Commonwealth had established their commissions. 138 had 
either full time or part time staff. 30 had full time or part time 
professional staff. 

Commissions have three major roles in the mitigation of natural 
hazards. These roles are: (1) disseminating information on the NFIP and 
assisting FEMA to implement the program; (2) assisting in the 
interpretation and use of floodplain data; and (3) processing permits for 
private floodplain uses. They also play an active role in land 
acquisition primarily for recreational and open space purposes but not 
necessarily for floodplain management and hazard mitigation purposes. 

Planning Board or Department (MGLA Ch. 41, S. 81). 

Town Planning agencies have the responsibility for over-all municipal 
planning. Close coordination between the planning board and the 
Conservation Commission insures that the conservation, preservation and 
development of the municipality's natural resources are receiving adequate 
attention in the over-all planning process. In part, this can be 
accomplished through the commission's review of planning board rules and 
regulations, zoning bylaws, and filed development plans. Joint 
discussions on such matters as floodplain zoning, cluster zoning and 
responsibilities under the Wetlands Protection Act are also important. 



-59- 



The Boards conduct two principal program activities in floodplain 
management: (1) mapping the community's floodplain and (2) monitoring 
floodplain development. More indirectly, a Board may also disseminate 
information on the NFIP and process permits for private floodplain uses 
while administering a subdivision control law (MGLA CH. 41, SS. 81K-81GG). 

Board of Health and/or Sewer Commission (Title 5). 

Boards of Health and Sewer Commission control such vital aspects of 
land use planning as disposal of sanitary wastes in non-sewered areas and 
maintenance of sewers. The Conservation Commission can urge the Board to 
adopt stiffer local health regulations on building in floodplains which 
can supplement floodplain zoning. Their part in reviewing and regulating 
public sewer use is a principal program activity which may have an 
influence on whether growth is encouraged in hazard-prone areas. 

Building Inspector or Zoning Administrator. 

Building Inspectors are responsible to the selectmen or mayor, and 
have the primary job of assuring that all local projects are in conformity 
with the zoning ordinance or bylaw, including municipal floodplain or 
wetlands protection zoning. Under S. 108.1 of the state building code, 
the building inspector may enforce any state statutes, rules, regulations, 
ordinances and bylaws and act on any question relative to the location of 
buildings and structures. Good relations between the Conservation 
Commission and the building inspector can therefore assure that building 
permits will not be handed out for construction in possible wetland areas 
without notice to the commission. 

In summary, distributing Flood Insurance Rate Maps and processing per- 
mits for private floodplain uses are the inspectors principal program 



-60- 



contributions regarding floodplain management activities. The inspector 
should also be able to assist in the interpretation and use of floodplain 
data. 

Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). 



A town ZBA acts more like a court than an administrative body. It 
guards the zoning ordinances or bylaw by hearing appeals from orders of 
the building inspector and others and gives flexibility by granting 
special permits and variances where a zoning bylaw authorizes them, and by 
granting variances in hardship cases. A commission member should attend 
hearings by the board relating to variances and special permits in 
floodplain or wetlands protection zoning districts and state whether the 
commission agrees with or objects to the proposed action. 



-61- 



PRINCIPAL FEDERAL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency 

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 

The NFIP was established by Congress in 1968. The program provides 
subsidized flood insurance to property owners in participating 
communities. To qualify, local governments must adopt and enforce minimum 
floodplain management regulations in accordance with FEMA regulations and 
guidelines. 

Pursuant to the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, any federal 
financial assistance related to new construction or substantial (greater 
than 50%) improvements of existing structures located in the 100-year 
floodplain is contingent on the purchase of flood insurance. Such federal 
assistance includes not only direct aid from agencies, but also from 
federally insured savings and loan institutions. Thus, in order for 
property owners to be eligible for purchasing flood insurance, their 
respective community must be participating in the NFIP and in compliance 
with NFIP guidelines. In Massachusetts, 320 out of 351 communities 
participate in the NFIP. 78 of the 320 participating communities are 
within the Massachusetts Coastal Zone. 

1362 Program 

Section 1362 of the National Flood Insurance Act allows FEMA to 
purchase property from willing sellers where insured buildings have been 
damaged more than 50% in a single storm or at least 25% in three storms 
over a five year period. The acquisition of 18 properties through the use 
of 1362 funds was achieved in the Towns of Scituate and Hull following the 
1978 Blizzard. 



-62- 



Communities Assistance Program (CAP) 

This program provides funding to the State Department of Environmental 
Management-Division of Water Resources, Flood Hazard Management Program 
for technical staff to assist and assess community floodplain management 
officials. 

Executive Order 11988 x 

The objective of E.O. 11988 is "... to avoid to the extent possible 
the long-and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and 
modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of 
floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative ...". 
This Order applies to all federal agencies that: 

1) acquire, manage, or dispose of Federal lands and facilities; 

2) undertake finance, or assist construction and improvements; and 

* 3) conduct activities and programs affecting land use, including 
planning, regulating, and licensing. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 



Continuing Authorities Program 

Congress had delegated responsibility to the Secretary of the Army to 
plan design and construct certain projects without the specific 
authorization of Congress. Formerly referred to as the "small projects 
program, the Continuing Authorities Program is designed to provide a 
timely response to limited flood, navigation and erosion problems. 



-63- 



Presently the New England Division (NED) of the Corps has a number of 
projects which fall under this program. Among the presently active 
projects are: 

Flood Damage Reduction 

POINT OF PINES - Final plans and specifications have been 
prepared for a $4.4 million rock revetment, concrete wall and 
sand dune project to protect the area from flooding. 

WEST SPRINGFIELD - New England Division will begin the 
preparation of plans and specifications this fiscal year to 
expand the pumping and gravity outflow capacity at the Riverdale 
pumping station. The pumping station is part of the Riverdale 
Local Flood- Protection Project built by the Corps in 1950 along 
the west bank of the Connecticut River in West Springfield. 

SPRINGFIELD - An appraisal of the need for modifications to the 
existing local protection project along the Connecticut River in 
Springfield is complete. The report concluded that local flood 
protection would be increased by raising the concrete floodwall 
portions of the project. The Mayor of Springfield has requested 
a reconnaissance report to determine the feasibility of the 
modification. The study began in October 1986. 

Streambanks and Shoreline Protection 

SHEFFIELD - Action is being taken to correct a streambank erosion 
problem at a covered bridge on the Housatonic River. A 
construction contract was awarded in September in the amount of 
$345,675. Construction of the riprap stone protection began in 
October 1986 and is scheduled for completion in the spring of 
1987. 



-64- 



CONWAY - Construction of emergency streambank protection along 
two sections of the South River has begun. The plan, which 
provides for placement of 650 linear feet of stone slope 
protection, will protect State Route 116. Completion is 
scheduled for March 1987. 

COLRAIN AND ASHFIELD - Detailed studies have been initiated under 
Section 14 authority to determine the need for erosion control 
along the North and South rivers in Colrain and Ashfield, 
respectively. Efforts are being coordinated with the 
Massachusetts Department of Public Works. 

Navigation 

ROCKPORT HARBOR - The small navigation improvement project at 
Rockport was authorized for construction funding, and a $811,000 
contract was awarded on May 15, 1986. The project provides for 
the dredging of entrance channels and protected anchorage areas 
in Rockport Harbor and Pigeon Cove. The dredging began in 
October 1986 and is scheduled to be completed by March 1987. 

PINES RIVER - Public comments on a draft detailed project report 
which recommends federal participation in channel and anchorage 
improvements in the Pines River in Revere and Saugus are being 
reviewed. Upon completion of our review and coordination with 
appropriate state. 



NANTUCKET HARBOR - Preliminary finding indicate that federal 
participation in channel and anchorage improvements at Nantucket 
Inner Harbor and Polpis Harbor appear justified. A 
reconnaissance phase study has begun and hydrographic surveys are 
underway. 



-65- 



NASKETUCKET BAY - An Initial Appraisal Report, including a 
recommendation for further study of this mixed use (commercial 
and recreational) harbor in Fairhaven, was approved by Washington 

in September, 1986. A reconnaissance study is underway, 

i 

SAUGUS RIVER - A detailed project study of the need for federal 
participation in channel and anchorage improvements in the Saugus 
River in Saugus and Lynn is continuing. The study is being 
coordinated with municipal plans for development of the river. A 
draft report was distributed for public review in October 1986. 

Beach Erosion Control 

YARMOUTH - A detailed project report on Seaview and Parkers River 
beaches (located eastward of the mouth of the Parkers River) was 
approved by Washington in July 1985 under the Section 103 small 
beach erosion control projects program. The project entails 
widening 1,400 feet of beach by the placement of sandfill to 
provide a 50-foot-wide beach berm above mean high water. Six 
existing groins would also be rehabilitated to stablize retention 
of the sandfill. 



Specific Authorization Projects 

Any Federal project which is not subject to the Continuing Authority 
Program must have specific authorization from Congress. All projects 
begin with a study and report on the need and justification for the work 
as well as assurances of cooperation from the State and/or municipalities 
that are affected. Funds for implementation of the work are not included 
in the authorizing act and must be allocated in subsequent congressional 
appropriations . 



-66- 



Presently the Corps NED has the following specifically authorized 
projects actively underway: 

Flood Damage Reduction 

REVERE, LYNN, SAUGUS and MALDEN - Flood damage reduction studies 
have been completed for the Roughans Point and Point of Pines 
areas of Revere and are in ^progress for the Saugus River and 
tributary areas of Revere and nearby communities of Lynn, Maiden 
and Saugus. These neighborhoods suffered major damage from 
coastal flooding during the February 1978 blizzard. 
Recommendations for Roughans Point, approved by the Board of 
Engineers for Rivers and Harbors in December 1983, include 
measures to stabilize existing flood control structures and 
reduce wave runup. The estimated cost is $9.2 million. Project 
planning and engineering is continuing with tidal hydrology 
studies and preparation of design memoranda. The project was 
authorized for construction by the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986. Project implementation is dependent upon future 
congressional appropriation. 

At Point of Pines, the final plans and specifications for a 
$4.4 million rock revetment, concrete wall and sand dune project 
to protect the area from coastal flooding will be reviewed by the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) prior to approval 
for construction. 



The Saugus River and Tributaries (formerly the Revere Beach 
Backshore) study is considering improvements to reduce coastal 
flood damage to developed areas behind Revere Beach and the area 



-67- 



east of North Gate Shopping Center in Revere and in the adjacent 
cities of Lynn and Maiden and the town of Saugus. One option is 
to provide floodgates on the Saugus River and shorefront 
protection along Revere Beach and Lynn Harbor to reduce flooding 
in the four communities. 

The congressionally authorized Revere Beach erosion control 
project would restore 13,000 feet of beach and reduce maintenance 
costs of existing facilities and seawalls by $22.6 million over 
the project life. The estimated first cost of the project is 
$6.9 million. Completion of design and initiation of 
construction is contingent upon the execution of a formal Local 
Cooperation Agreement (LCA) that will set forth the terms of 
local cost sharing (36 percent) for the project. 

TOWN BROOK - The recent passage of H.R. 6 by Congress (the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986) authorized a $26.5 million 
flood protection plan for Braintree and Quincy. Flood control 
measures include a deep rock relief tunnel 4,060 feet long and 12 
feet in diameter and modification to an existing upstream 
reservoir and dam. This plan is part of an overall flood control 
system for Braintree and Quincy. Preconstruction planning and 
engineering, including cost updates for the project, are 
continuing. All project feature design memoranda are scheduled 
for completion by December 1986. Planning is being closely 
coordinated with projects under development by the Metropolitan 
District Commission and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation 
Authority. Funds have been appropriated by Congress for the 
current year to begin project construction. Prior to that, a 
formal Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA) must be executed with 
the project sponsor (MDC) for the 25 percent local cost sharing. 



68- 



WESTFIELD RIVER BASIN - As a result of regional flooding that 
accompanied heavy rains in late May and early June 1984, the 
flood control potential and other allied water related uses of 
the Westfield River Basin are being reevaluated under the 
regional plan developed by the Connecticut River Basin 
Comprehensive Study. Original emphasis on finding additional 
storage to compensate for Knightville Reservoir's limitations has 
been expanded to include re N - investigation of Westfield local 
flood protection measures. 

Navigation 

CAPE COD CANAL - Dredging of several shoal areas within the Canal 
was accomplished during October by the government hopper dredge 
MCFARLAND. 

BOSTON HARBOR - Deepending of the various federal channels is 
being examined as part of our deep-draft navigation study of 
Boston Harbor. Initial benefit-to-cost analysis indicates 
further study of the deepening of the harbor's commercial 
navigation channels is needed. 

GLOUCESTER HARBOR - A draft detailed project report concerning, 
the need for channel and anchorage improvements in Smith Cove, 
off the east side of the Gloucester Inner Harbor, is scheduled 
for public review in the spring of 1987. The proposed project 
would provide an eight-foot-deep, 60-foot-wide and 750-foot-long 
access channel to a three-acre, eight-foot-deep anchorage within 
the cove. The project has an estimated cost of 
$500,000-1,000,000. 



-69- 



Conservation and Environmental Enhancement 

HODES VILLAGE DAM - A draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
was issued in March 1984 on a plan to modify the operation of the 
federal flood control dam in Oxford, Mass., to provide low river 
flow augmentation to improve water quality in the French River in 
Massachusetts and Connecticut. Low flow augmentation is one 
element of a plan developed by the Corps at the request of the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states of 
Massachusetts and Connecticut. Modification of the existing 
project would entail the removal of vegetation and organic 
topsoil so that seasonal water storage could be impounded behind 
the dam. Other elements under consideration by EPA are advanced 
wastewater treatment in Webster and Dudley, Mass., and sediment 
deactivation in impoundments downstream of the dam. EPA has 
prepared a Final Supplemental EIS to the Corps' EIS to address 
issues concerning the entire French River cleanup program. The 
New England Division furnished review comments on the Final 
Supplemental EIS in July 1986. 



-70- 



CHAPTER V 



RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXISTING MEASURES AND DAMAGES 



Through the many existing hazard mitigation measures discussed in 
the previous chapter it is clear that the Commonwealth has some effective 
policies in place which can reduce the amount of property damage and 
bodily harm during a disaster. Inland and coastal floodplain management 
are probably some of the most successful of these measures. Unfortunately 
as stated in Chapter III high winds were the most destructive force 
delivered by GLORIA and not flooding problems. Except in a few cases 
GLORIA did not "put to the test" all the floodplain and wetland management 
practices the Commonwealth has implemented since 1978 when Massachusetts 
was so severely struck by the Blizzard of '78. To answer the question the 
title of this section suggests it can be said there is little correlation 
"between existing measures and damages". It can also be said that for a 
high wind hazard hurricane like GLORIA there are few reasonable 
wind-damage protection measures which exist that could mitigate damages. 

The communities which were most severely "put to the test" by GLORIA 
are located in the southwest corner of the state where the greatest amount 
of rainfall occurred. Many communities received six inches of rain on 
September 27, 1985. This report looks closely at flood mitigation 
practices for sixteen of these communities which represent those towns 
that received five inches of rain or more during September 27, 1986. 

Table 12 presents information about each of the community's flood 
mitigation practices such as their participation in the National Flood 
Insurance Program and any dams they may have. 



-71- 



Table 12. Selected Community Review 



Community 



Date Emergency Number 

entered or of 

NFIP Regular Dams 
Phase 



Number of Town Has 
Dams For Conservation 
Flood Control Commission 



Becket 


3-8-77 


E 


Blandford 


NP 




Chester 


12-18-84 


E 


Cummington 


6-2-75 


E 


Goshen 


10-17-78 


R 


Granville 


NP 




Hunington 


7-9-75 


E 


Middlefield 


NP 




Montgomery 


NP 




Otis 


12-15-83 


R 


Peru 


NP 




Russell 


8-8-75 


E 


Sandisf ield 


12-4-84 


R 


Tolland 


NP 




Westhampton 


7-2-79 


R 


Worthington 


7-23-75 


E 



4 
2 
2 

3 
4 
3 
2 

1 
1 
9 
5 

2 




1 
1 
1 



4 

1 



yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

yes 

yes 






Total: 



38 



8 



-72- 



The information from Table 12 suggests that those towns which 
received heavy rainfall did have in place flood mitigation measures. More 
of the towns could be involved with the National Flood Insurance Program 
(NFIP) if they had adopted appropriate floodplain management measures 
earlier. Generally speaking the priority communities the Federal 
Emergency Management (FEMA) agency works with to become participating 
communities with the NFIP are coastal, high growth and densely populated 
communities such as those around Boston and Route 495. The listed sixteen 
communities do not fit any of the early participant categories. Therefore 
it is understandable that a smaller percentage of participating 
communities exist in this western area of the state (54%) than in the 
state in general (91%). There are fewer homes in the 100 year floodplain 
in this area than elsewhere in the state. Eventually those communities 
not participating in the NFIP will be participating following the adoption 
by the community of more precise floodplain management by-laws. 



According to a U.S. Army Corp of Engineers report entitled Inventory 
of Dams in the United States a minimum of forty-three dams are identified 
in the seventeen town area. Based upon review of this report by 
knowledgeable personel it is felt that these towns have additional dams 
which are not identified in the report. The report indicates that the 
primary purposes of the dams include irrigation, flood control, water 
supply, debris control, hydroelectric, navigation, recreation and other. 
According to the report eight (8) of the dams are for flood control. 
Whether or not a dam is specifically categorized as a flood control 
structure it serves a flood water storage purpose, if only to detain water 
from passing along its watercourse. The Farmington and Westfield River 
basins and their tributaries were subject to less flooding because of the 
existence of these structures. 



-73- 



Under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act local Conservation 
Commissions are responsible for administering the Act. In Massachusetts 
almost all of the municipalities have Conservation Commissions. Of the 
sixteen high rainfall communities only one, Tolland, does not currently 
have an operating commission. The communities which don't have 
commissions tend to be those with minimal wetlands, low populations and 
minimal municipal staff to push forward the establishment of a commission. 

The Lower Pioneer Valley Regional Planning Commission developed a 
booklet entitled Planning for Floods, A Guide For Action in the Pioneer 
Valley (22 pages). This is used as a tool to assist communities with 
their floodplain management. The Commission also has a designated 
individual who works on floodplain management issues with communities. 
The Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission plays an active role in 
assisting communities to adopt appropriate by-laws to become participants 
in the NFIP. According to the Commission's staff their most important 
role is to advocate the adoption of more restrictive by-laws than those 
minimally required to participate in the NFIP. Since the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency staff and the Flood Hazard Management Program 
staff already work with by-law adoption the commission staff feels that it 
would be redundant to provide the same assistance and, instead, they 
should provide a service above and beyond what is already available. 

Recently under the Massachusetts Scenic Rivers Program, an 18 mile 
corridor along the Farmington River which passes between Sandisfield and 
Tolland was classified a Recreational Natural Landscape under the 
Massachusetts Scenic and Recreational Rivers Program. As discussed in 
chapter IV the beneficial floodplain management policies established by 
this classification are significant particularly under potential flash 
flooding conditions such as were presented by GLORIA. 



-7H- 



In an effort to learn as much as possible about how government 
agencies address natural hazard risks a questionnaire was distributed 
after Hurricane Gloria (Appendices I and J). The questionnaire was 
designed to determine if the agency operates under any flood mitigation 
guidelines, how it responds to a flood emergency and what follow-up study 
or documentation may occur. Fifty (50) questionnaires were mailed in 
April, 1986 to Emergency Liason & Planning Officers designated by the 
Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency. Twenty-two (22) of the questionnaires 
were completed and returned. The twenty- two responses were organized into 
3 categories. These categories and information about any plan they may 
have is contained in Table 13. 

Table 13. Questionnaire Results 



With Plan 
Written Not written 



No Plan 



Agencies considered 
primary responders 
to disaster events 

Natural resource 
management /monitoring 
agencies 

miscellaneous 
affiliated agencies 



Totals 



10 



8 



-75- 



The questions on the hazard Mitigation Questionnaire were chosen to 
indicate the extent agencies have a planned approach for contending with 
disaster mitigation and disaster reponse. Much of the purpose of the 
questions was to obtain generalized information and agency contacts. It 
must be understood that a quantitative scientific survey was not conducted 
but rather a simple questionnaire with obvious limitations such as the 
pool of addresses used for mailing, the sampling of responders and the 
qualitative nature of the questions. 

Since the Emergency Liaison and Planning Officers mailing list was 
used for distribution and because of the role the Officers play in 
disasters it was likely that there would be a large portion of "event 
response" or preparedness agencies completing the questionnaire. For 
these agencies a major portion of their work is concerned with public 
safety and response to emergency conditions. It is therefore likely these 
agencies would have a disaster plan. The natural resource management 
agencies have many responsibilities other than hazard mitigation and would 
therefore be less likely to have a disaster plan in place. It was 
encouraging to learn that many non - response related agencies did have 
plans. 

The questionnaire reponses suggest that many agencies such as the 
State Police, Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and The Adjutant General's 
Office are established specifically for the purpose of public safety. 
Because their primary duties demand attention to public safety 
preparedness and response these agencies may not appear to have the time 
to address flood mitigation practices. Although floodplain management 
planning and the delivery of public safety services are connected through 
a cause and effect relationship, the types of problem solving challenges 



-76- 



professionals and staff in these two fields encounter are vastly 
different. It is likely therefore that the response agencies would not 
actively develop flood hazard mitigation plans. Likewise natural resource 
planning and regulatory agencies may not be fully aware of the activities 
of response agencies. 

The questionnaires returned collectively suggest that plans of 
action by response agencies seem to be in place but that true mitigation 
plans from any type of agency are not common. It must be stated that some 
agencies may not have a formal mitigation plan but do have policy 
statements or guidelines which do address hazard mitigation. 



-77- 



CHAPTER VI 



IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES 



( Recommended Hazard Mitigation Measures) 












mt^ 



-78- 



CO 

I- 
z 

LU 

2 
2 
O 

u 



O C 



_ •— in 



X 2 

0, I 

01 { i 

01 LJ 

C OI 



_ro ** 

a > 

o y 

o fO 



3 

.2 

'£ i/i 
ro a* 

> 



u 

c 

HI 

en 
oi m 

C D 

§2 

ro i/i 



rM 
ro 



— J) 



E 
2 oi 

K3&S 

">"> c ro 

O ro O 

» .t: a> 
v ji — - > 

m I "- a o 

•— >*- u u 
i/l o ig H 



oi 

> ~ 

** c 

c <u 

ai = 

c °- 
•-°Ji 

— 41 c 
ro > .= 
i- oi ro 

B~° a 

u 

3 

h o ^ 

1/1 
I 

c 
o 

c 



« "2 — 

> 9 = 



E >*- 
O L 



>- 

"o 'a 

0. > 

4> 4J "O 

■n w a; 

•- n > 

Q.2.E 

41 l/l 

ro u 

^ "O c 

O •- o> 

• 3 en 

lu cri in 



en 


in 


c 


C 








ro 


<U 


a 


*- 


■o 


aj 


8 


















+* 


ro 


> 


i/i 


*^ 


ro 


u 





ro 


u 



• l/l 

l/l 01 

c c 5 
o.2~ 

oj .~ •- 

ai _ro m 

2 a.SJ 
> tj o 
° 2 — 

1_ O O 

Q. d O- 



l/l 

TJ 

L. 

ro • 

•D i/i 

c ,- «o 

ro .£ « 

♦- »• 

1/1 •** ro 

4) 01 "O 

C p «- 

«= q.2 

■S-2 «» 

' U jc 

>. > — 

— oi ro 

ro w i/> 

oi u ro 
71 o o 



U 



3 


4> 


V 




u 

3 
TJ 


at 

ro 

E 


«-» 


0) 


ro 


m 


u 


■o 


c 


o 


p 


o 




C 


c 


1> 







> 




(/I 




l/l 


01 






T) 
> 


ro 

c 
u. 


ro 
*-» 
i/i 


o 

l 


41 


ro 
o 


0. 


ro 


u 



o 

2 

or 
o 

H 

z 
o 



<•- ~ > 
ro *- •— i. 

*g« s 

— X! <2 c 

Q 2 « « 



•*- >» 4) 

ro >•- .r 

*- -— -» 

5 4> -2 i/i 

M "O "A c 

*z *. _ l/l 



a VI 


OI 




C x- 


.1 g 

TJ 1-41 


inui 
te o 
and 


L - « U 


** "> in 


o £ > c 


o .- o ^ 


o a — 


U 5 O O 


U 3 c 



l/l 
Q. 



•*- >» 41 

ro w- 2: 

4^ '— -* 



2 «J — ■/> 






^ 


Q 


H- 


LU 


U r- 


< 


in 




ai 


_) 


-) 


< 


CT 


U 


OI 


o 


or 






Q 
< 

M 
< 

X 

Q 

O 

o 

_1 



111 

or 

V) 

< 

LU 

5 

z 
O 

< 

z 
111 

LU 

-I 

a. 

2 



Z 

2 
i- 
< 

r- 
Z 
LU 

2 

LU 



z 



c 


c 


o 


o 






4* 


♦-» 


n 


(0 


** 


*rf 


_ c 


„ c 


L. E 4) 


i- E 41 


ro ro e 

-* 4) 


ula 

gra 
lem 


oi o a 


oi o a 


<U i. p 

or a. ^ 


era. £ 



o 

z 



00 
00 

> 

LL 





c 













♦-» 




ro 




*^ 




c 


i. b 


4) 


ro ro 


E 
a) 


en o 


a 


<0 s_ 


E 


or o. 



> 
u. 



oo 

CO 

>- 

LL, 



41 

ro ro 
C l> jn 

TJ 2 ro 
o-c2 

U 5 o 



© 
en 

>- 

LU 



(A 

Oi 

o c 

jd ro 
3 a> 

a. x 



o 

z 



c 




41 




E 




4-« 




S- ~ 




ro i/i 


c 


Q- u rr 


o 


4> 3§ 
Q O-® 




ro 


41 o 


_ c 


11 ~. o 


J- E 41 


•- 41 ' 


gula 
ogra 
plem 


3 Oi® 

o-tj if? 


D 3 <A 


41 !_ C 

or o.i 


or i2 w 



c 
o 



_ c 

i- E 4) 

ro ro £ 
"5 i^ 4i 

Oi o a 

V L C 

or 0..= 



> 

LL 



CO 
03 

> 
LL 





> 


a 


u 


< 


7" 


LU 


IU 


_l 


O 




< 



< 

r- 



LU 

Q 





■«-» 




c 




0) 


ro 


E 


-C 
HI 


41 
Oi 

ro 


— 


r 


iJ 


ro 


ro 


2 


in 




<1) 


C 






O 


ro 


*-• 


a 


r 


T3 


o 


o 











a 


LL 






tn 


x- 


01 


o 


ai 


3 




ro 




ni 


>^ 


u 


ro 
L 


3 


a 


CO 



U 

2 



rsi 
U 





■o 




0) 




01 




ro 


il 


E 


c 


ro 


*- 





L 

o 


E 

L 




O 


r 


*- 





l/l 




**- 


.-o 


o 


tn 


C 


cn 


o 


.d 


■fa- 








t/1 












— ' 


ro 


0" 

; ) 


a 


ro 



- >. 



w ■- U 

>*- 3 a 



Ifl 




T3 




L. 




ro 




N 




ro 


i- 


T 


0) 




o 


,T1 


Ifa. 


fa- 


C ) 


in 




ro 


0) 


o 


> 








4-* 


^ 


3 


Vfa- 


U 


ro 


CD 


L 


X 


Q 


LU 



, ^ 


LU 0- 


2* 


OS 


LU 5 


LUS 


a a 


D Q 



TJ 






4) 




*-< 




m 








,/i 






ro 


r 


T) 


4> 


C 


L 


F 


ro 


01 

3 


a 
cm 
ro 
C 


>• 


b 


ro 


u 




a 


E 


ro 

'fa- 


c 


C 


il 


^ 


-3 


C 






-fa- 


TJ 




41 . 

fa- 
ll 


in 

LU 


Q 


4> 



IM 
U 



in 
ro 
O^ O 



Oi oi 
41 (J 

or c 

ro 

E 

L. 

L 

V 

c 

£ 
in 

n 

fa- 
in 

4- 








£ 


E 

ro 

L 


ro 
fa- 
in 

m 




i/i 




13 


OI 


O 

u 




ro 
— 
i/i 
01 


o 

L. 

a 


o 

faV 




o 


c 








o 










u 




c 
o 


fa- 


1) 


0) 


ro 

L 


-3 


C". 


w 


o 


-1 


ro 


ro 


♦^ 


LO 


5 


ui 


01 


~ 


_o 


OI 


L 


c 


_ 


41 


i: 


ro 

1 


E 


♦- 


u 

m 








41 

13 


L 

o 

**- 





ro 

L 


on 


a 


ro 



-79- 



</1 

r- 
z 

HI 

2 
2 
O 

o 



o 

z 

K 
O 
h; 

z 
O 



"D 
e Oi 
5 u U 

a l 31 

O <n 

« s w 

a) *- ai 
£ mO 

£?2 
?- ^ 

2 « 08 

O CTcr , 

£ "a - 

<5.£ 



1 § 

E u 
a, •- 



in 



>-"5 5 



in 






J! 5 S a 



cn 

c 



ra 

2 



O 41 
O X) 

*" "0 

■D - 



~ <u 



in 
e c 



en 



tu 



- o Z 



>- <o 
oi a 

E at 

«5- 





u 

F 


03 

c 


01 
in 

C 


rg 


0) 


n 


o 


*-« 


*- 


k. 


LL 



i/i in 
< l/l u 



OI -Q 

if c 

o • S 

U- in 0) 

v a> in >» 

2 o v 3 

h- l/l O in 



in 

2!§ 

3 <J n 
— «-» 

<-• Q_ i/i 03 

3 
O 

.a 
a 



in 

C 



in ai m 

r: c 3 



■a 

- c " 

11 (TJ £ 

C * L. 

U en ° 



z e 



"D 
1) 

■i <n 

£* *> 

cn <u 
(0 s_ 
E "D 
ro "O 
"D ro 



O c 

"'J id j 

* in cn cn 
» E .£ io «, 
3 u V3 _ •«- 

Or o n- 1 - *• 

o:.Eej«i 



u 

ro 

a 

10 

o 

o ° &. 
X- cn 

13 <n £ . 

> </> o <n 

<u a> ~ L. 

— C in <u 



in 

ID 



11 _ > 

i. "O — 

rO O >- 

ro >•- O 



01 l/l 

> >*- — 

O ro • 

0- "O 13 



a 


in 














o 
"0 

c 

ro 
U 


t 
i 


ai 
c 

|5 

'5 


in 

10 
V 

u 


0) 

> 
o 


en 

c 
o 

** 


c 

y 
"o 




in 


c 


n 




1_ 


■D 


^E 






01 




m 


n 




'( i 




c 


3 
O 


E 


(0 


o£ 








0> 


T? 






•< cn 




if 
o 

u 

o 


••* 
m 

01 

L 
O 

E 


> 

o 
en 

£ 


u 
10 
N 
10 

c 


in 

ai 

'> 

o 

a 


01 

en 

10 

3 

cn 

c 

_IO 

"io 


C O 

V '_ 

Ed- 
« — 

(0 |X( 

in U 




0> 










c 

10 

E 


9 




3 
O 


c 

.2 

■*- 
n 


m 

C 

o 




in 
V 

'5 


<n _ 

c 2 


in 
0) 

U 

e 


u 

c 


o 
■n 


>- 








a) V 

St 


01 

m 


UJ 


nj 


X! 




q: 


b 10 


fa 





z 








o « 






— a 






1- UJ 






U 1- 






< w 


o 




UJ 
-J D 


z 




r^o 






U uj 






O e: 






J 




to 






111 




"0 


D£ 

3 






i/» 






5 


a 2 


o 




cr 


z 




01 


a 




01 


M Z 


z 




c 


< o 


3 




o 


x k 


LL 




z 


Q < 






O H 






O Z 


z 




-i HI 


o 




u- 5 






ai 


H uj 




j 


<_J 




a. 

5 


1- 13 




z a 






UJ Ul 






S x 


00 

CO 




Ul u 






-1 


1/1 


> 



o 

z 



c 

0) 

E 



(0 m 

a « 
IS u § 

._ 0) ° 

« 3 £ 
or xi w 



u. 



cn 

00 

> 

u. 



o 

z 



c 
o 

44 

10 

i. E ai 

jo <o E 
S« cn — 

<U S. C 

or a. _ 



cn 

c 

C31oo 

I 

C > 

O LL 



c 






o 












*-* 






(0 






a 




in 


'3 


03 

u 


a 


*-* 


o 


u 


L_ 


q— 


>»- 


ra 


I4> 


u- 


0. 


O 










c 






o 












— 






03 






■w 






c 


i_ 


b 


o; 


3 


03 

i. 

m 


E 

V 


Ul 


o 


a 


0) 


i. 


S 


a: a. 



10 10 

C <J in 

^^ n 

U S o 



o 

z 



c 


c 


o 


o 






«4 


«rf 


10 


10 


4M 


♦rf 


_ c 


_ c 


v E oi 


L E tl 


jo jo £ 
^cn-2 


ula 
gra 
lem 


cn o a 


cn o a 


4» V. c 

0SO..H 


4» J. c 

a: a. - 



cn 
CO 



CO 
03 



01 

O co 
Oloo 
l 
C > 

On. 



< z 

UJ uj 

■Jo 

< 



Ul 

O 

UJ 
G 



.. 


2 ui 


. x 


^ £ 


m a 


So. 


ui 3 


U ui 


ui q: 


a a 


so 


Q (/I 



S 


s 


M 


M 


u 


u 



< 

h- 





^ 


C 




*-< 


o 










i. 


+-> 


O 


— 


a 





♦- 


o 
s. 


3 


*-* 

in 


5 

UJ 


03 


01 


n 


Ul 


1! 


Oi 




C 

03 


> 


in 


b 


i- 


■*-* 


J 


\ 


0) 


ra 


C 
03 


E 


*-> 


i/i 




0) 


•■■ 


11 


ui 


a 


c 


s 




F 


b 


v. 





o 


a 


n 


L. 


U 


03 


K-- 


a. 



UJ 

a 
ui 
la 





V 




c 




10 


0) 






T! 


o 


>H 




** 


*- 


i 


01 


13 


0) 






u 


n 


03 






a 


m 


in 


u, 


ro 






0) 


IB 


J£ 


V- 


*«- 




0) 





ill 

h 


JZ 

4^ 


in 

in 


03 


0) 


0) 




♦< 


r 


£ 


03 


oi 


in 


cn 


> 






5 




+d 


03 


OJ 


(|) 




> 


■U- 




c 


-*- 


LU 


a; 







<v 












E 

0) 




i_ 






AI 


m 


o 


"> 


>, 


a 


01 


■/l 


V 




c 

c 
i- 
ra 


*•* 

in 

x: 

in 


03 

a; 
in 

cn 
c 


£ 


i*^ 


T3 


T5 


XI 

(0 


k. 

03 





♦^ 


nv 





in 


01 


ItM 


UJ 


1- 



crt 
















c 






c 


a 






03 


o 


ul 






!_ 




*-* 


0) 


m 




o 




c 


> 


i- 


u 




X- 






u 


a; 
"a 


JT3 

1 


3 




4) 


01 

u 




in 

0) 


o 


n 


c 




(0 

1. 

C 

in 
O 

u 

01 


c 

03 




*-• 

C 

3 
b 


in 
L. 

01 

> 


in 

01 
> 


Oi 

O 
b 

o 


0) 

01 

03 
i. 




'■a 

o 


in 
ro 



b 

n 


rx 


5 


a 


in 


u 


>*- 
it- 


u 


u 


_o 


£ 


>- 




03 

1 

■*-< 
1i 





-C 


c 

01 

u 


c 

Oi 

u 


£ 


0> 

03 


If 
ro 


"ra 
U 


i 


LH 


CO 


5 


# > 


a 


in 






u 

'TJ 

*-> 

c 
o 
u 

"3 

> 
oi 

D 
in 

03 
OI 

s. 

J 

C 



/ = 





io 




in 




"0 


m 


i- 


°>s 


<o 

N 


U 


03 


IT 


£ 


a 




a 


ro 






ui 


in 


a 


ro 


2 



U 


N 




t ) 


cn 


2 


C 




r 


i 


L. 


01 


01 


' — 


( ) 


> 


r 


OJ 


o 


OS 


u 









ISI 

H 

z 
111 

2 

O 

u 



u 
z 

a. 
o 

H 
Z 

o 



it. 
< 





1/1 






c 


i 


TJ 




m 


c 


o 






o 


tj 


• 


in 

u 


V. 


*4- 


m 

ID 


TJ 


£ 


c 


U 


m 






ro 


01 
T) 


.2 


F 


■o 






<i> 


L. 


> 


1) 


** 


ro 


O 


*£ 


m 


M 


L. 


L 


>- 


(13 


a. 


u 


m 


jr 



<u rj 3 

OI £ J3 

in ? .-it 

<u >- *r 
> 



C « (J .2 

= 2 « ° .2 



C ,n 

_ o •- <u _ 
O uT] u v n 



« uiTj.il 
o c u- 





z 










o _ 








— Q 








H uj 




in 




L AC 
UEST 


3 

a 

E 


from 
local 
board 




r^cr 








U uj 








O ec 








-j 




a; 
en 


CO 






■o 


UJ 

a: 






3 

J2 _ 


3 






*- o 


(/) 


o 






rtmen 
est 

000.0 


Q w 


z 

Q 




01 


< "* 


z 




'5 


<9 3 in 


M Z 


Z) 




°f S- &m 


< o 


u. 




0) 0) 5 <A 

a: a !: w- 


Q < 








O 1- 








o z 


z 


• 




-I UJ 


o 






u- 5 








UJ 


K 






-l 


< UJ 






0. 


1- Zj 






2 


Z 3 


03 






2 uj 


> 








LL 






— 








* 








3 s 

**• z 


5 2 




UJ uj 


UJ 


X 




a u. 






< 







1/1 






c 




o 








*-. 




ra 




c 


I) 


(V 


»"■ 








u- 




m 


'o 


iA 


e 


a 


c 
o 


0) 

4-. 


I/I 




> 


c 

i) 




>4- 

in 
0) 

c 


m 

in 
O 

a 


m 


— 


m 


♦^ 


CD 

"n 


tj 


a 


'5 
m 


0) 
01 


01 




ro 


> 


XI 


* 


01 


c 


(l) 


a 


ro 


in 



-80- 



1.1 



*. > o 



C 3 O 

E 5 TJ 

m J C 

m ^ id 

4> o> ,„ 

™ TJ £ 

in .— C 

id > O 

_ o z: 

C L. u 

< Q. 10 



** 


shows, 
kshops 


, 




>- TJ 




41 






m 

i 

4) 


.2 

41 




•c 8 

o *- 




TJ 

> 






a oi 


ID 

e 

TJ 
H 




L. — 14- 

a. c o 




p 
Q.TJ 






ID C 

u c 
o (5 


in 

■§.Si 

II 




her 

sitio 

tion 




C 
TJ id 

3 4) 


o 

c 


m 


nts to 
zard p 


C 

a 

TJ 


3 

a 


ace hig 
r acqui 
eserva 


m 
C 


O O 

* c 

(0 

m ** 

4- in 

'in "in 


o 

4- 
ID 

_3 

ID 


c 

3 

E 
E 


iu (D 


»- a. 


c 


o 


E.2 a 




•- m 


> 


o 


E .c 


a. £ 


ID 


+~* 


a 


> ID 


11 


o 



m 
u 
TJ 

> 

o 



4) 



.2 



o 

Q. 
01 



ID -C C 

5 5 £ 



ID ID 

C U jn 
TJ — <° 

U S o 



03 
03 

> 

u. 







c 






o 












•M 






ID 


m 




Q. 


4) 




u 


3 

cr 


ID 




4) 


U 


m 


OS 


(J 


Q. 



o 

z 



*-> 






in 








c 


5 


0) 




V 


••• 




F 


^ 






in 


> 


L. 


3 


c 


1. 


ro 


0J 

1/1 


a. 


>*- 


E 
E 


o 


O 
>*- 


(1) 


in 




m 






c 


ra 


• 


C 


a 


CI 




ni 


I, 


TJ 

ID 
N 
N 

CD 


ro 


u 




b 
ra 
L. 

01 

o 

L 

a 


01 


03 

c 


CL 

in 

4) 
C 


T3 
0) 

ro 
E 
ID 

XI 


i 

TJ 
L 
ID 


"0 

c 

ra 
m 


*-* 


CO 





ID 


ro 


ro 


IB 


a-v 


L 


m 


£ 


C 


u 


*-» 


m 


m 




O 


^ 


U 

3 


U 


a 

81 


C 
P 


0) 
TJ 


ro 


O 


a 


c 






> 


>J 




c 


*J 


It 


0/ 


O 


3 


ru 
U 

o 


a 


u- 


u_ 


> 


L. 


T> 


(J 


o 


O 


*~ 


0. 


0) 



3 

a 



o 
o 

U 
01 

cn 

ID 

L. 

3 
O 
U 

c 

UJ 









>J 






*-» 






C 


E 

ID 




,-T, 




3 


1_ 


c: 


r 




h 


cn 


ro 






E 
o 
u 


o 


CL 




c 






1) 
U 


3 


'TJ 


>. 


in 


ro 

a 

c 


TJ 
C 
ID 

in 


01 

C 

u 


L, 
ID 
V 


'in 
'> 

Ol 


u 


1) 


c 
a 


JT 


u 


a 
n 


> 


in 


c 

ID 








ID 




c 


o 

V 


u 

V 


m 


-: 




••-» 


m 


n 


.:: 


i) 


in 


m 




a 


n 


UJ 


ID 



c 
o 
0) -^ 



c r> u 

,2 2 c 



TJ ID « (0 ** ° 



> 2 



TJ 

a. oi id E 






c 
_o 

*^ 
ID 
Q J/J 

« 3 js 

'^ o u 

0.00 

















c 


c 


*rf 














01 


0) 


0) 

cn 














E 
** in 


E 


TJ 














L. 4- 


s. — 


3 










c 


c 


ro in 


re m 


JO 










,o 





a oi 


a n 


c 




O 
O 






"<3 

ID 

4W 


ID 

4W 


a erg 
01 . 


« 3 -. 

Q 0"S 

01 3 


in 2 




O 
O 






c 


_ C 


m s- 


tn l. ~ 


01 E 


+^ 


L. 


E 


0> 


L. E 4) 


o> „ 5 


iquire 

idget 

2,700 


quir 
part 


in 

4) 

3 

cr 
41 


O 

O 


_ID 

3 


ID 
i_ 
Ol 
O 


E 

_0) 

a 


gula 
ogra 
plem 


iquir 
dgel 
57,0 


4) 01 


</> 


4) 


1_ 


E 


4) s_ c 

o: q. — 


« 3 <n- 


V Z3 v> 


or; Q 


L. 




OL CL 


Q. JD w 


rr jo — 



01 








c 



















r-» 


<JI 


00 


01 


CO 


00 


00 


c 


> 


> 


> 





u. 


u. 


u. 



^ s 


2 -uj 


-. a. 


-.0. 


.«CL 


S N 


N so 


ui5 


55 


5 S 


uj U 


(J UJ UJ 


U x 


ui X 


UJ x 


a 2 


5 a a 


a u. 


Q u. 


u. 



OJ 


01 






I) 






c 


22 


4M 




n 

4-» 

in 


c 
3 


m 






F 


ra 




in 
-n 


E 


1) 




ro 
>- 






1*1 


01 

1) 


.2 
k 








r 




r 


41 


M 


u 


3 
E 


■n 




TJ 


01 


r 


(1 


r 


b 




•fc- 


> 


v. 


JC 


ai 

B 


3 
T 


; 1 


< 


L 


1 — 


3 


m 


JZ 


5 


r 


^^ 


U 


c 


c 


^1 


-C 


ra 


U 


> 


t 


u 



cn 

™ 
01 
01 

.£ c 

cn o 
— c '4Z 

^^3 

I- S 1 

"* « w ^ 
«, 2 * « 

U«l" 

>' I 

. C C 4) 

cj uj J2 "■ 
w ** c 
in •*- « o 

r °s u 

41 — .. .. 

in C 
3 0) 
X E 



ID 

*-» 

m 

ID 
O 



o o 

.. _ c c 
u- o o 

S IS .£ « 

!2 & > > 

ID 01 .— — 

S Q Q Q 



11 11 11 11 



Sua. 
NoSifl 
U UJ L5 U 

2 a a a 



c 




OI 




E 




01 




cn 




ID 




c 




ID 




5 





_ 


01 


| s 
1 1 




Li 


Q. 


b 3 


C 


C O 


E 


O m 


-— (D 


L. 41 


Alt 

•» L. 


>* 

C L. 


uj 01 

4* 


50. 




T. E 




V. 4) 


go 

E c 


(D > 

N .— 


id ^ 


r .2 


ID "> 






O O U. (/> 


11 11 


11 11 




CL 


s* 


2 cl 


LU ^ 


X a. 


a a 


U. V) 



in 



-81- 






APPENDICES 

A. Saf ir/Simpson Hurricane Catagory Scale 

B. Report on Atlantic Tropical Cyclone "Hurricane GLORIA" September 
17-27, 1985. Prepared by Robert B. Rice, Director of Special 
Projects Weather Services Corporation October 15, 1985. 

C. Inventory of Historical Storms in Massachusetts. 

D. Earthquake History of Massachusetts. 

E. Federal Emergency Management Agency Disbursement Summary Report: 
October 1986 

F. A Report on the Assessment of Flood Damages Resulting from the Storm 
of 6-7 February 1978 Along the Coastline from Orleans, Massachusetts 
to New Castle, New Hampshire, New England Division, Corps of 
Engineers. 

G. 780 CRM: State Building Code Commission Section 744.0 Design 
Requirements for Floodplains and Coastal High Hazard Areas. 

H. Boundaries of Massachusetts Regional Planning Agencies. 

I. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Natural Hazard Mitigation 
Questionnaire. 

J. Cover Letter for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Natural Hazards 
Mitigation Questionnaire. 






APPENDIX A 
Safir/ Simpson Hurricane Catagory Scale 



A-l 



CATEGORY 1 - Winds of 74-95 miles 
per hour. Damage primarily to shrubbery, 
trees, foliage, and unanchored mobile 
homes. No real damage to other structures. 
Some damage to poorly constructed signs. 
And/or: storm surge 4 to 5 feet above nor- 
mal. Low-lying coastal roads inundated, 
minor pier damage, some small craft in 
exposed anchorages torn from moorings. 



CATEGORY 2 - Winds of 96 to 1 10 miles 
per hour. Considerable damage to shrubbery 
and tree foliage; some trees blown down. 
Major damage to exposed mobile homes. 
Extensive damage to poorly constructed 
signs. Some damage to roofing materials 
of buildings; some window and door dam- 
age. No major damage to buildings. And/or: 
storm surge 6 to 8 feet above normal. 
Coastal roads and low-lying escape routes in- 
land cut by rising water two to four hours 
before arrival of hurricane center. Consider- 
able damage to piers. Marinas flooded. Small 
craft in unprotected anchorages torn from 
moorings. Evacuation of some shoreline 
residences and low-lying island areas re- 
quired. 

CATEGORY 3 - Winds of 111 to 130 

miles per hour. Foliage torn from trees; 
larqe trees blown down. Practically all 
pooily constructed signs blown down. 
Some damage to roofing materials of build- 
ings; some window and door damage. 
Some structural damage to small buildings. 
Mobile homes destroyed. And/or: storm 
surge 9 to 12 feet above normal Serious 
flooding at coast and many smaller struc- 
tures near coast destroyed; larger structures 
near coast damaged by battering waves and 
floating debris. Low-lying escape routes in- 
, land cut by rising water 3 to 5 hours before 
hurricane center arrives. Flat terrain 5 feet 
or less above sea level flooded inland 8 miles 
or more. Evacuation ot low-lying residences 
within several blocj<s of shoreline possibly 
required. 



CATEGORY 4 - Winds 131 to 155 miles 
per hour. Shrubs and trees blown down; all 
signs down. Extensive damage to roofing 
materials, windows and doors. Complete 
failure of roofs on many small residences. 
Complete destruction' of mobile homes. 
And/or storm surge 13 to 18 feet above 
normal. Flat terrain 10 feet or less above 
sea level flooded inland as far as 6 mifes. 
Major damage to lower floors of structures 
near shore due to flooding and battering by 
waves and floating debris. Low-lying escape 
routes inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 
hours before hurricane center arrives. Ma- 
jor erosion of beaches. Massive evacuation 
of all residences within 500 yards of shore 
possibly required, and of single story m";i 
dences on low ground within 2 miles of 
shore. 

CATEGORY 5 - Winds greater than 155 

miles per hour. Shrubs and tiees blown 
down; considerable damage to mofs of 
buildings; all signs down. Very severe and 
extensive damage to windows and doors. 
Complete failure of roofs on many resi- 
dences and industrial buildings. Extensive 
shattering of glass in windows and doors. 
Some complete building failures Small 
buildings overturned or blown away. Com- 
plete destruction of mobile homes. And/or: 
storm surge greater than 18 feet above nor 
mal. Major damage to lower floors of all 
structures less than 15 feet above sea level 
within 500 yards of shore. Low-lying escape 
routes inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 
hours before hurricane center arrives. Mas- 
sive evacuation of residential areas on low 
ground within 5 to 10 miles of shore pos- 
sibly required. 



To relate hurricane intensity to damage potential, the National Hurricane 
Center uses the Saffir/Simpson scale which assigns storms to five categories. 
Category One is a minimum hurricane; Category Five is the worst case. 



APPENDIX B 



Report on Atlantic Tropical Cyclone "Hurricane Gloria," September 17-27 
1985. Prepared by Robert B. Rice, Director of Special Projects Weather 

Service Corporation, October 15, 1985. 












*.«..*?•!-:.••;;: .»lij-. .-.-".»;.. *;*i.i»4^X^'«*^>:«. 



«v* .••-: . .. 



ic-.ir*.w^--i 



s>ii.-^us?.;j 



: I lii-df-SJeirVlV-ii^fl^' ! 






B-1 




131A GREAT ROAD. BEDFORD. MASSACHUSETTS 01 730 . TELEPHONE (617)275-8860 



B-2 
" GLORIA"; SEPTEMBER 17-27, 1985 



Hurricane Gloria was a "c lassie" Atlantic (ror-ical cvclone. 
She- was born in the midst of a tropical wave thai: had moved to sea 
through the Cape Verde islands after having traversed the continent of 
Africa.. Following the textbook life history of the tropical cyclone, 
she then moved westward while passing through the stages of tropical 
wave to tropical depression to tropical storm. She then achieved her 
hurricane ranking during the morning of September 22nd while bearing 
down on the Leeward Islands* part of the chain of islands separating 
the Atlantic Ocean from the Caribbean Sea and still some 1900 miles 
and five days from its final landfall over Long Island* New York. 

Hurricanes can be classified in various ways. In meteorological 

terms* those of central pressure and maximum wind speeds, Gloria was 
outclassed by a few Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico storms, and certainly 
by various Pacific Typhoons, but at one point in her life cycle may 
well have been the most powerful storm on record in the Atlantic Ocean. 
This would have been during the evening of September 24th and early 
morning hours of the 25th when reconnaissance aircraft measured the 
central pressure at 918 millibars or 27.11 inches of mercury. At that 
time maximum winds within her circulation were in excess of 150 MPH. 
Fortunately at this point in her travels she was 200 miles to the east 
of the Bahama Islands such that populated land areas were feeling only 
peripheral gale winds and high surf. In fact, thus far Gloria had been 
a very considerate storm, havi ng 'Jj>gged^ northward to spare the Leeward 
Islands, the Virgins and Puerto Rico, then continued to curl northwest- 
ward while menacing, but not hitting, the Bahama's. In fact, as time 
would come to prove, the future track and life cycle of "Gloria" would 
be such as to greatly diminish her effects even in those areas that 
came under her direct assault; the Mid-atlantic and Northeast Seaboards 
of the United States. While her effect was significant, particularly 
in the destruction of trees and therefore power/ te 1 ephone lines, the 
sequence of events proved to be such that it is safe to say that this 
storm affected no Populated land areas to the extent that might have 
been possible under only slightly altered circumstances. 

It is somewhat of a paradox that the storm is classified as a 
"dud" by some, while at the same time it created havoc with power 
and telephone lines. It is the causes of this apparent paradox and 
the Gloria life cycle that will be discussed in the following. 

How strong a storm was Gloria, and how would it compare with some 
other great hurricanes that have struck the United States northeastern 
coastal sections? It is not the intent here to compare, since there 
are too many other yardsticks of comparison that fall out of the realm 
of Just meteorology. In the final analysis, the overall "ranking" or 
evaluation of a storm should not be meteorological; rather, it should 
be how it affected the population, in terms of injuries, deaths, 
property damage and overall disruption of life. These are the bottom 
line results, regardless of any scientific autopsy of the storm. For 
instance, certainly the hurricane of 1938 and Carol in 1954 created a 
far greater impact than Gloria on the population overall. Yet, in some 
areas the damage to power lines, in terms of percentage of customers 
lost, was greater with Gloria than either of the two previous storms. 
Why would this be true? 

Increasing density of population, exr-ansion of electric service 
and therefore the total miles of lines, s i m p 1 v create more total 



B-3 

targets for one thins*. It is suspected that expansion* or explosion* 
of population into the suburbs since the earlier storms has created an 
extensive array of power lines in areas that are more heavily treed 
and without the mutual protection of closely sf>^ced homes, that is the 
wind break effect. What was once country side* with only a hand full* 
if any* of customers is now unbroken areas of homes; soned to have more 
open space around them and landscaped with individual large trees. 
Since the dominant factor in power outages will be trees and/or limbs 
falling on the lines* anything that contributes to tree damage will 
translate to heavy loss. Furthermore* trees will typically commence 
to lose limbs at only about 50 mph. Ground conditions play a large 
factor in healthy whole tree loss* but it would be assumed that single 
trees will start to fall at no more than about 60-70 MPH. The point 
being that while the extreme winds of a severe hurricane will commence 
structural damage* trees will start to fall in a minimal system. Once 
a tree brings down a power line* it is a bit academic how many others 
fall on the downed line. Therefore* if power and telephone line loss 
is to be a ranking factor, then Gloria could be considered a strong to 
severe storm. 

Otherwise* whether Gloria lived up to advance billing depends in 
large measure on who prepared the billing. The advance hysteria that 
was promoted by the television media could have been satisfied with 
little less than the end of the world* and in fact the world's survival 
seemed to be a matter of disappointment. E'espite this overkill in 
promotion* it must be emphasised that it was true that the ^.re^ was 
spared considerably greater impact by a few factors that combined to 
reduce the overall storm damage pattern. In some respects this will 
have unfortunate repercussi onse * since with these few factors removed 
in a future storm* Gloria's "cry wolf" may well induce a di sasterous 
indifference in the public when faced with the arrival of a truly 
severe storm. Specifically* Gloria probably can be classified ^s 
a category 1, or marginal 2* on the 5 top end scale. A significant 
storm* but of minor effect compared to a 4 or 5. But* Gloria was a 
category 5 when starting its turn toward Long Island so what were these 
few factors that minimised the total effects7 

There is much to be learned about hurricanes and frequently the 
changes and movements of such storms are not completely understood. 
Therefore* some of these statements will be conjecture. Essentially 
there are four factors felt to have contributed to minimising total 
damage from this storm. 



B-4 

First* it should be understood that a hurricane is essential lv a 
giant heat engine, drawing energy from the warm ocean waters of its 
spawning grounds. Typical lv a water temperature of about SO degrees 
Farenheit or greater is considered essential to maintaining or 
increasing strength. Deprived of this warm water, the eve of the 
storm will tend to spread out, perhaps shifting in the overall storm 
envelope, attempting to relocate over the warm water. As an eve 
becomes moth eaten and expands, the energy di ssapates and the maximum 
winds start to diminish. "Strong" winds expand outward in the over-all 
circulation, but "extreme" winds within 40-60 miles of the eve will 
die off. The Gulf Stream represents the boundary of water sufficient 
for maintaining eye strength, running northeastward off the southeast 
U.S. coast, then turning eastward near 38 North Latitude, east of the 
Chesapeake Bav area. All water in and to the east and south of the 
Gulf Stream would be sufficiently warm. It is for this reason that 
all hurricanes that strike the New York/New England area with severe 
winds must be moving rapidly. It requires a minimum time over the 
cooler water north of 38N-39N to' strike land prior to weakening. Gloria 
followed a path that took the eve into cooler water just south of Cape 
Ha.tter-a.s and then remained over that cooler tongue of cool water, to 
the east of land and west of the Gulf Stream the remainder of its trip 
to a land fall over Long Island. As a result the center of the storm 
began to expand and become ragged in the roughly 12 hours it took to 
run from Cape Hatteras to Long Island. During that time the central 
eye pressure rose from 941 millibars (27.79" Hg) Just south of Hatterai 
to 961 millibars (28. 3S" Hg ) over Long Island, or a weakening of some 
20 millibars in about 12 hours. While there were other factors that 
likely plaved a part in this weakening, it is felt that the critical 
factor was the duration over this cool water. Thus, the fir^t subtle 
reason to spare the northeast; since had the center of the storm run 
northward onlv about 60 miles further east it would have been over- 
Gulf Stream water and Gulf Eddv water all the wav north to 40 Degrees 
North Latitude, or onlv 60-100 miles away from densely populated land, 



Secondly, prior to the arrival of the storms primary circulation 
into the northeast coastal sections, there had been a shallow layer of 
cool and drv air depositited by an old cold front. This shallow laver 
persisted even as the storm plunged toward it. Warm and cool air do 
not like to mix readily, which create the common frontal boundaries. 
The warm air attempts to ride up over entrenched cooler air. It is 
felt that this shallow laver of air over the area from Long Island 
northward into New England tended to loft the stronger, warmer, winds 
to levels Just off the ground. In the attached data sheets there ^.re 
readings from several meteorological towers situated on Long Island an< 
the Connecticut shore. These show the verv strong speed shear that 
existed from the surface to about 500 feet above ground. This can be 
seen in the winds for Blue Hill, Massachusetts to some extent, but it 
should be cautioned that Blue Hill is a monadnock, or singlular pro- 
trusion and thus tends to have stronger winds by compression of air 
over its summit. By comparison Blue Hill recorded over 180 MPH in the 
1938 hurricane. In any event, it's felt that the highest winds that 
were associated with the storm tended to stay just off the surface, 
being felt more over slightlv hillv terrain and in random spots where 
overturning brought narrow "Jets" down to the surface. This helps to 
explain the relatively low sustained winds >i.s compared to peak gusts, 
and the rather random nature of heaviest damage. This can also be 
seen in the extreme wind gusts recorded over Cape Cod, specifically 
the 109 MPH at the Chatham Coast Guard Station, 96 MPH at Falmouth 
(Otis A.F.B.) and also at Nantucket Island where the cool air was 
unable to remain entrenched, even though these locations were some 



B-5 

120-150 miles removed from the center of the storm. Part of the 
reason for this high a wind away from the center can be attributed to 
the expanding eve and perham also to the third factor to be mentioned 
below. As regards this particular item however, it should also be 
remembered that the larger trees will extend 50 to 100 feet off the 
ground level and thus extend into the shear 2 ones. Also, as with any 
tropical cyclone* Gloria arrived with the trees in full leaf such that 
the "sail" effect is maximised. 

A third factor in reducing the overall damas ; e potential is a bit 
less obvious or unknown. Through the last 24 hours or so of the storms 
track northward* reconnaissance aircraft appeared be observing a 
secondary* or concentric* wind maximum. That is* most tropical 
cyclones have their strongest winds quite near the eve wall* then 
tail off rapidly in all directions. Gloria seems to have had a 
secondary "ring" or maximum more than 60 miles away from the eye. 
This may have dissapated the concentrated energy required for extreme 
winds at the eye wall and also helped to push the his'h winds out east 
and west of the center track* helping to account for those observed 
winds over Cape Cod. 



The fourth factor is not debatable* is suite obvious and merely 
a matter of fortuitous timing. Gloria tracked northward more or less 
coinciding with low tide. While severe winds will damage structures 
and beach boats* it is generally true that the ocean storm surge is 
what will be the most devastating factor in the total damage pattern 
of any tropical cyclone. A hurricane builds up an incredible wall of 
water ahead of it* both by piling it up with wind and literally sucking 
it up into its low pressure center. Thus* when it arrives at land fall 
it can bring in a surge of water 20— 30 FT above normal* completely 
destroying many of the coastal structures* bridges, roads* etc. well 
inland from the normal coast line. Thus* while it is the coastal areas 
that would expect to recieve the catastrophic effects of a strong 
hurricane* in the case of Gloria this was largely negated by her 
arrival at low tide* surely preventing an enormous amount of property 
damage and personal injury or death along the shore line from Long 
Island to Cape Cod. 



B-6 

Gloria also had a rather peculiar precipitation pattern. again 
tending to reflect the layer of cool air that it penetrated. The 
cooler air deepened west and north of the coast, as is usually typical* 
and as such the extreme rainfall was mainly confined to eastern Penn- 
sylvania and eastern upstate New York* taper ins off eastward to 
virtually no rainfall over Cape Cod. Even in the cyclonic feeder bands 
that moved into New Ens' land the rain fall was sporodic and while 
briefly heavy. Generally did not amount to much in total fall. What 
factor a heavier rain would have had on tree damage is not known. It 
would have been heavy and occurring more or less simultaneously with 
the high winds, so may not have had the opportunity to loosen up the 
soil sufficiently to greatly enhance tree damage. It may be remembered 
that soil was saturated and rivers over flood stage WELL AHEAD of the 
193'S storm, so that all soil was vulnerable at that time. However, 
it is suspected that a shift eastward in the rain shield would have 
at least certainly contributed to greater tree damage. The same 60 
mile further east track that might have maintained storm strength would 
also have moved the rain shield eastward, with obvious combined impact. 

The conclusions reached in a preliminary study of hurricane Gloria 
suggest that there are perhaps three different facets to be considered 
in assessing damage or severity of any such storm. These would be: 



I 



1/ 



2/ 



3/ 



4/ 



Winds of sufficient strength to bring about extensive tree 
damage, thus causing generally widespread power and telephone 
communication outages. This strength will generally be 
sufficient to damage improperly located or anchored boats. 

Winds of sufficient strength to cause structural damage to 
buildings, bridges, etc. 



Winds and storm surge suffi cent to cause severe damage 
coastal sections in extreme tides. 



to all 



1 s 
wi th 



Perhaps an added category for heavy rain and subs«=tuent 
potential water damage, but it is felt that while some 
hurricanes can give extreme rain fall amounts that the 
"typical" damage pattern associated with hurricanes will 
be more wind/sea water induced. 

With these thoughts in mind, it can be seen that whether a storm 
"severe" depends pretty much on the problem each individual is faced 



As such, we would draw these conclusions: 

Meteor 1 ogi cal 1 y, by the time that Gloria arrived near land 
areas she represented a significant storm, but not 
particularly severe as hurricanes so, certainly equalled and 
exceeded by many others before her. 

Despite #1/ above, Gloria was of sufficient intensity to 

create extensive tree damage, thus from the standpoint of 

any interest in that area (power companies, telephone 

companies, highway maintanence crews, etc.) she was, by 
their criteria, a "severe" storm. 

For structural and coastal concerns, the combination of 
factors that contributed to a substantial diminishing of 
wind and tides prevented a major catastrophe, and would have 
to be regarded by those interests as a "mild" storm. 



*}••»;••. "••*ww. 



B-7 

4/ It is imperitive that it be understood that each hurricane 

is a separate entity in itself* as the peculiaritvs of Gloria 
attest to. In the future the next hurricane to arrive in our 
vicinitv must not be dismissed lishtlv due to the relative 
ineffectiveness of Gloria* since that time the factors may 
cascade positively rather than negatively to brins about a 
truly catastrophic storm event. 



SELECTED 

SEABOARD 



HIGHEST HURRICANE 
(MILES PER HOUR) 



B-8 

GLORIA GUST 



REPORTS ALONG THE EASTERN 



NOTE: 



THE FOLLOWING ARE HIGHEST GUSTS RECORDED AT SPECIFIC POINTS 
INDICATED, GENERALLY AIRPORT LOCATIONS. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY 
UNOFFICIAL REPORTS OF HIGHER GUSTS THAN THESE, MADE ON WHAT 
ARE CONSIDERED TO BE RELIABLE WIND RECORDING INSTRUMENTS, BUT 
FROM "UNOFFICIAL" LOCATIONS. THIS STORM HAD A SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL 
WIND GUST PATTERN, PERHAPS TYPICAL OF DECAYING TROPICAL STORMS 
SPECIFICALLY, THE SUSTAINED WINDS WERE NOT PARTICULARLY HIGH, 
AND THE GUSTS CAME IN BURSTS, ALMOST IN THE FORM OF LOCALIZED 
JETS, SUCH THAT PEAK WIND GUSTS AT ONE LOCATION, OR ALONG ONE 
SPECIFIC LINE, WERE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN A LOCATION OR 
LINE A SHORT DISTANCE AWAY. THE DAMAGE PATTERN TENDED TO 
SUPPORT THIS OBSERVATION. IN GENERAL IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE 
STORM PRODUCED WIND GUSTS IN THE SO- 100 MPH RANGE ALONG THE 
IMMEDIATE COASTAL SECTIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA, VIRGINIA, MARY- 
LAND, DELAWARE AND NEW JERSEY ON NORTHWARD ACROSS LONG ISLAND, 
NEW YORK, MOST OF THE CONNECTICUT COASTAL SECTIONS AND THEN 



MOST OF 
EASTERN 



RHODE ISLAND, EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS AND EXTREME SOUTH- 



NEW HAMPSHIRE. NORTH AND 



GUSTS WERE LIKELY LIMITED TO LESS 



WEST OF 
THAN SO 



THIS AREA THE MAXIMU' 
MPH. REPORTS OF AS 
HIGH AS 125 MPH WERE RECEIVED FROM POINTS IN LONG ISLAND, RHODt 
ISLAND AND EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS. WHILE THESE ARE CONSIDERED 
SOMEWHAT SUSPECT, THE OVERALL WIND ENVELOPE HISTORY OF THIS 
STORM SUGGESTS THEY CANNOT BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED. A FURTHER 
DISCUSSION OF THESE LOCALIZED SEVERE GUSTS WILL BE FOUND IN TH 
TEXT. 



MAXIMUM WIND GUST 



NORTH CAROLINA 



VIRGINIA 



CAPE HATTERAS: 
WILMINGTON: 



87 MPH 
47 MPH 



NORFOLK: 



67 MPH 



MARYLAND 



DELAWARE 



BALTIMORE 



45 MPH 



NO REPORTS AVAILABLE 



PENNSYLVANIA 



NEW JERSEY 



ALLENTOWN: 56 MPH 
PHILADELPHIA: 52 MPH 



ATLANTIC CITY: 69 MPH 
NEWARK: 67 MPH 



NEW YORK 



CONNECTICUT 



ISLIP, L.I. : 84 MPH 

LAGUARDIA ARPT: 64 MPH 

NEW YORK CITY: 52 MPH 

ALBANY: 41 MPH 



BRIDGEPORT: 
HARTFORD: 
NEW HAVEN: 
NEW LONDON: 
WINDSOR LOCKS: 



92 MPH 
82 MPH 
75 MPH 
75 MPHfl 
66 MPH 



B-9 



MASSACHUSETTS 



CHATHAM C.G. : 
BLUE HILL: 
SC ITU ATE C.G. 
NANTUCKET I S.- 
OTIS A.F.B. : 
CHATHAM NOAA: 
BOSTON: 



RHODE ISLAND 



109 MPH 

100 MPH (629 FT MSL ) 

100 MPH 

96 MPH 

96 MPH 

SI MPH 

76 MPH 



SOUTH WEYMOUTH: 71 MPH 



WORCESTER: 



71 MPH 



CAPE COD CANAL: 60 MPH 



CHICOPEE: 
SPRINGFIELD: 
NORTH ADAMS: 



31 MPH 
48 MPH 
45 MPH 



CASTLE HILL: 
PROVIDENCE: 
BLOCK ISLAND: 
WESTERLY: 



SS MPH 
SI MPH 
76 MPH 
75 MPH 



NEW HAMPSHIRE 



MAINE 



MT. WASHINGTON: 127 MPH PORTLAND: 70 MPH 

(6288 FT MSL) 

MANCHESTER: 58 MPH 

CONCORD: 44 MPH 

METEOROLOGICAL TOWER DATA 

BROOKHA VEN, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK 



MAXIMUM GUST 



MA X I MUM SUSTA I NED 



37 FT LEVEL: 
290 FT LEVEL: 



75.9 MPH ©HAM 
100. 1 MPH @11AM 



29. 1 MPH 

58.2 MPH 



NOTE: 290 FT LEVEL FAILED AFTER 1100 EDT. 



MILLSTONE POWER STATION (FOUR MILES WEST OF NEW LONDON, CT) 

AT 142 FOOT LEVEL 

WINDS OUSTED TO 86 MPH BETWEEN 1250 EDT AND 1255 EDT 
PRIOR TO POWER FAILURE AFTER 1255 EDT. 

NGRWALK HARBOR POWER STATION 

ONE HALF HOUR SUSTAINED WIND OF 25.7 METERS PER SECOND 
(APX 59 MPH) BETWEEN 1145 EDT AND 1215 EDT AT THE 
147 FT LEVEL. NO MAXIMUM WIND AVAILABLE. 

SHOREHAM METEOROLOGICAL TOWER (ON NORTH SIDE OF LONG ISLAND, NY) 



MAXIMUM GUST 



MAXIMUM SUSTAINED 



33 FT LEVEL: 



62.0 MPH 12-1 PM 



33.2 MPH 11-12 AM 



150 FT LEVEL: 



69.2 MPH 12-1 PM 



42.0 MPH 12-1 PM 



400 FT LEVEL: 



99.3 MPH 12-1 PM 



70.0 MPH 12-1 PM 



B-10 

TABULATED VORTEX CENTER (EYE) POSITIONS FOR TROPICAL CYCLONE "GLORIA" 

SIGNIFICANT POSITIONS ARE PRIMARILY AIR FORCE AND NOAA RECONNAISSANCE 
AIRCRAFT, SUPPLEMENTED WHEN NECESSARY BY LAND BASED RADAR AND STANDARD 
NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER BULLETINS. 

#*######****#######*#########*#*♦*####*♦### #•**#**#•*# *###-h-##-*** 
ORIGIN OF POSITION: A = AIRCRAFT, R - RADARS B = NHC BULLETIN 

HEADERS: 

TYPE - ORIGIN OF POSITION REPORT 

DATE/TIME - DATE AND EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME OF POSITION REPORT 



LAT/LON - 



LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE OF EYE POSITION? IN DEGREES AND 
MINUTES FOR RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT AND RADAR WITH 
DEGREES AND TENTHS OF DEGREES FOR BULLETIN POSITIONS. 



C.P. - 
MAX WIND - 



CENTRAL PRESSURE OF THE EYE, IN MILLIBARS 

MAXIMUM WIND OBSERVED. (NOTE, THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY 
THE HIGHEST WIND THAT MAY HAVE EXISTED IN THE STORM AT 
THE GIVEN TIME). 



MOVEMENT - DIRECTION STORM IS MOVING TOWARD AND SPEED IN KNOTS. 



- MISSING ENTRY. OMISSION CAN BE EITHER AT ORIGIN OR 
WITHIN WSC DATA STORAGE. 



TYPE DATE/ 
TIME 



LAT/LON 



C. P. 

( MBS ) 



MAX 
WIND 



MOVEMENT 



NOTE: NAMED ATLANTIC TROPICAL DEPRESSION #8 



B/ SEPT 1 7/NOON 



14. 5N/ 29. 5W 



1 COS 



30 



W-12 



NOTE: TROPICAL DEPRESSION #S UPGRADED TO TROPICAL STORM GLORIA 
17/1200 EDT 



B/ SEPT 17/MIDNITE 14. SN/ 32. OW 



35 



W-l 1 



B/ SEPT IS/NOON 



15. 2N/ 38. 7W 



op 



W-20 



B/ SEPT 1S/MIDNITE 15. 3N/ 40. 5W 



Ow< 



W- 1 8 



B/ SEPT 19/N00N 



15. 5N/ 43. 5W 



W-17 



B/ SEPT 19/MIDNITE 17. 5N/ 45. 5W 



WNW- J 5 



SEPT 20/N00N REPORT MISSING 



B/ SEPT 20/1S00 



1S.5N/ 50. 5W 



I 



B/ SEPT 20/M I DN I TE 18.5N/ 51.8W 



35 



A/ SEPT 21 /OS 17 



17 42N/ 54 12W 



QQQ 



±:Z> 



B/ SEPT 21 /NOON 



IS. ON/ 55. 5W 



45 



B-11 



A/ SEPT 21/1303 



A/ SEPT 21/2000 



17 42N/ 55 12W 



17 49N/ 56 25 W 



B/ SEPT 21/MIDNITE 17.8N/ 57. 2W 



A/ SEPT 22/0410 



A/ SEPT 22/0740 



B/ SEPT 22/0900 



17 51 N/ 57 05W 



17 44N/ 58 15W 



17.SN/ 53. 3 W 



1 000 
1000 

997 
991 



65 



50 



65 



NOTE: TROPICAL STORM UPGRADED TO HURRICANE GLORIA AT 
22/0900 EDT 



A/ SEPT 22/0941 



A/ SEPT 22/1115 



B/ SEPT 22/N00N 



A/ SEPT 22/1410 



A/ SEPT 22/1602 



A/ SEPT 22/2001 



A/ SEPT 22/2206 



17 53N/ 53 23W 991 



IS 03N/ 53 2SW 992 



17.9N/ 59. OW 991 



18 25N/ 58 51 W 992 



IS 32N/ 59 13W 



19 03N/ 60 14W 



19 03N/ 60 23W 



B/ SEPT 22/MIDNITE 19. 2N/ 6 LOW 



A/ SEPT 23/0010 

A/ SEPT 23/0204 

A/ SEPT 23/0405 

A/ SEPT 23/0823 

A/ SEPT 23/1035 

B/ SEPT 23/ NOON 

A/ SEPT 23/1323 

A/ SEPT 23/2010 

A/ SEPT 23/2204 



19 13N/ 61 02 W 



19 31N/ 61 16W 



19 52N/ 61 47W 



20 23N/ 62 59W 



20 36N/ 63 26W 



21. ON/ 64. OW 



20 56N/ 64 09W 



21 3SN/ 65 42W 



21 44N/ 66 11W 



B/ SEPT 23/MIDNITE 22. ON/ 66. 5W 



A/ SEPT 24/0103 



21 ^<5N/ 66 43W 



9S9 
992 
991 

991 
990 
933 

988 

988 

Q O O 
s *~* \—* 

993 
978 

986 
952 
952 
952 



70 



65 



30 



70 



A 5 



65 



90 



W-ll 



WNW- 1 1 



WNW-1 1 



WNW- 15 



B/ SEPT 24/NOON 22. 9N/ 69. OW 945 100 WNW- 15 

B/ SEPT 24/MIDNITE 24. 5N/ 70. 5W 919 130 NW-12 

NOTE: LOWEST OBSERVED PRESSURE BY RECON AIRCRAFT WAS 918 MB 



B-12 



B/ -SEPT 25 /NOON 



A/ SEPT 25/1643 



A/ SEPT 25/1910 



A/ SEPT 25/2205 



A/ SEPT 26/0144 



A/ SEPT 26/0449 



A/ SEPT 26/0740 



A/ SEPT 26/1100 



A/ SEPT 26/1235 



A/ SEPT 26/1335 



A/ SEPT 26/1443 



A/ SEPT 26/1553 



A/ SEPT 26/1633 



A/ SEPT 26/1714 



A/ SEPT 26/2017 



A/ SEPT 26/2137 



26. SN/ 72. SW 



9""? 



27 20N/ 73 22W 936 



27 42N/ 73 57W 93* 



23 03N/ 74 26 W 939 



23 33N/ 74 52W 942 



29 07N/ 75 06W 94= 



29 53N/ 75 25W 947 



30.43N/ 75 57W 943 



31 03N/ 76 05 W 



31 22N/ 76 10W 946 



31 42N/ 76 12W 944 



32 01 N/ 76 15W 



32 UN/ 76 14W 



32 23N/ 76 13W 943 



33 13N/ 76 04W 941 



33 43N/ 75 35W 941 



1 30 


NW- 1 3 


125 


NW-13 


— 


— /16.9 


— 


— /12.3 


— 


— /7. 1 


— 


340/1 1.9 


— 


342/13.3 


— 


330/15.9 


— 


342/13.4 


— 


347/19.5 


— 


355/16.5 


— 


353/17.7 


— 


001/15.0 


— 


001/17.6 


— 


003/13.2 


— _ 


013/19.6 



A/ SEPT 26/2253 



34 16N/ 75 51 W 941 



1 00 



A/ SEPT 27/0009 



34 46N/ 75 46W 941 



002/25.6 



SEPT 27/0131 



35 16N/ 75 16W 

EYE PASSES DIRECTLY OVER CAPE HATTERAS WEATHER 
OBSERVATION POINT (35 16N/ 73 16W). PEAK WINDS 
NORTH SIDE OF EYE RECORDED AS 31 MPH; SOUTH SIDE 
AS 82 MPH. LOWEST PRESSURE RECORDED 947.5 MB. 



A/ SEPT 27/0140 



35 26N/ 75 37W 942 



010/26.3 



R/ SEPT 27/0230 



35 37N/ 73 13W 



R/ SEPT 27/0330 



36 02N/ 75 05 W 



A/ SEPT 27/0609 



A/ SEPT 27/0742 



A/ SEPT 27/1012 



37 35N/ 74 53W 943 



33 21 N/ 74 32W 951 



39 33N/ 73 56W 



1 05 



015/29.6 
025/32.7 
020/32. 7 



B/ SEPT 27/N00N 



40. 7N/ 73. 3W 



1 05 



B/ SEPT 27/1400 



41. 9N/ 72. 7W 



B/ SEPT 27/1300 



43. 5N/ 71.5W 



B-13 
NOTE: GLORIA DOWNGRADED TO TROPICAL STORM 27/1800 EDT 

B/ SEPT 27/2200 45. 5N/ 69. 8W 

B/ SEPT 27/MIDNITE 46. 5N/ 69. OW 
B/ SEPT 2S/0600 49. ON/ 66. OW 

NOTE: LAST BULLETIN, STORM BECOMES EXTRA-TROPICAL AS OF 
23/0600 EDT 



( 



B-U 



— - a 



A 



!- -1 



-1- ' 



l->^ 



• II 






— I- 



1-1 D 



-s 




r 



^ 



r 



>'•*"' 





I 

J la! . . . TT 



; .<?r - : wfc ii\ - 



£ * i. 



/ 







V 



k < 5&V*I .^. ■>.' \l * • ' J ■•- •' \ * .'' 5 ' ' 

1 — -r-,r '.r.-.-*?s — • .. ii, ..'-v-'fr-T *' ... \ " t 



-J ?py>r 




k v - i C ' " :»» ~ - -;* • 

• hi 1>1I I •'j-r" •-.•.! «, ■ 



) 



* < 



m Si 



s 



.-rr 



> d 

2 

Lu —J 

2 (.0 



-J 2 
-J O 



z o: 

i — 

2 2 

i~i LU 

CC CJ 

Ll — 



LU 
O 

AC 

X 

UL 

<r 



a: 

<r 

Hi 




B-16 



M.«x- r< """; 



TO 














•*\V» 



• i«v.Ri 






& ROBABLE MAXIMUM WIND GUSTS ( MPH 
ASSOCIATED WITH HURRICANE "GLORIi 
SEPTEMBER 26TH AND 27TH, 1985 






APPENDIX C 



Inventory of Historical Storms in Massachusetts 



i 



C-1 



I 



August 15, 1635 



Water level rose 20' 



February 24, 1722 
January 1, 1778 



Water level rose 15 ' 4 ' 
water 



April 17, 1851 



Water level was 14' 9' 
above mean low water 



> 



April 12-24, 1888 



November 26, 1898 



The water level rose 14' 
"above mean low water 



I 



December 26, 1909 
March 3-4, 1927 



At Barnstable, the 
water rose 5' above 
mean low water 



A hurricane, it was 
described by William 
Bradford as the first 
recorded storm in New 
England. It coincided 
with the perigean spring 
tide. 

The storm was a 
northeaster. 

It was called the "Magee 
Storm" and had the highest 
tide reported in fifty 
years. The storm's rising 
water pushed ice floes 
into the marshes and 
destroyed the marsh hay 
stack structures. 

Called "Minot's Gale", 
it produced extensive 
coastal flooding. In 
Sandwich, the tide waters 
reached the Glass Works. 

The "Blizzard of 88" was a 
northeaster with extremely 
high winds. 

The "Portland Gale" was 
the most destructive storm 
in the history of 
Sandwich. Its 60-80mph 
winds pushed a wall of 
water four feet high over 
the marshes and destroyed 
parts of the dike and 
railroad bed. Main and 
River Streets in Sandwich 
were flooded. The 
passenger ship The 
Portland was lost off the 
coast of Cape Cod. 

The storm was a 
northeaster. 

A perigean spring tide, it 
coincided with onshore 
winds of 21-49 mph. 



A 



C-2 



September, 1938 



The water level rose 5 1 
above mean high water 



December 29, 1939 



April 21, 1940 



The water level rose 
13' 8' above mean high 
water 



Sept. 14-15, 1944 
Nov. 28,30, 1945 



The water level rose 
12' 5' above mean low 
water 



August 31, 1954 



September 11, 1954 



December 29, 1959 



The water level rose 
15 ' above mean low 
tide and in Boston 



This devastating 
hurricane took 187 lives 
and caused record flooding 
throughout New England. 

Gales from a storm center 
at sea produced a tide 
surge which happened to 
coincide with one of the 
highest normal spring 
tides of the year. This 
caused the flooding of 
waterfront streets in 
Boston, a high tide 16' 
above msl in Chelsea and 
beach erosion. 1500 
people were forced to 
leave their homes. 

This storm combined 
31 hours of 30+ mph 
winds with a perigean 
spring tide. 

This hurricane had 
80-104 mph winds. 

This storm, like the 
storm of April 21, 
1940, has sustained 
onshore winds with a 
perigean spring tide. 
There was much damage to 
shorefront property and 
erosion of as much as 15'. 

Hurricane Carol's 100 + 
mph winds caused much 
damage to the south shore. 

Hurricane Edna, closely 
following Carol, had winds 
of 100 + mph and caused 
additional damage to the 
South Shore. 

This storm had gale force 
winds. Tidal flood 
waters engulfed all 
coastal areas, battering 
sea walls and causing 
flooding to within 50 
yards of Main Street in 
Barnstable. 13 houses 
were inundated there. 






C-3 



} 



Sept. 12-13, 1960 



Hurricane Donna 



November 28, 1967 



This storm was another 
example of a perigean 
spring tide coinciding 
with sustained onshore 
winds. 



Feb. 19-20, 1972 



This storm developed in 
New England, moved 
northeastward over Cape 
Cod into the Gulf of 
Maine. Devastation along 
the coast north of 
Plymouth was greatest. 
Coastal flooding in Essex, 
Ma. was reported as being 
the most severe in town 
history. Several coastal 
communities were declared 
disaster areas by the 
President. 



I 



January 8-9, 1978 



This storm occurred on a 
higher than normal tide 
and caused flooding and 
severe coastal erosion. 



February 6-7, 1978 



The "Blizzard of 78" was a 
northeaster with record 
snowfall, flooding and 
erosion. An estimated 
total of 180 million 
dollars of damage in the 
most destructive storm of 
recent times. 



» 



< 



» 



APPENDIX D 



Earthquake History of Massachusetts 



I 



I 



D-1 



> 






i 




» 



By Carl 

Massachusetts was the sixth state 
of the original thirteen to enter the 
Union (1788). However, the region 
was visited by English explorers as 
early as 1602, followed by the 
arrival of the Pilgrims at Plymouth 
in"1620. The early settlers compiled 
the extensive historical accounts that 
are now available. Nineteen earth- 
quakes, intensity V or greater, have 
centered in Massachusetts. A num- 
ber of other earthquakes were cen- 
tered oil the coast of Massachusetts 



Vim Hake 

and aflccted the eastern portion of 
the state. A shock in 1755 reached 
intensity VIII at Boston and was 
felt across the state. In addition, 
Massachusetts was afTccicd by some 
of the more severe Canadian shocks 
plus the earthquake of 1929 that 
centered on Grand Banks of New- 
foundland. A seismic risk zone of 3 
covers the area around Boston as a 
consequence of the 1755 earthquake 
and many other lesser earthquakes 
in the area. Most of the state is 



D-2 



included in zone 2, with the south- 
western portion in zone 1. 

Strong earthquakes in the St. 
Lawrence Valley in 1638, 1661, 
1663, and 1732 were felt in Massa- 
chusetts. The 1638 and 1663 shocks 
damaged chimneys at Plymouth, 
Salem, and Lynn. On June 11, 
1643, Newbury, Mass., was strongly 
shaken. Again in 1727 (November 
9) an earthquake described as "tre- 
mendous" in one report and "vio- 
lent" in another caused much dam- 
age at Newbury. The shock was felt 
from the Kcnnbcc to the Delaware 
River and from ships at sea to the 
extreme western settlements. Several 
strong aftershocks were reported 
from the area through February 
1728. • 

Eastern Massachusetts was shaken 
moderately on February 17, 1737, 
and June 24, 1741. Then on June 
14, 1744, large numbers of bricks 
were shaken from tops of chimneys 
at Boston and other towns and 
stone walls were shaken down. 
Many persons in Newbury and 
Ipswich iwere alarmed. The earth- 
quake was reported felt severely at 
Falmouth, Maine. 

On November 18, 1755, one of 
the most significant earthquakes in 
the northeastern region occurred off 
Cape Ann. At Boston walls and 
chimneys were thrown down and 
stone fences were knocked down 
(intensity VIII, modified Mercalli 



scale). Some descriptions mentioned 
violent movement of the ground, 
like waves of the sea, making it 
necessary to cling to something to 
prevent being thrown to the ground. 
At Pembroke and Scituatc small 
chasms opened in the earth through 
which fine sand reached the surface. 
Large numbers of fish were killed 
and many people on vessels felt 
shocks as if the ships were striking 
bottom. This earthquake was felt 
from Lake George, N.Y., to a point 
at sea 200 miles cast of Cape Ann, 
and from Chesapeake Bay to the 
Annapolis River, Nova Scotia, about 
300,000 square miles. Reports of a 
seismic sea wave reaching the West 
Indies following the earthquake 
appear to be erroneous. A tsunami 
had occurred In the West Indies on 
November 1, 1755, following the 
great Lisbon-earthquake, which ap- 
parently led to a report of its asso- 
ciation with the Cape Ann earth- 
quake. 

Little information is known about 
an earthquake that occurred on 
October 5, 1817. Walls were re- 
ported thrown down at Woburn 
(Vll-Vlll), but additional details 
are lacking. 

Moderate earthquakes in 1847 
(August 8), 1852 (November 27), 
1854 (December 10), 1876 (Sep- 
tember 21), 1880 (May 12), 1903 
(January 21 pnd April 24), 1907 
(October 15), 1925 (January 7 



D-3 



\m\ April 24), 1940 (January 28), 
and 1963 (October 16 and 30), 
were fell over limited areas of east- 
ern Massachusetts. The epicenter of 
the January 7, 1925, shock was of! 
Cupe Ann; the reported felt area 
extended from Providence, Rhode 
Island, to Kcnncbunk, Maine. The 
October 16, 1963, shock, measured 
at magnitude 4.5 on the richter 
scale, caused some plaster to fall at 
Somcrvillc; in addition a wall was 
reported cracked and stones fell 
from a building foundation (inten- 
sity VI). Dishes were broken niul 
many persons were alarmed ut 

73* 72* 



Amcsbury, and a window was 

cracked at Winthrop. The other 

earthquakes did not exceed Inten- 
sity V. 

The residents of Nantucket Island 
were jolted by a moderate earth- 
quake on October 24, 1965. Very 
slight damage, mostly to ornaments, 
was reported. Doors, windows, and 
dishes rattled, and house timbers 
creaked. Since that date, a number 
of slight shocks have been felt in 
Massachusetts from sources outside 
the state, but none of these caused 
any damage. . 



) 




EXPLANATION 
Q Intensity not determined 
Intensity V 
O Intensity VI 
Intensity vii 
jl> Intensity vm 

Zone - No Damage 



Zone 1 - Minor denize: Olstsnt earthquakes moy cause demege to structures 
mm fundamental periods grgater than 1.0 second; corresponds lo 
Intensities V and VI of the M.M* scale. 

___} Zone 2 - Moderate damage; conetponds to intensity VII of the MM' scale. 

"1 

- J Zone 3 - Major damage; corresponds to intensity VIII of the MM.* seal*. 



42' 



< 



< 



I 



APPENDIX E 



Federal Emergency Management Agency Disbursement Summary Report, 

October 1986. 



I 



( 



E-1 



> 



>• 
cj 
z 

Cd 
CJ 

< 



V— I 

o 
< 
z 

< 



>-t 
cj 

2' 
Cd 
O 

PS 

W 

S3 
Cd 

1-3 

< 
OS 

w 
p 

Ed 

fa 



I 



in 
o 
en 



en 



O 
E-t m 
cj so 

< " 

PS sO 

H <r 
Z m 
O •« 
O m 
o 

« * 



>« 

pS 
<! 

33 

s 

P 

co 



m 

en 

A 

m 

CM 

en 



en 



H 
Z 

Cd w 
S H 
en a 



on 

P 
CQ 
CO 



cs 

H 

PS 
O 

fa 
Cd 

as 

CO 
H 
S3 
P 



< 

OS 

Z 

o 
cj 



p 
w 

H 

P 
M 



P 

P z 

fa fa 
Z 

PS PS 

p fa 

H 

Cd O 

PS H 



fa 



P 
Cd 
fa 
P 
O 

o 

Cd 
PS 



P 
Cd 
CJ 
Z 

< 
> 
p 



H 
en 





Cd 
OS 



CJ 
< 
OS 
H 
Z 

o 

CJ 



«3- 




O 




r*» 




vr 




m 


OS 




CO 


r- 


.—I 




O 




VT 




en 




sO 


sO 







en 


CO 




O 




r^ 




sr 




sO 


_ 




as 


r-- 


vO 




O 




in 




CM 




sO 


00 




r-» 


r>- 


CO 




O 




sO 




-tf 




sO 


as 




00 


<r 


en 




O 




CM 




O 




sO 


CM 




O 


r~^ 


CM 




O 




<? 




r^ 




sO 


r^ 




^* 


00 


r» 




CM 




sO 




m 




CO 


CM 




O 


CM 


a 








A 




A 




A 


A 




A 


A 


r^. 








r— « 




O 




CM 


r— 1 




as 


en 


as 




O 




en 




<r 




CO 


O 




as 


en 


en 




O 




CM 




r» 




r>. 


O 




in 


r*« 


»— t 




1— 1 




OS 




p-» 




O 


CO 




•j- 


CM 


>d- 




r*» 




sO 




CM 




O 


r- 




O 


as 


as 




CO 




r-«» 




in 




m 


00 




- 1 


m 


cm 




en 




-<r 




CM 




m 


00 




en 


_ 


CO 




sO 




CM 




CM 




OS 


■«* 




sO 


O 


as 








•—t 




CO 

A 

en 




in 


CM 






as 

A 

in 


m 




O 




<r 




r^ 




as 


as 




as 


en 


r*. 




O 




CM 




as 







sO 




<r 


CM 


sO 








I*- 




CM 




m 


en 




CM 


CO 


CM 








en 




m 




m 


O 




O 


r» 


r^ 








F-H 




as 




1—1 


1— 1 




<T 


-3" 


M 








•1 




ft 




A 


A 




A 


A 


vO 








CM 




vr 




CM 


-3" 




1^* 


r»» 


sO 








CM 




<■ 




m 


CM 




00 


as 


m 








O 




sO 




CM 


O 




CO 


en 


* 








a 




A 






A 




A 


A 


in 








1—1 




CM 

«— 1 






T-* 




sO 

1— 1 


en 







O 




O 




en 




CO 


c 




O 


^^ 


O 




O 




O 




sO 




r^ 







O 


sr 


O 




OS 




_l 




en 




O 






CM 


sO 







CM 




m 




*T 




w -* 






r^ 


O 


CM 




1—1 




r^« 




CTi 











en 


!«* 


A 




a 




A 




A 




A 






A 


i " 


-3- 




sO 




m 




CM 




as 






O 


loo 


r*» 




en 




as 




O 




r— ( 






so 


!CO 


.— < 




1— t 




<r 




— 1 




O 






O 


as 


A 












a 




A 






A 


A 


^ 












CM 




CM 






CM 


as 

CM 


O 




O 









en 




CO 


a 




O 


^ 


O 




O 




O 




sO 




r^ 







O 


-J- 


• 




• 




• 




• 




• 


• 




• 


• 


O 




OS 




»— 1 




en 




O 


sO 




CM 


CM 


O 




CM 




in 




<r 




—1 


«* 




(^ 


in 


CM 




-* 




r>» 




as 




O 


r>- 




en 


■— 1 


<T 




sO 




m 




CM 




as 


^r 




O 


en 


r^ 




en 




os 




O 




<—> 


sO 




sO 


in 


*-* 




t— 1 




■<* 




— 1 







en 




O 


en 


A 












A 




A 


A 




A 


A 


00 — 1 












vT 




CM 


— 




CM 


— 


c 












CM 






— • 






~3" 


•H 


























T3 
















































































.H < 




< 




< 




< 




< 


< 




< 




fa s 




23 




23 




2 




23 


X 




X 




v3 






ea 




















CO 






co 




















6 -t 




— < 


rH 


»h 


CO 


— 1 


C 


— « 


— 


00 


— . 




>-l 


0) 





CU 


O 


(->. 


O 


c 


O 


c 


po 


c 


CO 





eo 




£ 




- 




>> 






■» 




H 


4J 


60 




a 








J 










U 


co 


i-t 
f0 




IM 




-0 

u 




u-i 






U— 1 






< 

OS 


cu 






O 




ea 









CT3 






E- 


>-i in 


a 


r-» 




in 


N 


sO 




O 


— 4 — 


e 


as 


2 


<D cm 


•H 


n 


Pn c 


N 


vr 


^ in 


1-1 m 


M 


in 


r^ 


> en 


X 


en 


4-1 


-3- 


•H 


m 


u 


sO 


O r» 


O 


O 


CJ 


CU 







•H 




■H 




•H 




H 


4-1 


en 




CO 


E-t 




CJ 




CQ 




u 




CJ 


CO 




r» 



< 



APPENDIX F 



A report on the Assessment of Flood Damage Resulting from the Storm of 
6-7 February 1978 Along the Coastline from Orleans, Massachusetts to 
New Castle, New Hampshire. New England Division, Corps of Engineers. 



I 



\ 



< 



F-1 



A REPORT 

ON 

THE ASSESSMENT OF FLOOD DAMAGES 

RESULTING FROM THE STORM 

OF 6-7 FEBRUARY 1978 

ALONG THE COASTLINE 

FROM 

ORLEANS, MASSACHUSETTS TO NEW CASTLE, NEW HAMPSHIRE 



I 



New England Division, Corps of Engineers 
424 Trapelo Road 
Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 



FEBRUARY 1979 



F-2 



IX. Summary of Findings 

In the aftermath of devastating coastal storm of February 6, 7, 
1978 there became apparent that a need existed for an in-depth evalua- 
tion of the storm's effect upon the coastline. As a means of documenting 
these effects the New England Division approached the states of Massa- 
chusetts and New Hampshire with a proposal. The intent was to re-direct 
funds, previously earmarked for water supply studies through Section 22 
authority (Planning Assistance to Sta'tes), into a study to document the 
impact of the storm on the coastal communities of the two states. We 
stressed the importance of gathering and recording data "while the trail 
was still fresh." Both states readily complied with our requests, and 
some $55,000 was committed to this study in July 1978. 

The study consisted of two major work items; the first documented 
costs and losses by community, nature of loss, both direct and indirect; 
and, the second was an aerial photographic effort to acquire low level, 
large scale color imagery of the affected coastal reaches of the com- 
munities which had sustained major damage. 

The "Blizzard of '78", caused nearly $300 million in flood and wind 
damage in the 46 coastal communities from Orleans, Massachusetts to 
New Castle, New Hampshire. This estimate included losses to man-made 
and natural features and incorporates damages to both .public and private 
property. 

Several meteorological and astronomical events combined to produce 
this intense and devastating storm. A warm, moist, low level, low 
pressure system from the mid-Atlantic Ocean combined with an intense, 
high level, very cold, low pressure mass from Canada. The result of 
this match was a storm with a return frequency close to 100 years and 
with storm induced tidal surges in excess of 3.4 feet. 

The damage in the 46 communities included $250 million in Massachu- 
setts and $10 million in New Hampshire with the remaining damage occurrinq 
in other communities outside of the 46 studied or unable to split between 
the two states. Of this damage, almost 80 percent was attributed to 
property loss both private and public; indirect expenses, such as clean- 
up, rescue and shelter costs, contributed to the remainder of the damage. 

Almost half of the total damage occurred in seven Massachusetts 
and two New Hampshire communities. The seven Massachusetts communities 
which were the hardest hit economically were Plymouth, Marshfield, 
Scituate, Hull, Revere, Lynn, and Gloucester; the two New Hampshire 
communities were North Hampton and Hampton. These communities are 
located in areas where the shoreline was perpendicular to the wave 
approach and/or the development was close to the shoreline. In many 
cases, the only protection offered to these developed areas were man- 
made protection devices rather than the natural barrier beaches and sand 
dunes which existed in other areas. 



r 



Appendix G 



780 CMR: State Building Code, Section 744.0. Design Requirements for Flood- 
plains and Coastal High Hazard Areas. 



> 



< 



G-1 



780 CMR: STATE BUILDING CODE COMMISSION 



SECTION 744.0 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOODPLAINS 
AND COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS 

744.1 Designated areas and projects: Plans for all structures and gas 
storage tanks, including new construction and substantial improvements to 
existing structures, and the placement of manufactured buildings and 
mobile homes, shall be subject to review by the building official to deter- 
mine if the location is within any area of special flood hazards as desig- 
nated by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA), through issuance of 
a Flood Hazard Boundary Map or through a scientific and engineering 
report entitled "Flood Insurance Study" with accompanying Flood Insur- 
ance Rate Maps and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps. 

For the purposes of this section only, substantial improvements shall 
be defined as any repairs, reconstruction, or improvements, the cost of 
which exceeds fifty (50) per cent of the market value of the structure 
before repairs or. damages. 

744.2 Structural requirements in floodplains: If a structure is to be 
constructed, or substantially improved within the one hundred (100) year 
floodplain (land subject to a one |1| per cent or greater chance of flood- 
ing in any given year), as determined by the building official, it shall be 
designed and constructed to minimize flood damage. Plans for such 
building shall be submitted and certified by a registered professional 
engineer or architect to insuie that the following requirements are met: 

1. The building is designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to 
prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement. 

2. The building is constructed with materials and utility equipment 
resistant to flood damage. 

3. Residential structures shall have the lowest floor, including base- 
ment or cellar, elevated to or above the one hundred (100) year 
elevation; or in the case of nonresidential structures, be flood- 
proofed watertight to the one hundred (100) year level. 

4. Where floodproofing is allowed for a particular buiiding, it shall be 
designed to be watertight below the one hundred (100) year flood 
level and the floodproofing methods shall be adequate to withstand 
the flood depths, pressures, velocities, impact and uplift forces and 
other factors associated with the one hundred (100) year flood. 

5. All mobile homes be anchored to resist flotation collapse, or lateral 
movement by providing over-the-top and frame ties to ground 
anchors in the following manner: 

a. over-the-top ties be provided at each of the four corners of the 
mobile home; with two (2) additional ties per side at inter- 
mediate locations for mobile homes greater or equal to fifty (501 



G-2 



780 CMR: STATE BUILDING CODE COMMISSION 



feet long, and one (1) additional tie per side for mobile homes 
less than fifty (50) feet long; 

b. frame ties be provided at each corner of the mobile home; with 
five. (5) additional ties per side at immediate points for mobile 
homes greater or equal to fifty (50) feet long, and four (4) 
additional ties per side for mobile homes less than fifty (50) 
feet long; 

c. all components of the anchoring system be capable of carrying a 
force of four thousand eight hundred (4,800) pounds; and 

d. any additions to the mobile home be similarly anchored. 

744.3 Structural requirements in coastal high hazard areas: If a struc- 
ture is to be constructed or substantially improved within a coastal high 
hazard area (land subject to high velocity waters, including hurricane 
wave wash), as determined by the building official, plans for such build- 
ing shall be submitted and certified by a registered professional engineer 
or architect to insure that the following requirements are met: 

1. the structure is elevated on adequately anchored pilings or col- 
umns, and securely anchored to such piles or columns so that the 
lowest portion of the structural members of the lowest floor (ex- 
cluding the pilings or columns) is elevated to or above the one 
hundred (100) year level; 

2. the structure is securely anchored, as provided above, in order to 
withstand velocity waters and hurricane wave wash; 

3. fill is not used for structural support; and 

4. the space below the lowest floor free is of obstructions or con- 
structed with breakaway walls intended to collapse under stress, 
such temporarily enclosed space not to be used for human habita- 
tion. 

744.4 Records: The building official shall obtain (or have the applicant 
provide) and maintain for public inspection a record of: 

1. the elevations, in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor, 
including basement or cellar, and whether or not the building has a 
basement or cellar; 

2. the elevation, in relation to mean sea level, to which a building has' 
been floodproofed; and 

3. the date when such construction commenced.. 



APPENDIX H 



Boundaries of Massachusetts Regional Planning Agencies 



I 



m. 



H-1 



THE COMMONWEALTH OP MASSACHUSETTS 
Regional Planning DutricU 




Bcrkihire Regional Plinninf Commission 

Franklin County Department of Plinninf 

Lower Pioneer Valley Regional Planning Commiaaion 

Monuchuscct Regional Planning Coramuuoo 

Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commiaaion 

Northern Middlesex Area Commiaaion 

Merrimack Valley Regional Planning Commotion 

Metropolitan Area Planning Council 

Old Colony Planning Council 

Southcajtern Regional Planning and Economic Development District 

1. Cape Cod Planning and Development Commiaaion 

2. Martha '< Vineyard Commiaaion 

i. Nantucket Planning and > Economic Development Commiaaioo 



Q»vtm«it of Effvlro<vnf>t* M«n«q— n«nt 



, 



( 



< 



APPENDIX I 



Commonwealth of Massachusetts Natural Hazard Mitigation Questionnaire 



I 



< 



1-1 



Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Natural Hazard Mitigation Questionnaire 



The purpose of this questionnaire is to assist in the review of 
Massachusetts' natural hazard mitigation procedures. This questionnaire 
has been developed pursuant to the Federal-State Disaster Assistance 
Agreement signed by the Governor following hurricane Gloria. 



to: 



Please return this completed questionnaire by Friday, April 4, 1986 



Michael Beshara 
Hazard Mitigation Coordinator 
Division of Water Resources 
100 Cambridge Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 02202 



Please complete; 



Name: 
Title: ] 
Agency: 
Address: 



Telephone: 



Typing is not necessary. For additional comments use the last page. 

I. Pre-disaster Planning 

1. Please circle any natural disasters your agency has been involved 
with: 



Hurricane 

Flood 

Wind 

Ice 

Tornado 

Earthquake 

Fire 

Snow 

Coastal erosion (waves) 

Other: 



1-2 



2. Please list any Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders, Policies or 
special Codes that influence or govern your agencys involvement 
in natural hazard planning. 



3. Does your agency have a disaster response plan that mandates 
procedures which direct divisions, staff, etc? Yes No 

Briefly describe the scope of the plan. 



4. Is the plan written and/or standardized? Yes No 
If written please write down full title and plan date. 



5. Are disaster preparedness procedures actively referred to in 
agency meetings, memos, etc? Yes No 



Briefly explain content. 



6. Are the policies/activities of the plan carried out? 

Yes No 

If no, explain, i.e. no funding, low priority, unreasonable 
expectations. 



-2- 



1-3 



Is the plan or are the mandated procedures, thorough? Do they 
effectively, address disaster needs? Yes No 

Discuss improvements needed. 



8. Does your agency own buildings or improved properties in a flood 
zone? Yes No 

If yes, which of the following precautionary measures are 
implemented? (circle letters) 

a. turning off utilities 

b. closing gas or water valves 

c. moving valuable equipment/records to higher elevations 

d. boarding up windows 

e. leaving basement windows & doors open to prevent pressure 
buildup 

f. relocating vehicles 

g. establishing a 24 hour maintenance staff presence at 
property 

h. additional measures 

9. Does your agency construct /fund any structures in flood zones or 
guarantee loans or grants for construction in flood zones? 

Yes No 

If yes, list considerations used when building is in a flood 
zone. 



10. Are practice drills conducted? Yes No 



1-4 



II. Responding to the Natural Disaster Emergency 

1. As a natural disaster emergency develops, what communications 

systems (i.e. phone, portable radios, vehicles with radios, etc) 
does your agency have available? List. 



' 



2. What other organizations or levels of government does your agency 
coordinate or communicate with relative to natural disaster 
management? 

Please list agency & activity involved. 



3. Briefly describe any problems in coordination between federal, 
state, regional and local levels. 



4. List damage to property (structures, contents, machinery, 
vehicles, etc.) which could occur at agency's vulnerable 
properties. 



5. Briefly describe those duties your agency could no longer perform 
in the event of a disaster emergency? 
What are the consequences of the agency not functioning? 



6. Approximately how many commonwealth employees would be prevented 
from performing their jobs in the event of a disaster emergency? 



-4- 






1-5 



7. Based on lessons learned from past disasters (1978 Blizzard, 1985 
Gloria) list specific examples of steps your agency could take to 
better prepare for and manage those hazards. 



III. Post Disaster Emergency Follow-up 

1. If your agency has been impacted by a disaster hazard in the last 
15 years was any report or documentation prepared summarizing 
damages? Is it available for reference? 



2. Does your agency have funds available for f loodproof ing? 

Yes No 

3. Is your agency currently working on a disaster/hazard mitigation 
plan? Yes No 

Anticipated date of completion 

IV. Recommendations 



Use the remaining space to include general observations/problems 
which were not addressed in the questionnaire. A list of problem areas is 
suggested. 

a. preparedness planning: 

b. public notification/municipal outreach: 

c. dam safety: 

d. roads and bridges: 

e. channels and culverts: 

f. erosion control: 



-5- 



1-6 

g. flood plain zoning: 

h. public utilities: 

i. temporary housing/emergency shelters: 

j. medical, food and water supplies, and emergency equipment: 

k. insurance claims: 

1. debris removal: 

m. revegetation of disturbed areas: 

n. flood-proofing existing structures: 

o. early warning system: 

p. training of emergency personnel: 

q. practice drills: 

r. availability of information: 

s. coordination 

t. communication: 



-6- 



1-7 



u. funding: 



v. emergency operation centers: 



w. acquisition of flood hazard areas 



x. rescue efforts/evacuation: 



y. operation of flood control structures: 



z. other, please specify: 



-7- 



I 






■i 



APPENDIX J 



Cover Letter for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Natural Hazards 

Mitigation Questionnaire 



) 



J-1 




(awb 



*JAe {oowiTnc'riwecilt/i ol \AlctMcLcfiuAelfo 

(oxeccctcve (Uucce o£ (onvwonmentczC £$ffaw 
cStefon, zyfla6!>ac&utetk 02202 



MICHAEL S. DUKAKIS 
Governor 

JAMES S. HOYTE 
Secretary 



March 11, 1986 



Dear Colleague: 

On September 27, 1985, Hurricane Gloria swept through the New England 
Region. In Massachusetts, high winds toppled trees and downed power lines. 
Flooding occurred in several areas and the coast was battered by large waves. 
As a result of these damages a Presidential Declaration of Disaster was issued 
on October 28, 1985. On November 1, 1985, Governor Dukakis signed a 
FEMA-State Disaster Assistance Agreement which triggered the release of 
federal dollars to the Commonwealth. Section 10 of the Agreement states 
that the Commonwealth will prepare a Hazard Mitigation Plan. The purpose 
of this plan is to identify and evaluate existing hazard mitigation measures 
which are in place for Federal, State and Local governments within Massachusetts. 
The goal of the plan is to present recommendations that will improve the efforts 
of these governmental body's to reduce and /or eliminate future damages that 
result from natural disasters. 

In order for this effort to be comprehensive, I request that you take 
a few minutes to fill out the enclosed questionnaire. As you do this, please 
keep in mind any experiences you have had that might relate to any type 
of natural disaster that has occurred in Massachusetts such as; hurricanes, 
the Blizzard of 1978, fires, floods, etc. Please return the questionnaire 
within two weeks so that we can compile the information in a timely fashion. 

Sincerely, 




Michael L. Beshara 
Hazard Mitigation Officer 



MLB/JB:sla 
Enclosure 






\