[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
REDUCING FLOOD DAMAGE POTENTIAL AT OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND Preliminary Draft July 1983 COASTAL ZOIJE E INFORMATION UINTER HD 1676 R-44' 1983 PREFACE This study is sponsored by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, Tidewater Administration. The work is being performed by IEP, Inc. of Wayland, Massachusetts, L.R. Johnston Associates of Westport, Connecticut, and Dr. Stephen Leatherman of the University of Maryland, in cooperation with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources', other relevant state agencies, Worcester County Commissioners, the Mayor, City Council, and City Manager's office of the Town of Ocean City and other organizations and individuals. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Overview and Purpose 1 Use of the Report 3 Relationship to Other Projects 4 FLOOD HAZARD VULNERABILITY 6 Understanding Barrier Beaches 7 Ocean City: An Urbanized Barrier Island 9 Hazard Prone Areas 13 HAZARD PRONE AREAS 42 Protecting the Land 44 Protecting Property 47 Protecting People 55 Conclusions 59 BEFORE THE STORM: REDUCING DAMAGE POTENTIAL 60 Erosion and Flood Control 61 Comparison with Other Coastal States and Communities 73 Conclusions and Recommendations 77 AFTER THE STORM: GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT 81 Actions to Take Before the Storm 83 Damage Assessment Procedures 87 Permitting Recovery and Reconstruction 90 APPENDICES A: Maps B: Local, State and Federal Programs (not included in this draft) C: Technical Data 1. Seas Level Rise Data (not included in this draft) 2. Historical Shoreline Changes LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2B-1. Northward Progression of Development Between 1902 and 1920. 10 Figure 2Q-7 Shoreline Changes Between 1929 and 1980. 17 Figure 2C-2 Distance and Elevation Measurements within the Area BQtween Mean High Water and the Building Limit Line (1981) 18 Figure 2C-3 New Profile Between Mean High Water and the Building Limit Line 20 Figure 2C-4 Oceanfront Developed Areas Isolated from Wave Damage during the 10-year, 50-year, and 100- year Storm Events 25 Figure 2C-5 Location and Length of Existing Seawalls 28 Figure 2C-6 Approximate Extent of Sand Deposited by'Overwash Processes during the March 1962 Event 31 Figure 2C-7 Qualitative Comparison Between March 1962 Storm Overwash and 1983 FIRM 33 Figure 2C-8 Aerial View of 71st Street Following March, 1962 Storm 34 Figure 2C-9 Locations of Inlets Cut Across Fenwick Island and Assateague Islands During Major Past Storms 39 Figure 3C-1 Estimated Average Daily Resident and Transient Population 56 Figure 4B-1 Priority Areas for Flood and Erosion Control 66 Figure 5A-1 Sequence of Local Activities in Assessing Damages and Permitting Reconstruction 85 1-11,")'17 OF TABLES Tah.te @C-l Contour Shif'ts (1929-1961@) 14 Table 2C-2 Inventory of Existing Groins 21 Table 2C-3 Comparison of the 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year Ocean Storm Elevations (NGVD in feet) 24 Table 2C-4 Summary of the Estimated 10-year, 50-year and 100-year Ocean Storm Elevations (MHW in feet) 24 Table 2C-5 Comparison of the Estimated 10-year, 50-year and 100-year Bay Storm Elevations (NGVD in feet) Predicted by the Corps of Engineers and .Flood Insurance Study Data 38 Table 4A-1 Summary of Basic Design Characteristics for the Four Current Beach and Storm Protection Plans in Ocean City, Maryland 63 INTRODUCTION wo @". MR, 4L VON INMODUCTION Overview and Purpose The Town of Ocean City, Maryland is located on a coas"tal barrier that stretches along the Atlantic coasts of Delaware and Maryland. Ocean City occupies all of the coastal barrier within Maryland -- from the Delaware line to Ocean City Inlet, which separates Ocean City from Assateague Island. Ocean City has been a resort community since the 1800's, and during the last 15 to 20 years has undergone explosive growth. Although the permanent population of Ocean City is still less than 6,000, the transient population is now estimated to exceed 250,000 on peak summer weekends. To accomodate this large number of visitors, Ocean City has been extensively developed with individual homes, commercial businesses, motels, mobile homes, and high-rise motels and condominiums. As part of a growing national awareness of the storm and flood hazards to which coastal communities are subject, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources has expressed increasing concern over the safety of the residents, visitors and property in Ocean City. It also recognized that Ocean City is already highly developed with a tremendous economic investment in new real estate, that there are only limited opportunities for reducing the flood loss potential of this existing. development, and that Ocean City wi 11 continue to receive strong pressures for continued development and redevelopment because of its established position as a major east coast resort and its proximity to the major metropolitian areas of Washington, D. C. and Baltimore, Maryland. To address these issues the Department of Natural Resources decided to sponsor a study that would evaluate the overall storm and flood hazard potential at Ocean City, and develop recommendations for actions that could be taken by the State, Worcester County -2- and Ocean City to reduce the f lood loss potential in the Ocean City area. The emphasis of the study would be on what should be done to prepare for recovery and redevelopment following a major natural disaster. In addition, the study was to examine the effectiveness of the several beach protection plans recently proposed for Ocean City and how those plans relate to other flood loss reduction measures. Specific objectives of the study and the general approach to identifying additional hazard mitigation measures are described within the following five tasks: I. Identify areas of greatest risk, areas likely to suffer heavy damage, areas of potential breaching and portions of the island that may be isolated due to major storm flooding and erosional processes; 2. Analyze four storm and beach protection alternatives regarding their effectiveness as beach protection and hazard mitigation measures, their costs and benefits and the implications of their implementation on other proposed hazard mitigation measures; 3. Identify approaches and criteria for flood hazard mitigation that have been used or considered in other areas that may also be applicable to the Ocean City area; 4. Determine what modifications may be appropriate to existing codes, ordinances, legislation, plans, programs and other land use controls; and 5 Develop performance criteria that can be used by the state, county, and city in guiding relocation/redevelopment decisions and actions after a major storm has occur-red. -3- Use of the Report The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this Preliminary Draft are conditional and subject to modification based on additional research to be performed and comments to be received during and following the public presentation of the Prelim- inary Draft. The final report will also be significantly expanded in several areas: (1) more information will be presented concerning potential flood impacts and hazard reduction measures for the shoreline areas of Worcester County along Assawoman and Isle of Wight Bays; (2) site-specific information concerning hazard mitigation actions will be discussed in more detail; (3) building codes will be reviewed and discussed in greater detail. Information regarding warning and evacuation plans for Ocean City will not be significantly expanded since that effort is outside the scope of this study. This Preliminary Draft provides an opportunity for substantative review and comment by public officials and private interests who wish to have an input into the final conclusions and recommendations. While the overall relationship between hazard analysis and mitigation opportunities have been established in this Preliminary Draft, additional input from the public is needed before more specific actions are recommended. To aid the reader in reviewing th e draft and making comments, a wide right-hand margin has been provided. The final findings, conclusions, and recommendations. of this report will provide the state, county and city with information they may use (1) to modify their existing regulations and programs in order to reduce the,potential for flood losses during the next major storm, (2) to modify existing or adopt new regulations, programs and procedures that can be implemented following the next major storm to guide recovery and redevelopment efforts so that the resulting development will be less susceptible to storm and flood damages than is current development, and (3) as input to subsequent, related projects that will build on this study. Relationship to Other Projects The scope of this present study is not intended to address all of the flood hazard mitigation needs of the Ocean City area. Information is also needed to guide emergency management activities immediately before, during and after a major storm. Questions regarding the ability to evacuate Ocean City under different con- ditions, the determination of the probability of a hurricane or northeaster actually hitting the area, and other issues that could not be fully resolved as a result of the limited time and scope' of this study also need to be addressed. Subsequent to this study, the Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Administration is proposing to undertake a compre- hensive Flood Hazard Mmanagement Study to provide the information needed to address these questions. The Flood Hazard Management Study will utilize and,build upon the results of this present study to provide the followi ng products; a) An assessment of the applicability of various flood hazard mitigation techniques to the Ocean City area, including an assessment of their costs, hydrologic impacts, and environmental, social, and economic implications. b) Identification of management alternatives consisting of combinations of the mitigation techniques analyzed that can be used to mitigate flood hazards in the Ocean City area and an optimum schedule for their implementation. These products will be used by Ocean City and Worcester County to develop flood management plans which will identify the management alternatives selected by them as most appropriate. Once the Flood Management Plan has been approved by the Water Resources Administration and adopted by the local governments, financial assistance may be available from the state to implement plan components on-a cost-sharing basis. The Flood Management Plan will be coordinated with acti.vities of the State Office of Civil. Defense and Emergency Preparedness which assists local governments in developing emergency preparedness plans and standard operating procedures to guide actions taken at the local level during a major storm event. 1902 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES H.B. NO, H.D. I FIFTEENTH LEGISLATURE, 1989 S.D. I. STATE OF HAWAII C.D. I A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII: 1 SECTION 1. Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended 2 by adding two new sections to be appropriatelv designated and to 3 read as follows: 4 "S205A- Powers and duties of the authority. (a) Prior to 5 action on a variance application, the authority shall hold a 6 public hearina under chapter 91. Bv adoption of rules under 7 chapter9l, the authorty mav delecate responsibilitv to the 8 department. Public and privae notice, including reasonable 9 notice to abutting propertv owners and persons who have requested 10this notice, shall be provided, but a public hearing mav be 11waived prior to action on a variance application for: 12 Stabilization of shoreline erosion bv the moving of sand 13 entirelv on public lands; 14 (2) Protection of a lecal structure costing more than 15 $20,000; pvrovided the structure is at risk of immediate 16 damaae from shoreline erosion; 17 (3) Other structures or activities; provided that no person 18 or agency has recquested a public hearing within twenty- 19' five calendar days after public notice of the 20 application; or HB1902 CDl Page 2 1902 H.B. NO. H.D. I S.D. C.D. 1 1 (4) Maintenance, repair, reconstruction and minor 2 additions or aLterations of legal boating, maritime, or 3 watersports recreational facilities, which result in 4 little or no interference with natural shoreline 5 processes. 6 (b) The authoritv shall either act on variance applications 7 or, bv adoption of rules under chapter 91, deleate the responsibilitv to the department. 9 S205A- Enforcement of shoreline setbacks. (a) The 10department or an agency designated by department rules shall Ilenforce this part and ruLes adopted pursuant to this part. Anv l2structure or activity prohibited by sectio- 205A-44, that has not l3received a variance pursuant- to this part or comviied wash 14conditions or. a variance, shall be removed or corrected. No 15other State or county permit or approval shall be construed as a l6variance pursuant to this part. 17 (b) Where the shoreline is affected bv a man made structure 18that has not been authorized with government acencv permits l9recruired by law, if anv part of the structure is on private 20 property, then for purposes of enforcement of this part, the 2structure shall be construed to be entirelv within the shoreline 22area. 23 (c) The authority of the board-of land and natural 24resources to determine the shoreline and enforce rules 25established under section 183-41 shall not be diminished by a HB1902 CD1 Page 3 1902 H.B, NO H.D I S. D. I 1man-made structure in vioclation of this part." 2 SECTION 2. Section 205A-41, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is 3 amended by adding two new definitions to be appropriately 4 inserted and to read as follows: 5 ""Board approval " means apporoval bv the board -of land and 6 natural resources Dursuant to section 183-41. 7 "Structure" includes, but is not liMited to, any portion of 8 anv building, pavement, road, pipe, flume, utility line, fence, 9 groin, wall, or revetment. " 10 SECTION 3. Section 171-58.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is 11amended to read as follows: 12 ",[]�171-58.5[]] Prohibitions. The mining or taking of 13 sand, dead coral or coral rubble, rocks, soil, or other marine 14deposits seaward from the shoreline is' prohibited with the 15following exceptions: 16 (1) The taking from seaward of the shoreline of such 17 materials, not in excess of one callon per person per 18 day for reasonable, personal, noncommercial use; 19 (2) For the replenishment or protection of public shoreline 20 areas and adjacent public lands seaward of the shoreline 21 [area), or construction or maintenance of State approved 22 lagoons, harbors, launching ramps or navigational 23 channels with a permit authorized under section 183-41[, HB1902 CD1 -9- OCEAN CITY: AN URBANIZED BARRIER ISLAND Growth and Development Northward progression of commercial and residential development from the south end of Fenwick Island to the Delaware state line has occurred since 1872 (see Figure 2B-1). Since that time, the small resort community of Sinepuxent Beach has evolved into the major east coast recreational center of Ocean City, Maryland. In 1878 the railroad provided the first established means of transportation to Fenvick Island (Truitt and Les Calette, 1964). Today almost all transportation is by automobile. The opening of the Cheaspeake Bay Bridge in 1952 connecting Sany Point (on the Maryland western shore) with Kent Island (on the Maryland eastern shore) was probably the most significant factor affecting Ocean City's growth (Dolan et.al., 1980). This bridge reduced the travel time to Ocean City from Baltimore and Washington, D.C. to 2.5 hours. Three highways provide for easy access to Ocean City: U.S. Route 50 and Maryland Route 90 cross east to west over Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays and the Coastal Highway (Maryland Route 528) extends north into Delaware. Other infrastructure which has promoted growth and development of Ocean City include water and sewer facilities. The Manokin Aquifer -- 33 feet thick and at a depth of 372 feet -- is the source of groundwater for Ocean City and other towns in the area (Corps, 1980). However, the groundwater supply is limited and the growing summertime demand for water could result in salt water intrusion or require additional sources to be located. When Ocean City began its rapid growth in the late 1960's, sewerage facilities became necessary, and the Ocean City Treatment Facility was completed in 1968 to provide primary treatment.for four million gallons per day. After expansions o,f the facility, a capacity of 12.4 million gallons per day with secondary treatment has been - ---------- 1901 1948 1955 1962 1972 Figure 213-1. Northward progression of development between 1902 and 1970. (Source: DoZan et.a'l.,1980). provided since 1981. A North Ocean City Interceptor Sewage Pipeline is currently under construction which will provide capacity to accomodate additional growth in this part of the City. The close proximity of Ocean City to major metropolitian areas, the excellent access to the City, and the availability of adequate water and sewerage facilities have resulted in the rapid growth of Ocean City as a tourist resort. Although the permanent population was estimated in 1982 to be only about 5,700, over 250,000 people are estimated to be in the City during peak summer weekends. Mid-1970 statistics show the existence of 26,663 housing units of which over 75% were hotels, apartments and condominiums. This large concentration of people and property occupies a coastal barrier, and they are vulnerable to the impacts of coastal storms and floods. The development also has an affect on the natural protective features provided by the barrier. The Fenvick Islaud System The barrier island which Ocean City occupies provides a storm damage prevention and f lood control function which affects other barrier and mainland environments. The point of attachment for Fenwick Island lies within the state of Delaware to the no rth. During parts of the year, the southern coast of Delaware is affected by longshore sediment being transported north from Fenwick Island. To the south, the island terminates at the Ocean City Inlet, which separates it from Assateague Island. The obvious relationship betweed these two islands has been well documented (Leatherman., 1979) and is briefly described later in this report. The mainland of Worcester County directly west of Fenwick Island, and separated from the island by Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays, greatly b,enefits from the natural functions of the barrier island: bay tidal ranges are reduced, fetch distances are limited and the topography of Fenwick Island., although quite low, absorbs Page 7 H.B, NO, H.Dl S.D 1 C.D, 1 1 (b) The objectives and policies of this chapter and any 2 guidelnies enacted by the legislature shall be binding upon 3 actions within the coastal zone management area by all 4 agencies[.), within the scope of their authority." 5 SECTION 7. Section 205A-5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is 6 amended to read as follows: 7 "�20.5A-5 Compliance. All agencies shall amend) ensure that 8 their [regulations, as may be necessary, to) rules comply with 9 the objectives and policies of this chapter and any guidelines 10 enacted by the legislature. " 11 SECTION 8. Section 205A-29, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is 12 amended to read as follows: 13 "�205A-29 Special management area use permit procedure. (a) 14 The authority in each county, upon consultation with the central 15coordinating agency, shall [establish and may amend pursuant to 16 chapter 91, by rule or regulation', adopt rules under chapter 91 17setting the special management area use permlt- application 18 procedures, conditions under which hearings must be held, and the 19 time periods within which the hearing and action for special 20management area use permits shall occur. The authority shall 21 p rovide for adequate notice to individuals whose property rights 22may be adversely affected and to persons who have requested in 23writing to be notified of special management area use permit 24hearings or applications. The authority shall also provide HB1902 CDI -13- HAZAR PROBE ARRAS Hazard planning for barrier island resorts such as Ocean City, Maryland often fails to fully recognize the natural geologic and geomorphic processes that influence the built environment and island users. To summarize and assess the available data for Fenwick'Island, five subenvironments were selected on the basis of their geomorphic characteristics and hazard vulnerability: (1) offshore zone; (2) nearshore zone; (3) coastal high hazard, zone; (4) 100-year floodplain; And (5) Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays. The compilation of data and information will provide a characterization of existing hazard prone areas, serve. as a basis for evaluating existing erosion and flood control plans and indicate what additional information is needed to maintain and improve knowledge about Fenwick Island's flood hazard vulnerability. The primary cause of coastal floods for the Ocean City area is@the occurrence of hurricanes and northeasters. Both storm types generate winds and waves acorss the Atlantic Ocean that impact the shoreline and inland areas. Hurricanes have very high winds (74 mph or greater) and can generate large waves capable of massive destruction. They approach and pass through an area rapidly, usually affecting a relatively small portion of a shoreline. Their duration is usually one tidal cycle (less than 12 hours) and wave approach is from the southeast. The period of greatest hurricane threat extends from August through October. In contrastj northeasters are characterized by lower wind speeds and smaller wave heights, but they reside offshore for extended periods of time (up to three days or six tidal cycles) and affect a wider geographic area. Northeasters normally occur during the winter months. Offshore Zone The area between -20 and -30 feet mean high water (MHW) is the point at which most storm waves begin the breaking process Page 9 H, B, NO, 1902, I H.D.1 S.D. 1 C.D. I 1for a civil fine not to exceed [$500) $1,000 a day for each day 2 in which such viol,ation persists. 3 (c) Anv civiL fine provided under this section may be 4imposed by the circuit court or may be imposed by the department 5after an opportunity for a hearing under chapter 91. imposition 6of a civil fine shall not be a Prereauisite to any civil fine or 7 other injunctive relief ordered by the circuit court." 8 SECTION 10. Section 205A-41, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is 9amended by amending the definition of "shoreline area" to read: 10 "'Shoreline area" [means] shall include all of the land area 11 between the shoreline and the shoreline setback line[.) and may 121nclude the area between mean sea level and the shoreline." 13 SECTION 11 .Section 205A-43, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is 14amended to read as follows: 15 5205A-4 3 Establishment of shoreline setbacks and duties 16 and powers of the department. (a) Setbacks along shorelines are 17established of not less than twenty feet and not more than forty 18feet inland from the shoreline. The department shall adopt rules 19 [within a period of one year after June 22, 1970,) pursuant to 20chapter 91, and shall enforce the shoreline setbacks and rules 21 pertaining thereto. 22 (b) The powers and duties of the department shall include, 23but not be limited to: HB1902 CD1 Poge 10 H,B- NO, 1902 H.D I S.D. I C.D. I I (I) The department shall adopot rules under chapter 91 2 prescribing procedures for deterMininc the shoreline 3 setbackline; and 4 (2 The department shall review the clans of all applicants 5 who propose anv structure, activitv, or facility that 6 would be prohibited without a variance pursuant to this 7 part. The department mav require that the plans be 8 supplemented by accuratlv manned data and photographs 9 showing natural conditions and topography relating to ures and actvities." 10 all existing and proposed struct 11 SECTION 12. Section 205A-44, Hawaii Revised Statutes, iS 12amended to read as follows: 13 "�205A-44 Prohibitions. (a) The minIng or taking of sand, 14 dead coral or coral rubble, rocks, soil, or other beach or marine 15deposits from the shoreline area is prohibited with the following 16 exceptions: 17 (1) The taking from the shoreline area of [such) the 18 materials, not in excess of one gallon per person per 19 day, for reasonable, personal, noncommercial use, 20 provided that stricter provisions may be established by 21 the counties; 22 (2) Where the mining or taking [of sand by the State or 23 county is for the replenishment of sand in the shoreline 24 area, provided that for the purpose of this paragraph an HB1902 CD1 (Leatherman, 1983). For Ocean City, a computerized procedure was developed by which transects were drawn across the barrier at- predetermined distances along the island and shoreline changes between certain time periods for these locations determined. Forty-two transects 1000 feet apart were used to determine shoreline changes from periods 1850-1980; 1850-1908; 1908-1929; 1929-1980; 1929-1942; 1942-1962; and 1962-1980. Figure 2C-1 represents the shoreline cha nges between 1929 and 1980, the longest period of record for all stations. From 21st Street (Station 37) north, the shoreline has been eroding at an average rate of 2.7 feet per year. From 21st,Street south to the Inlet, the shoreline has been accreting at an average rate of 7.0 feet per year. Mean High Water (MHW) datum has been used extensively in past studies of shoreline movements in Ocean City (Trident Report, 1979). Most efforts to better understand beach changes are concen- trated seaward of MHW and little analysis has been done immedi iately landward of MHW. Nevertheless, the area between MHW and existing development is an important indicator of hazard vulnerability. Using a 1981 photogrammetric survey of the Beach Erosion Control District, linear measurements between MHW and the Building Limit Line (BLL) were taken at 150 street locations from Ocean City Inlet to the Mary land-De laware line and plotted (see Figure 2C-2). The average distance from MHW to the BLL is 135 feet;. the average height above MHW at the BLL is 9.7 feet (11.9 feetNGVD); and the average slope is 7.2% or 1:14. A trend north of approximately 50th Street seems to indicate an equilibrium slope has been estab- lished. Note that where the distance is large, the elevation is high, and conversely, when the distance is small, the elevation is low. The least amount of erosion and flood control protection, as a function of beach width and height, exists between 73rd and 91st Streets, and between 119th and 132nd Streets, approximately. SHORELINE CHANGES AT OCEAN CITY* MARYLAND 1929 1989 C H A G E p --------- E R -10 y E A R F -30 E E T -40 40 45 S 10 is 20 25 30 3S 50 SS 60 6S 70 Tff STATION Figure 2C-1. Shoreline Change Between 1929 and 1980. Note: The station numbers begin at the Maryland-Delaware line and end on Assateaque Island. 20- 0 .1 z z 210- WO -0- M z 10th 20th 30th 40th 50th 60th 70th 80th 90th 100th 110th 120th 130th 140th W W 00 to cc -i W W U 2 = 0 0 CO 2@ 100- 3. x 200 J A a LC 300 a Figure 2C-2. Distance ard Elevation Measurements within the Area to Between '.'ean High Water and the Bu@!ding Limit Line (1981). 400- 600 800- 1000- -1 Q- The greatest protection ex ists between 50th and 60the Streets and between 92nd and 118th Streets, approximately. South of 7th Street, where beach widths are greater than 200 feet because of updrift accretion at the North Jetty, development is protected to the largest degree. The existing average beach profile from MHW to BLL is lower than what is currently represented in other work. Figure 2C-3 shows the recommended plan for beach and dune restoration proposed by the Corps of Engineers referenced to an existing profile. The new profile for the upper beach has been located on this Figure 2C-3. Extension of the profile lower than mean low water (MLW) is not represented. The effect of a lower profile means a landward shift of the 100-year tide line and increased hazard vulnerability. It also indicates a revision is needed for the Corps Plan and the amount of beach and dune fill required. The Corps Plan is discussed later in the report. Using the average elevation of the beach at the Building Limit Line of 9.7 feet MHW and assuming four feet of erosion would occur during a storm (as assumed during the most recent Flood Insurance Study), the resultant 5.3 foot elevation would be exposed to waves during a very minor event. Using the Corps of Engineers storm frequency distribution curve (COE, 1981; Figure D-16), the current level of beach protection afforded by an average number of shoreline areas in Ocean City is the 2-year frequency storm event. Given the possibility of error at the lowest end of the distribution curve, it would be more accurate to state that less than 5-year storm protection exists. Development in the nearshore zone is limited to coastal engineering structures, including the North Jetty, a timber pi le pier and 52 timber and stone groins (Table 2C-2). The impact of the North Jetty is obvious. Approximately 150,000 cu.yds. of sand have been trapped and have covered 11 groins. rendering them ineffective. SEC OC 19 Typical Cross Section 20 25' Width Plan 3 ,4 200' Beach 4E 10 00 Year Tide (EI +8.7' NGVD) MHW > 0 z Building Limit Line New Beach Fill C, -10 Existing Profile New Profile -20 - I 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Distance (ft) Figure 2C-3. New Profile Between Mean High Water and the Building Limit Line. Table 2C-2. Inventory of Existing Groins. Yea, 2 Exposed 3 Groin 4 Year Exposed Groin Location C-ol_ete@' TYD12 Length Work Soac@j '_o-jiti.n ___2jPe L@rqth _,ork Set- S. Di@isiQn -d S. 1,t 't-ts 1922-14 0 26ti, Street 1951 T 120- Worcester Street 1922-24 0 29tn Street 1973 s 170- ORR So" rseE Street i931 0 31st Street 1975 T 140- ORR Talbot Street 1928 0 re0s,on 1978 ORR N. Di,isiian Street 1931 0 34tm Street 1979 1 240 ORR .4. lst Street 193G 0 41st Street S 220 2nd Street 1931 0 47th Street 5 200 Between 3rd and 4th Streets 1932 0 Sist Street 1975 T 20 ONR 58tn Stree t 1978 T 100. DNo Between 4th and 5th Streets 1931 0 Betw-n Sth and Stri Streets 1932 0 60th Street 5 lzo. Between 6th ino ;th Streets 1932 0 list Street 1975 TIS too. ORR Sth Street 1932 T 20- 400- 73rd Street 1961 1 180 9th Street 1934 T 30- 400- Between 74th and 75th Streets 1961 T "I Bet.een 10th and Ilth Street, 1934 T 70. .500- 76th Street 1961 T 130- 1938 T/S too. - 12th Street 370- 77th Street 1974 T/S ISO ORR 13th Street 1962 T/S SO. 370- Both Street 5 230- ORR 1930 14th Street 83rd Street 5 ISO. repaired 1973 T too. ORR 400- 86th Street 1975 T 170- ORR 15th St-t 1933,1960 T 89th Street 1975 T 190 ORR - extension 1978 S 170- ONR 450- 91st Street 1973 1 153 ORR 16th Street 193a 7/5 140- S20- 93,d Street S 150. 18th Street 1949 T 140- 490. q8th Street s 150. Between 1190 and 20th Street, 1962 T 140- 480- 102nd Street 1975 T 140 ORR 21st Street 1951 S ISO. 320. 1,2,tn S 't r - tt S 150- 22nd Street 1962 T 90- 450. 118 h ee S 180. 23rd StreeE 1951 T 100. 600. 25t, Str et S 120- - repaired -tboard end 1978 ONR h't reet 1975 T/S 100- ORR 25th Street 1974 T 110. ORR 370- 130th Street 1978 T 40- ORR Where no date is entered, it is presumed completion occurred between May 14, 1979 and May 3. 1981. S = Stone; T z Timber 3Length in feet. (.) indicates totally exoosed surface; otherwise, there is intemittent. exposure. standard Ocean City groins between South ISt Street and 13Oth Street ire doo@oximately ZOO ft in.length. 4DNR indicates wiork done by Maryland Department of Natural Resources. (-) indicates work done by "others" (presumably Department of Trdrsz)ortation). no entry indicates unknown work responsibility. Distance to next (higher street number) groin in feet. indicates spacinq wets Corps )f Engineer stardvds. Page 17 1902 H.B. NO, H. D. 1 S. D. 1 C.D. 1 1 provided further that the authoritv imposes conditions 2 to prOhibit any structure seaward of the existin 3 shoreline unless it is clearlv in the public interest 4 or 5 (10) Moving of sand from one location seaward of the 6 shoreline to another location seaward of the shoreline; 7 provided that the authority also finds that moving of 8 sand will not adversely affect beach processes, will 9 not diminish the size of a public beach, and will be 10 necessary to stabilize an eroding shoreline. 11 (b) Hardship shall be defined in rules adopted by the l2 authoritv under chanter 91. Hardship shall not be determined as 13a result of county zoning chances, planned development permits, l4cluster permits, or subdivision approvals after the effective 15dateof this Act,or as a result of any other permit or approval l6 listed in rules adopted by the authority. 17 (c) No variance shall be granted unless appropriate l8conditions are imposed: 19 (1) To maintain safe lateral access to and along the 20 shoreline or adequately compensate for its loss; 21 (2) To minimize risk of adverse impacts on beach processes; 22 (3) To minimize risk of structures failing and becoming 23 loose rocks or rubble on public property; and HB1902 CD1 -23- (F I S 1983 L he, I 0--yeal_ 311(1 50--year f] ood el evit Ii on.,; for Lhe V-zone and several A-zones were derived (Table 2C-3). Based on the FIS 100-year elevations, the difference between the still.water level (8.1. feet) and the V-zone elevation (11.0 feet) is 2.9 feet. Thi's differential was used to obtain values for the 10- and 50- year V-zones. The differences between the stillwater level and the A-zones are +0.9, -0.1, +1.1, and -2.1 feet, and they were used to obtain values for the 10-year and 50-year A-zones. The stillwater elevations from the Corps of Engineers are 0.6 feet higher than those used in the FIS. The Corps value is considered more conservative in that it represents a higher level of hazard. Using the Corps data, a summary of the estimated 10-year, 50-year and 100-year storm elevations based on a MHW datum are shown in Table 2C-4. This summary information provides an easier means of evaluating other maps and charts that use MHW or MLW datums. A factor of 3.4 feet should be added to values.in Table 2C-4 to obtain elevations above MLW (common datum for Ocean City). By comparing the V-zone elevations in Table 2C-4 with the Building Limit Line elevations shown in Figure 2C-3, an analysis of hazard vulnerability during the 10-year, 50-year and 100-year storm events was made for the coastal high hazard zone north of 27th Street. Since beach erosion is related to both storm intensity and duration and is, therefore, somewhat independent of tbe-storm frequency event, a four foot erosion value is assumed as it was in the May 16, 1983 FIS. Figure 2C-4 identifies those areas which are higher in elevation than the predicted storm levels, and which are not expected to receive direct wave damage during the three storm frequency events. In terms of which areas could be expected to receive more damage, 75%. 90% and 92% of the shoreline north of 27th Street is vulnerable'. to the 10-year, 50-year and 100-year events, respectively. Variations in beach width, not considered in this analysis, are an important factor which would control wave processes and impact. Qualitatively, the wider the beach is, the more seaward waves will break, and the less impact there -24- Table 2C-3. Comparison of the 10-year, 50-year and 100-year Ocean Storm Elevations (NkG]Vb in feet) STILLWATER V-ZONE A-ZONES COE FIS 100-year 8.7/8.1(1) 12111' 10 9 8 7 9 8 7 6 50-year 8.0/7.4 11/10 9 8 7 6 8 7 6 5 10-year 6.4/5.8 9/9 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4 (1) Corps of Engineers (COE)/Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Table 2C-4- Summary of t he Estimated 10-year, 50-year and 100-year Ocean Storm Elevations (MHW in feet) STILLWATER V-ZONE A-ZONES 100-year 6.5 9.4 7.4 6.4 5.4 4.4 50-year 5.8 8.7 6.7 5.7 4.7 3.7 10-year 4.2 7.1 5.1 4.1 3.1 2.1 APPENDIX C SHORELINE SETBACK RULES & REGULATIONS CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU will b(, at a certain elevation. A qualitative analysis of beach height and width was presented in the previous section. Flood elevations were delineated on the FIRMs according to upland topography without considering differential vulnerabi lities to flooding and erosion except at the six transects. Several of the factors one must consider in defining differential vulnera- bilities include man-made and natural obstructions such as seawalls and dunes, other human modifications such as buildings and pavement and the extent of natural vegetation. Human modification in the coastal high hazard zone has had a profound affect on the storm susceptibility of Fenwick Island. The built environment affects the barrier's ability to respond naturally to storm conditions in many ways. Among these are: 1) interference with aeolian (wind) and overwash transport processes through paving and other construction; 2) removal of the natural dune line which increases backbarrier susceptibility to storm waves; and 3) construction of tall buildings and seawalls which can force highly erosive currents through gaps in the structures. On a barrier island that is in its natrual state, sand is often transported from the beach to the barrier flats during storms. This transport occurs by both aeolian and overwash processes. During periods of quiescence following storms, some of this san d is transported back to the beach by the wind. This aid's in natrual beach restoration and dune formation. Human intervention by development of barrier il@slands, such as Ocean City, have diminished the effectiveness of thAs process. Sand is prevented from moving to the backdune areas during storms by the tall buildings and other structures which block and funnel the wind and water. These buildings may@ also diminish the occurrence of overwash, but more likely, will actually concentrate the flow into discrete areas between the buildings. Following a coastal storm, the recent practice in Ocean City has been to use bulldozers -27- arld showplows to remove beach sand that has accumulated on streets and parking lots, and dump the sand on unused land, into the bay, or push it onto the beach. It is difficult to evaluate the short-term ramifications of this interference witli the natural migrational processes, but clearly the barrier surface has not been allowed to increase in elevation, as would occur in.a natural setting. Meanwhile, sea level is continuing, to rise, resulting in a net decrease in elevation,of the barrier. An inventory of man-made obstructions located in the coastal high hazard zone included the identification of the number and extent of walls (as shown on 1981 photogrammetric survey), and the number of structures (as shown on 1981 photogrammetric survey and May 1983 aerial oblique photos). A total of 18 walls having a cumulative length of,3,690 feet or 10% of.the beach exist between 27th Street and the Maryland-Delaware 1 ine.(see Figure 2C-5). A count of 336 habitable structures was made without a distinction of size, and @any portion of a structure in the V-zone was regarded as a total structure (see Appendix A). Sixteen new structures were identified as completed or under construction since 1981. Eighteen buildings are over ten stories high. Only eight of the 119 blocks inventoried are currently vacant in the V-zone. The. areas previously identified as having the least amount of erosion and.flood control protection seaward of the BLL are occupied by 119 structures in the V-zone. The areas previously identified as having a greater amount of protection have 71 structures associated with them. One reason for the lower number of structures in these areas is that many,of them are high rise condominiums. The present p.osition of the..shoreline is rapidly becoming determined more,by the extent of development and encroachment toward the Building Limit Line than -the natural process of erosion, at least for@ this current period of low storm activity. If more seawalls and bulkheads are,constructed, their effect on beach erosion and storm overwash wi,ll become even.more d.ifficult to. determine. Torrey C. Brown, M.D. LOUIS N. PHIPPS. JR. SECRETARY DEPUTY SECRETARY STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION TAWES STATE OFFICE: BUILDINC ANNAPOLIS 21401 (301) 269-2784 August 10, 1983 Dear Interested Person: The -purpose- of -this -letter is to remi nd you of the workshop we are--- holding on August 18, 1983, to discuss the contents and recommendations. of the draft and the final report of the Post-Disaster Planning Study in the Ocean City area entitled "Reducing Flood Damage Potential in Ocean City, Maryland." The workshop will be held in the City Council Chambers in City Hall, Baltimore Avenue and 3rd Street, Ocean City, Maryland and will start at 1:30 P.M. I hope you will be able to attend since.we want to be sure that your concerns are addressed in the final'report and its recommenda- tions. If you have not already sent us your written comments on the report,.please bring them with you to the meeting. It is presently planned that discu-ssi-ons a-t-th-e--workshop -will focus -on the- following points: 1) Are the report's recommendations appropriate and comprehensive? Is there a need to further clarify or discuss in more detail certain issues? Is there a need tb modify some of them? If so, for what reasons? 2)-What barriers do you foresee in the city, county and state implementing the report's recommendations? 3) Is there a need to further clarify or discuss the technical subject matter in the report? (As noted previously, the question of sea level rise will be discussed in further detail in the final report) 4) What subject areas not covered by this study need further analysis in the follow-up watershed management study that the Water Resources Administration is proposing to undertake for the area? There will be an opportunity at the workshop for discussion of.any additional concerns you may have concerning flood hazards in the Ocean City area. Thank you for your involvement. in the study and I hope to see you the afternoon of the 18th of August. Yours sincerely, Earl H. Bradley, (Local) Technical Assistance Program Manager EHB/dk JAMES B. COULTER LOUIS N. PHIPPS, JR. SECRETARY DEPUTY SECRETARY STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION (301) 269-2784 TAWES STATE OFFICE BUILDING ANNAPOLIS 21401 July 25, 1983 Dear Interested Person: Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the draft report of the Post-Disaster Planning Study for the Ocean City area entitled "Reducing Flood Damage Potential in Ocean Ci.ty,.Maryland." It should be noted that additional work-will be done in some sections, particularly those dealing with management optionsi. While comments on any portion of the work are welcome, those dealing with subjects that need-further analysis or clarification and any inaccuracies you note will be particularly welcome. We would like to'receive your comments Iin writing or by phone (301-269-2784) by August 12 or sooner if possible. The reason for the -relative-1-y-short comment--period-is-th,at--w --are @12_ I - - p, lann'ing,tQ hold a_. workshop in Ocean City on the afternoon of August 18, 1983 to discuss the contents of the report; additional information the consultants have developed; the comments we have received; the relevance of the management options presented, including what s'@eps should be taken in the near future by the State government, local government, and the private.sector; and additional areas that need to be studied in a-followup watershed management study proposed to be undertaken by the Water Resources Administration. Further details on the workshop -will .be sent to you as theyare developed. Thank you for taking the t@ime to review the document and I hope to see you on the 18th of August. Sincerely, Earl H. B ley, J (Local) Technical Assistance Program Manager, Coastal Res ources Division EHB:ps Enclosure il@ley, J7 t 4S5AWOMAf4 BAY ISLE OF 0 Figu 4TLANTM OCEAN F 0 IEP -29- Fenvick Island 100-Year Floodplain For all practical purposes, according to the recent FIRM, the entire city north of 27th Street is within an area which will be inundated by water associated with the 100-year flood. Two isolated, areas located along the Coastal Highway between 63rd and 67th Streets and between 119th and 124th Streets are slightly higher in elevation and are designated as 500-year floodplains. A two block wide area between the inlet and 27tb Street also has this designation. Even within the areas designated as a 500-year floodplain, shallow flooding less than 1.0 foot may occur. Flood elevations of the 100-year storm decrease west of the V-zone toward the bay from nine feet to six feet, respectively. This updated information broadly contrasts with information presented in the 1976 FIRM. In the 19,76 FIRM, most of the area east of the Coastal Highway was designated as the*500-year floodplain and remaining areas to the west had 100-year flood elevations of nine feet. Two primary reasons are responsible for the revisions that resulted in higher beachfront elevations and lower bay ele- vations: 1) wave heights were incorporated on the storm surge, and 2) lower tidal ranges were recognized in the upper reaches of Assawoman Bay. It should be understood, however, that the information provided by the FIRM was obtained using a methodology that could be used at all coastal locations for the purpose's of defining hazard prone areas and properly rating structures for insurance: purposes . Only six transects were used along the nine mile stretch of Ocean City, and information was interpolated between these transects in order to produce a hazard map for the City. Nevertheless, this is the most current hazard map available. Historical data from the March 1962 storm is particularly helpful in defining the type of hazard to.which a majority of the island is exposed. Accounts in the newspapers.and Corpos of Engineers reports note the deposition of up to six feet of sand on the streets. Flood currents were strong enough to move sand across the entire island in certain locations (see Figure 2C-6). For proper perspective, it must be remembered that the March 1962 storm was a 45-year event in.tbe Ocean City at-ea. A qualitative comparison of the March 1962 storm with the 1983 FIRM based on the extent of overwash shown in Figure 2C-6 was made for 10 segments in Ocean City and briefly described as follows: 1. between the Inlet and. 14th Street, no overwash occurred in the B-zone. 2. between 14th and 27th Streets, an area between one and two blocks wide was overwashed and is currently delineated as a B-zone. 3. between 27th and 34th Streets, overwash extended across the Coastal Highway and into the A-zone .(elevation six feet). 4. between 34th and 41st Streets, overwash generally did not reach the Coastal Highway and would have been maintained within.the A-zone (elevation nine feet)., 5. between 41st and 52nd Streets, overwash generally extended across the Coastal Highway and reached the bay; 6. between 52nd and 67th Streets, overwasb generally did not cross,the Coastal Highway and would have folowed the A-zone (elevation nine feet) delineation remarkably close; 7. between 67th and 85th Streets, overwash entirely crossed the Coastal Highway and generally extended into the A-zone (elevation six feet); 8. between 85th Street and Channel Buoy Road (approximately 112tb Street), overwash entirely crossed the Coastal Highway and generally.followed the A-zone (elevation nine feet) delineation. 9. between Channel Buoy Road (approximately 112th Street) -32- and 118th Street, two extensive washovers crossed what would have been A-zones (elevation eight feet and elevation six fee0; and 10. between 118th Street and the Mary land-De laware line, overwash generally did not cross the Coastal Highway and generally followed the A-zone (elevation nine feet) delineation. Note: Using Tables 2C-3 and 2C-4, Azone elevation difference for the 110-year and 50-year events are estimated to differ by approximately 1 foot. Summarizing the comparison (see Figure 2C-7), there was a good correlation between the extent of 1962 overwash and the 1983 delineation of the A-zone (elevation nine feet) for 60 percent of the shoreline. There was a poor correlation between the extent of overwash and any A-zone delineations, and overwash primarily extended into the back barrier (A-zone, elevation six feet) for 40% of the shoreline. This relatively poor correlation emphasizes the variability and unpredictable nature of overwash processes and flood hazard delineation. The most dramatic overwash and threat of inlet formation during the 1962 storm occurred in the vicinity of 71st Street (see Figure 2C-8). Bulldozing of sand into the breach prevented the formation of a new inlet. The island is quite narrow in many areas, particularly between 32nd and 61st Streets. The island is widest north from 87th Street to the Mary land-De laware line, except in areas where canals have been dredged. In this area, 14 man-made canals and. two natural tidal channels are present, nine of which are less than .500 feet from the Coastal Highway. Overall, the barrier varies in width (from the Coastal Highway) between 4,900 feet at 133rd Street and 230 feet at 36th Street, and 37 canals and channels exist. Island widths and data relating to man-made canals and natural ASSAW OMAN BAY ISLE OF WIGHI BAY FD 0 Cn 0 C3 00 OD Figure 2 Uj LANTiC 0) OCEAN N ote: St m ex MILE IEP, Inc Ley N -Overwash correlated with delineation of A-zone (EL9) Overwash generally was contained with A-zone ASSAWOMAN SAY H Overwash did not correlate with any delineations Overwash generally extended into A-zone (EL6) iSLE OF W@KT SAY 9 '@4 C%@ 0 0 Figure 2C-7. Qualitative Com 'March 1962 Stor and 1983 FIRM. ATLANTIC OCEAN MILES 0 IEP, Inc, JOB NO APPENDIX D SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) RULES & REGULATIONS CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU CHAPTER33 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CITY AND COUNTY 0F HONOLULU. Article 1. General Provisions Sec. 33-1.1. Authority. Pursuant to authority conferred by Statutes. the regulations and procedures established and shall apply to all lands within the special management area of the City and County of Honolulu. (A See. 33-1.2. Purpose. It is the City and County of Honolulu's policy to preserve, protect and where possible, to restore the natural resources of the coastal zone of Hawaii. Special controls on development within an area along the shore- line are necessary to avoid permanent loss of valuable resources and fore- closure or management options. and to insure that adequate public access is provided to public owned or used beaches, recreation areas, and natural reserves, by dedication or other means. (Am. Ord. 84-4) Sec. 33-1.3. Definitions. Whenever the following words are use in this chapter, they shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section Amended: to clarify but not replace or negate the definitions used in chapter 205A. Ordinance Hawaii Revised Statutes. 87-73 (1) "Agency" means the dcpartment of land utilization, City and County of Honolulu. (2) "Applicant" includes any individual, organization, partnership. firm, association. trust, estate, or corporation including any utility,and any agency of Federal. State and Cot (3) "Council*' means the city council of the City and County of Hono- lulu. which body shall act as the "authority" under chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes. (4) -City and County" means the City and County of Honolulu. (5) "Crops- mean agricultural produce or part(s) of plants or trees cultivated for commercial or personal (6) "Development" means, any of the uses, activities, or operation land; in or under water, within the special management area that are included below. but not those uses, nc paragraph (13). 405 3. REVISED ORDINANCES oF HONOLULU � 33-1.3. � 33-1.3. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT (A) "Development" includes the following: (C) Whenever the authority rinds that any use, activity,or (i) The placement or erection or any solid material or any operation excluded in paragraph (13) is or may become part of a larger gaseous. liquid, solid, or thermal waste; project, tile cumulative impact of which may have a significant ii) Grading. removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any environmental or ecological effect on the special management area, materials-, that use. activity. or operation shall be defined as "development"for (iii) Change in the density or intensity of use of land. including thepurpose of this part. but not limited to the division or subdivision of land; (7) "Dircctor" means the director of the department of land utiliza- (iv) Change in the intensity of use of water, ecology related tion, City and County of Honolulu. thereto, or of access thereto: and (8) "EIS" means in informational document prepard in compliance (v) Const ruct ion. reconstruct ion. demolition, or alternation of the with the Environmental Quality'Commision's Rules and Regulations size of any structure. implementing chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes (i) "Development" does not include the following: (9) "Emergency permit" means specialmanagement are emergency (i) Construction of a single-family residence that is not part of a permit as defined in section 20SA-22(5), Hawaii Revised Statutes, larger development: (10) "Minor pcrmit"means. special management area minor permit as (ii) Repair or maintenance or roads and highways within defined in section 205A-22(6), Hawaii Revised Statutes existing rights-of Way. ( 1 1) "Shoreline" means the upper reaches of the wash of the waves, (iii) Routine maintenance drodging of exiting streams, other than storm and tidal waves, usually evidenced by the edges of channel%. and drainage ways. vegetation growth or the tipper limit of debris left by the wash of the (iv) The repair and maintenance of underground utility lines. waves, or as delincated ona shoreline survey which has been certified in accordce including but not limited to water. sewer. power,and telephone with the City and County Shoreline Setback Rules and minor appurtenant structures such as pad mounted transformers Regulations. and sewer pump stations: (12) "Shoreline mannagement permit" shall also mean special manage- (v) Zoning variances, except for height, density, parking and ment area use permit. shoreline setback. (13) "Shoreline survey" means that survey required under the Shore- (vi) Repair. maintenance, or interior alterations to existing line Setback Rules and Regulations of the City and County of Honolulu structures-. adopted pursuant to section 205-32, Hawaii Revised Statutes. (vii) Demolition or removal of structures. except those struc- (14) "Special management area" means the land extending inland tures located oil any historic site a% designated in national or state from the shorelince.as established in this ordinance and delincated on the registers maps established by the council and filed with the council and agency pursuant to section 205A-23, Hawaii Revised Statutes. site as designated in national or state registers. (15) "Special management area minor permit" means an action by the (viii) The use or any land for tile purpose of cultivating. planting. agency authorizing development, the valuation of which is not in excess growing. Ind harvesting of plants. crops, trees. and other agri- of $65,000 and which has no substantial adverse environmental or cultural. horticultural, or forestry products or animal husbandry,or ecological errect, taking into account potential cumulative effects. aquaculture or mariculture of plants or animals, or other agri- (16) "Special management area use permit" means an action by the cultural purposes subject to review by the authority in accordance authority authorizing development, the valuation of which exceeds with paragraph (C); $65,000 or which may have a substantial adverse environmental or ix) The transfer of title to land: (.x) The creation or termination of casements, covenants. or (17) "Structure" includes, but is not limited to, any building,road, other rights in structures or land;and pipe. flume. conduit. siphon, aqueduct, telephoneline, and electrical. (xi) The subdivision of land into lots greaterthan twenty acres in power transmission tower and distribution line. size 406 40 S 33-21 REVISED ORDINANCES OF HONOLULU 33-32 S 33-3.3. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA s 33-3.2. (B)Adewuate and properly located public recreation areas and wildlife preserves are reserved; ` (C)Provisions are made for solid and liquid waste treatment,dis- (18) "Valuation" shall be determined by the agency and means the position, and management which will minimize adverse effects upon estimated cost to replace the structure in kind, based on current replace- special management area resources; and ment costs, or in the cases of other development, as fefined in paragraph (D)alterations to existing land forms and vegetations, except (A) above, the fair market value of the development,(Am. Ord. K 1-4 crops, and construction of structures shall cause minimum adverse 85-195) effect to water resources and scenic and recreational amenities and minimum danger of floods, landslides, erosion, siltation, or failure in Article 2. Special Management Area, the event of earthquake. Sec. 33-2.1. Adoption. (2)No development shall be approved unless the council has firs The special management area, as established by the council in this found that: chapter and shown on the special management area maps, which maps are (A)The development will not have any substantial, adverse hereby adopted and made a part of this chapter and filed with the council environmental or ecological effect except as such adverse effect is on the effective date of this chapter, shall be the City and County's official minimized to the extent practicable and clearly outweighed by public special management area to be administered and enforced under the health and safety,or compelling public interest. Such adverse effect provisions of this chapter.(Am. Ord. 84-4, 85-105) shall include, but not be limited to, the potential cumulative impace of individual developments, each one of which taken in itself might not Sec. 33-2.2. Included Area. have a substantial adverse effect and the elimination of planning The special management area shall include those areas of the Island of options; Oahu so designated on the maps: the islands witin three miles offshore of (B)The development is consistent with the objectives and policies Oahu, including but not limited to those islands shown on the maps: and set forth in section 33-3.1 and area guidelines contained in section the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which include Nihow, Necker Island. 205A-26, Hawaii Revised Statutes;and French Frigate Shoals, Gardner Pinnacles, Maro Reef, Laysan Island, (C)The development is consistent with the County General Plan, Lisianski Island, Pearl and Hermes Atolt and Kure Atoll. (Am. Ord. development plans, zoning and subdivision codes and other 85-105 applicable ordinances. (3)The council shall seek to minimize, where reasonable: Article 3. Objectives And Policies, Review And (A)Dredging, filling or otherwise altering any bay, estuary, salt Procedural Guidelines. marsh, river mouth, slough, or lagoon; Sec. 33-3.1. Objectives And Policies. (B)Any development which would reduce the size of any beach or The objectives and policies of this chapter shall be those contained in other area usable for public recreation; section 205A-2, Hawaii Revised Statutes. (Am. Ord. 84-4) (C)Any development which would reduce or impose restrictions upon public access to tidal and submerged lands, beaches,portions of Sec. 33-3.2. Review Guidelines. rivers and streams within the special management area and the mean The following guidelines shall be used by the council or its designated high tide line where there is no beach; agency for the review of developments proposed in the special management (D)Any development which would substantilly interfere with or area. detract from the line of sight toward the sea from the State highway nearest the coast; (1)All development in the special management area shall be subject (E)Any development which would adversely affect water quality, to reasonable terms and conditions set by the council to insure that: existing areas of open water free of visible structures, existing and (A)Adequate access, by dedication or other means, to publicly potential fisheries and fishing grounds, wildlife habitats,or potential owned or used beaches, recreation areas, and natural reserves is or existing agricultural uses of land, (Am. Ord. 84-4) provided to the extent consistent with sound conservation principles: 409 408 33-3.3. REVISED ORDINANCES OF HONOLULU � 33-3.3. � 33-3.3. SPECIAL MANA 33-3.3 Sec. 33-3.3. Procedural Guidelines. (C) Determination (C) Determination. All development within the special management area shall be subject to (i) The director shall, within thirty days after receipt of the assessment by the agency under the provisions of this chapter. Such assess- request for assessment, notify the applicant by mail, with a copy to ment shall lie pursuant to the objectives. policies and guidelines set forth the council, that lie has determined the proposal to: herein. (aa) be exempt form the requirements of this chapter; (1) Consultation. (bb) require a special managemnet area minor permit; Any applicant contemplating development within the special manage- (cc) require a special managemnet area use permit, but not to ment area shall contact the agency for information regarding procedures require an environmental impact statement; or and general information which may have a direct influence on his (dd) require a spcial management area use permit, and to proposed development. require an environmental impact statement. Any development which has been assessed under National Environ- (ii) The director shall declare a development proposal exempt mental Policy Act or under chapter 343. Hawaii Revised Statutes, and where he finds that the proposal is not defined as development for whicha negative declaration has been filed ora required EIS has been under section 33-1.3(6)(b). accepted may apply directly for a special management area use permit (iii) The director shall issue a special management area minor pursuint to section 33-5. 1, to waive the assessment procedures in section permit where he finds that the development proposal; 33 -3.3(2). (aa) has a valuation or fair market value not in excess of (2) Assessment Procedures. $5,00; and (A) Filing. (bb) will not significantly affect the special management area. Any applicant subject to assessment shall be responsible for riling (iv) The director shall declare that a special management area the following with the agency: use permit is required, and shall issue a negative declaration which (i) A completed application form (to be obtained from the shall be filed with the council and with the Environmental Quality agency). Commission if such is required under the provisions of chapter 343, (ii) A tax map key identification of the property on which the Hawaii Rivised Statutes, where he finds that the proposal: applicant proposes his development. (aa) has a valuation or fair market value in excess of $65,000: (iii) A plot plan of the property. drawn to scale. and (bb) will not significantly affect the special managemnet area; (iv) A written description of the proposed development and it or statement of objectives, and an estimate of the valuation of the (cc) is supported by studies whihc, in the director's judgment, development. sufficiently describe the potential environmental effects on the (v) A written description of the affected environment which special management area. addresses the development's technical and environmental (v) The director shall declare that aspecial management area use characteristics. permit is required, and shall issue an environmental impact state- ment preparation notice with the council, regardless of the valua- (vi) A shoreline survey if the parcel abuts the shoreline. tion or fair market value of the proposal where he finds tht the (vii) Any other relevant plans or information pertinent to the proposal may significantly affect the special management area and analysis of the development required by the agency. that suffcient information to evaluate this impact is not available. (B) Assessment. (vi) The Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact State- The director shall assess the proposal upon the applicant's ment preparation notices shall contain all the information required compliance with section 33-3.3(2)(A) based oil the following criteria: to be presented under the Environmental Quality Commission (i) The valuation or fair market value of the development. Rules and Regulations. (ii) The potential effects and the significance of each effect according to the Significance Criteria established by section 33-4. 1. 410 33-4.1. REVISED ORDINANCES OF HONOLULU � 33-5.2. � 33-5.3 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA 33-6.2. (vii) The director shall assure that the public is informed of his See. 33-5.3. Public Hearings. determinations on special management area use permits through The agency, pursuant to powers of delegation given to the city council publication of notices in the EQC Bulletin or another publication. under chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, shall hold a public hearing (Am.Ord. 94-4) at a date set no less thin twenty-one or more than sixty calendar days after the date on which tile application is accepted, unless the sixty-day period is waived by the applicant. The agency shall give adequate notice to the Article 4. Significance Criteria And Procedures. pertinent neighborhood boards, the owners of all property within 300 feet Sec. 33-4.1. Significance Criteria. of the affected property as well as to all owners of all property described in the application. The agency shall give written notice, once in a newspaper of In assessing the significance or a development, the director shall confine general circulation in the County and once in a newspaper of general circu- his criteria to tile objectives, policies and guidelines in article 3 of this lation in the State, at least twenty calendar days in advance. The notice shall chapter. (Am. Ord. 84-4) state the nature of the proposed development for which a permit applica- Sec. 33-4.2. Procedures. tion is made and of the time and place of public hearings. In proccssing a negative declaration or environmental impact statement. The hearing shall he held in the area in which the development is the director shall adhere to the procedures set forth in chapter 343, Hawaii proposed. Whenever possible, any such hearing shall be held jointly and Revised Statutes, and tile regulations adopted thereunder by the Environ- concurrently with any other hearing required for the same development. mental Quality Commission. In the event that a development is not subject (Am. Ord. R4-4) to tile chapter, but the director requires an M.S. filing shall be with tile Sec. 33-5.4. Agency Recommendation. agency. (Am. Ord. 84-4) Upon conclusion of the public hearing, the agency shall transmit its findings and recommendations thereon, within ten working days, directly Article 5. Permit Processing Procedures. to the city council for its consideration and decision. (Am. Ord. 84-4) Sec. 33-5.1. Required Materials. Sec. 33-5.5 Any applicant who has received a determination under section The councl shall grant with conditions, or deny any application for 33-3.3(2)(C) that this proposal requires a special management area use special management area use permit within sixty calendar days after the permit or when such determination has been waived under sec. 33-3.3(1) agency's public hearing, unless an extension has been agreed to by the shall submit the following to the agency: applicant. (Am. Ord. 94-4) (1) A written notification to proceed with the special management area use permit processing. Article 6. Prohibition. (2) A copy of either the negative declaration, or a copy of a completed and accepted EIS. Sec. 33-6.1. Permit Required. (3) Any additional information as to the areas of critical concern as No development or structure shall be constructed within the special deemed necessary by the agency. management area without first obtaining a special management area use (4) A $100 filing and processing fee. Such filing fee shall be waived for permit, a minor permit, or being exempted pursuant to the provisions of public agency projects. (Am. Ord. 84-4) this chapter. (Am. Ord. 84-4) See. 33-5.2. Acceptance. See. 3.1-6.2. Permit To Precede Other Upon compliance with the foregoing procedures, the director shall notify No agency authorized to issue permits pertaining to any development within the special management area established by this chapter shall the applicant by certified mail within 7 days of receipt that the application authorize any development unless approval is first received pursuant to the has been accepted. Tile dircetor shall also concurrcrilly provide tile council with the date of acceptance or the application and brief description of the provisions or this chapter. For purposed of this section, county general proposal contained in the application. (Am. Ord. 94-4) 412 � 33-7.1. REVISED ORDINANCES OF HONOLULU � 33-9.1. 33-10.1. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA 33-10.1 plans. development plans, State land use district boundary amendments, Article 10. Severability. and zoning changes are not permits. (Am. Ord. 84-4) See. 33-10.1. Invalid Provisions. If any provision or this chapter or the any person Article 7. Exemptions. or circumstances is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other Sec. 33-7.1. Emergency Permits. provisions or applications of conditions of this chapter which can be given In cases of emergency repairs to existing public utilities including, but effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the not limited to, flood control structures, water, sewer, gas and electric trans- provisions or this chapter are severable.(Am. Ord. 84-4) mission lines and highways. the respective governmental agency or public utility company is exempt from obtaining a permit pursuant to the require- ments of this chapter. Two reports on such repair projects, the valuation of which exceeds $65,000, shall be recorded with the agency, one within three days after the start of the project and the other upon its completion. In the event in impending disaster or disaster his been declared under chapter 13, article 30, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu, 1978, as amended, or under chapters 127 and 128, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the requirements or this chapter shall be waived. (Am. Ord. 84-4) Article 8. Penalties. See. 33-8.1. Civil Fine. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be subject to a civil fine not to exceed S10,000. (Am. Ord. 84-4) Sec. 33-8.2. Additional Fines. In addition to any other penalties. any person who performs any development in violation or this part shall be subject to a civil fine not to exceed S500 a day for each day in which such violation persists. (Am. Ord. 84-4) Article 9. Appeals. See. 33-9.1. Appeal In Accordance Willi Statute. Appeals shall be in accordance with section 205A-6. Hawaii Revised Statutes. (Am. Ord. 84-4) (SMA) ORDINANCE NO. (87-73 BILL NO. 42 (1987) (CD-2) A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 33, REVISED ORDINANCES OF HONOLULU 1978 (1983 EDITION) , AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU. BE IT ORDAINED by the People of the City and County of Honolulu: SECTION 1. Chapter 33, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu 1978 (1983 Edition) , is hereby amended in the following respects: a. By amending Section 33-1.3 to read as follows: Sec. 33-1.3. Definitions. "Agency" means the department of land utilization, City and County of Honolulu. [(2)] "Applicant" includes any individual, organization, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, or corporation including any utility, and any agency of Federal, State and County government. [(3)) "Council" means the city council of the City and County of Honolulu, which body shall act as the "authority" under chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes. [(4)] "City and County" means the City and County of Honolulu. [(5)] "Crops" mean agricultural produce or part(s) of plants or trees cultivated for commercial or personal use. [(6)] "Development" means, any of the uses, activities, or operations on land; in or under- water, within the special management area that are included below,but not those uses, activities, or operations excluded in paragraph (B). 87-73 (D-590/5-26-87) is OCEAN CITY PREPARED? @!@F ia i, 87-73 (v). Zoning variances, except for height, density, parking and shoreline setback, (vi) Repair, maintenance, or interior alterations to existing structures; (vii) Demolition or removal of structures, except those structures located on any historic site as designated in national or state registers; (viii) The use of any land for the purpose of cultivating, planting, growing, and harvesting plants, crops, trees, and other agricultural, horticultural, or forestry products or animal husbandry or agriculture or mariculture of plants or animals, or other agricultural purposes subject to review by the authority in accordance with paragraph (C); (ix) The transfer of title to land; (x) The creation or termination of easements, covenants, or other rights in structures or land; (and] (xi) The subdivision of land into lots greater than twenty acres in size; (xii) The subdivision of a arce of land into four or fewer parcels when no associated construction activities are proposed, provided that any such land which is so subdivided shall not thereafter qualify for this exception with respect to any subsequent subdivision, of any of the resulting parcels; (xiii) Installation of underground utility lines and appurtenant aboveground fixtures less than tour feet in height along existing corridors; -3- 87-73 87-73 (xiv) Structural and nonstructural improvements to existing single-family residences including additional dwelling unit, where otherwise permissible; and (xv) Nonstructural improvements to existing commerical structures. (C) Whenever the authority finds that any use, activity, or operation excluded in paragraph (B) is or may become part of a larger project; the cumulative impact of which may have a significant environmental or ecological effect on the special management area, that use, activity, or operation shall be defined as "development" for the purposes of this part. [(7)] "Director" means the director of the department of land utilization, City and County of Honolulu[.], or authorized subordinate-. [(8)] "EIS" means an informational document prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Commission's Rules and Regulations implementing chapter 343, Hawaii Revised States. [(9)] "Emergency permit" means special management area emergency permit as defined in section 205A-22(5), Hawaii Revised Statutes. [(10)] "Minor permit" means special management area minor permit as defined in section 205-22(6), Hawaii Revised Statutes. "Person" means any individual, organization, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private corporation, the State or any of its political subdivisions, or any other legal entity. [(11)] "Shoreline" means the upper reaches of the wash of the waves, other than storm and tidal waves, at high tide during the season of the year in which -the highest wash-of the waves occurs, usually evidenced by the edges of vegetation -4- 87 - 73 87-73 growth or the upper limit of debris left by the wash of the waves, or as delineated on a shoreline survey which has been certified in accordance with the City and County Shoreline Setback Rules and Regulations. [(12)] "Shoreline management permit" shall also mean special management area use permit. [(13)] "Shoreline survey" means (that survey required under the Shoreline Setback Rules and Regulations of the City and County of Honolulu adopted pursuant to section 205-32, Hawaii Revised Statutes.] a survey map showing the shoreline as determined by the State Board of Land and Natural Resources in accordance with section 205A-42, HRS, and the rules adopted pursuant thereto. [(14)] "Special management area" means the land extending inland from the shoreline, as established in this ordinance and delineated on the maps established by the council and filed with the council and agency pursuant to section 205A-23, Hawaii Revised Statutes. [(15)] "Special management area minor permit" means an action by the agency authorizing development, the valuation of which is not in excess of $65,000 and which has no substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect, taking into account potential cumulative effects. [(16)] "Special management area use permit" means an action by the authority authorizing development, the valuation of which exceeds $65,000 or which may have a substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect, taking into account potential cumulative effects. [(17)] "Structure" includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission tower and distribution line. [(18)] "Valuation" shall be determined by the agency and means the estimated cost to replace the 87-73 87-73 structure in kind, based on current replacement costs, or in the cases of other development, as defined in paragraph (A) above, the fair market value of the development. b. By amending Section 33-2.1 to read as follows: Sec. 33-2. 1. Adoption. The special management area, as established by the council in this chapter and shown on the special management area maps, which maps are herby adopted and made a part of this chapter and filed with the council on the effective date of this chapter, shall be the City and County's official special management area to be administered and enforced by the director under the provisions of this chapter. C. By amending Section 33-3.2(2) by amending item (C) to read as follows: (C) The development is consistent with the County General Plan, development plans, and zoning and subdivision codes and other applicable ordinances]. Such a finding of consistency does not preclude con- current processing where a development plan amendment or zone change may aiso be required. d. By amending Section 33-5.1(4) to read as follows: (4) [A $100 filing and processing fee. Such filing fee shall be waived for public agency projects.) An application fee according to the following schedule. Application fees are not re-Fundable and shall be waived for public agency projects. Type of Development Fee (A) Agriculture, agriculture $200 or outdoor recreation developmments (B) All other developments $200, plus an additional $100 per acre or major fraction thereof, up to a maximum of $2,000. 87 -73 87-73 (C) When a special management area application is submitted subsequent to the applicant's being ited for under- taking development without having obtained the necessary permit, the application fee set forth above shall be doubled. e. By amending Section 33-S.1 to read as follows: Sec. 33-8.1. Civil Fine. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall, upon notice issued pursuant to section 33-. be deemed to have committed a civil violation and shall be subject to a civil fine not to exceed $10,000. f. By amending Section 33-8.2 to read as follows: Sec. 33-8.2. Additional Fines. In addition to any other penalties, any person who performs any development in violation of this (part] chapter shall upon notice issued pursuant to section 33-10.1, be deemed to have committed a civil violation and shall be subject to a civil- fine not to exceed $500 a day for each day in which such violation persists. g. By amending Chapter 33 by adding a new Article 9 to read as follows: Article -9. Enforcement. Sec. 33-9.1. Issurance Of Notice Of Violation Fund Order. If the director det ermines that any person is violating any provision of this chapter, any -rule adopted thereunder, or any permit issued pursuant thereto, the director may have the person served, by mail or delivery, with a notice of violation and order. (1) Contents of the notice of violation. The notice shall include at least the following information: (A) Date of the notice; (B) The name and address of the person noticed; -7- 87-73 87-73 (C) The section number of the ordinance which has been violated; (D) The nature of the violation; and (E) The location and time of the violation. (2) Contents of the order. (A) The order may require the person do any or all of the following: (i) Cease and desist from the violation; (ii) Correct the violation at the person's own expense before a date specified in the order; (iii) Pay a civil fine not to exceed $10,000 in the manner, at the place and before the date specified in the order;. (iv) Pay a civil fine not to exceed $500 per day for each day in which the violation persists, in the manner and at the time and place specified in the order, if the person has performed any development in violation of this chapter; or (v) Appear before the director at a time and place specified in the order and answer the charges specified in the notice or violation. (B) The order shall advise the person of the finality of the order 20 days after the date of its mailing or delivery unless written request for a hearing is mailed or delivered to the director within said 20 days. Sec. 33-9.2. Effect Of Order; Right To Hearing. The provisions of the order issued by the director under section 33-9-.1 shall become final 24 days after the date of the mailing or delivery or the order unless within those 20 days the person subject to the order 73 87-73 requests in writing a hearing before the director. The request for hearing shall be considered timelv if the. written request is delivered or mailed and postmark dated to the director within said 20 days. Upon receipt of the written request for hearing, the director shall specify a time and place for the person subject to the order to appear and be heard. The hearing shall be conducted bv the director in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Following said hearing, the director may affirm, modify or rescind the order as in the opnion of the director may be appropriate. Sec. 33-9.3. Judicial Enforcement Of Order. The director may institute a civil action in any court of competent juridiction for the enforcement of any order issued pursuant to sections 33-9.1 and 33-9672. Where the civil action has been instituted to enforce the civil fine imposed by said order, the director need only show that notice of violation and order was served, a hearing was held or the time granted for requesting a hearing had expired without such a request, the civil fine imposed and that the fine imposed has not been paid. Sec. 33-9.4. Judicial Enforcement of Chapter. The director may institute a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction for injunctive relief to prevent violation or any provision of this chapter, any rule adopted thereunder or any permit issued pursuant thereto, in addition to any other remedy provided for under this chapter. Sec. 33-9.5. Nonexclusiveness Of Remedies. The remedies provided in this chanter for enforcement of the provisions of this chapter, any rule adopted thereunder or any permit issued pursuant therto shall be in addition to any other remedy as may be provided 87-73 h. By renumbering existing Articles 9 and 10 to Articles 10 and 11, respectively, and by amending them to read as follows: Article (9.) 10. Appeals. Sec. [33-9.1.] 33-10.1. Appeal In Accordance With Statute. [Appeals shall be in accordance with section 205-6, Hawaii Revised Statutes. I If any person is aggrieved by the order issued by-the -director pursuant to sections 33-9.1 and 33-9.2, the person may appeal the order in the manner provided in Chanter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes, provided that no provision of such order shall be stayed on appeal unless specifically ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Article (10.] 11. Severability. Sec. (33-10.1.1 33-11.1. Invalid Provisions. If any provision of this this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, applications of conditions of this chanter which can "be invalidity does not affect other provisions or be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are severable. SECTION 2. Ordinance material to be replaced is bracketed. New material is underscored. When revising, compiling or printing this Ordinace for inclusion in the Revised ordinances of Honolulu, the Corporation Counsel need not include the brackets, the bracketed material or the underscoring. -10- 87-73 87-73 SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: Council Members DATE OF INTRODUCTION: MARCH 18, 1987 Honolulu, Hawaii APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Deputy Corporation Counsel APPROVED this 15th day of 1987. FRANK F. FASI or City and County of Honolulu 87-73 APPENDIX E SHORE DISTRICTS (S-SH) CHAPTER 8, COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE COUNTY OF KAUAI and impact loads of building foundations located along the beacbfront. It also specifies design windloads for buildings located in this area . Section 105. Zoning. The zoning regulations of Ocean City establish limits on lot coverage, building size, height, and other standards provisions. They do not contain any provisions specifically relating to location of buildings for flood damage reduction. Comprehensive Plan of Ocean City, Maryland. The Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in 1969 and last revised in 1978. Although the plan recognizes the importance of the beachfront to Ocean City and that the Town occupies a sand spit, it does not specifically address the flood hazard vulnerability of Ocean City, and does not appear to have taken the flood hazard into account. Worcester County Worcester County has established the following regulations pertaining directly to floodplain management: Building Regulations. Worcester County is authorize d to adopt a building code, but has not yet done so. It has adopted plumbing and electrical codes. Building Regulations. Floodplain Management.. Floodplain Management regulations are included under Worcester County's Building Regula- tions. As in Ocean City, the regulations adopt the flood insurance rate maps prepared by FEMA as the basis for delineating flood hazard areas and regulating construction and use within them. The latest revision of the FIRM's became effective June 15, 1983. There are no V-zones designated in the area of Worcester County across from Ocean City. The Worcester County regulations require that the lowest floor of residential construction must be elevated to the 100-year flood elevation or higher rather than specifying a uniform elevation requirement as in the Ocean City code. Nonres- -54- idential structures must be elevated to the 100-year flood elevation or floodproofed to the 100-year flood level. Natural Resources. Erosion. These regulations require a grading permit by a Worcester County sediment control inspector. The Worcester Soil Conservation District must approve the grading plan before a permit can be issued. Natural Resources. Fill and Bulkhead Line; Borrow Limit Line. This regulation establishes a fill and bulkhead line which establishes the westerly limit for bulkheading and filling along the bay side of Ocean City. It also establishes a borrow ar.ea limit line which sets a western limit for borrow areas for filling along Ocean city. Natural Resources. Construction along Shorelines. This regulation creates a Worcestrer County Shoreline Commission and gives it authority to establish construction sta@dards and issue permits for construction along shorelines of Worcester Co unty. It defines and establishes separate permit condition for major construction and minor construction. Zoning and Subdivision Control. The zoning regulations include the establishment of a f loodplain district which is similiar to but less detailed than the Floodplain Management provisions under the Building Regulations portion of the code., It also includes a conservation district for the protection of areas unsuitable for development. Worcester County Comprehensive Plan. The Worcester County Compre- hensive Plan was prepared in 1976. In contrast with the Ocean City comprehensive plan, it specifically recognizes a need to preserve much of its remaining wetlands and other natural areas. However, the plan also encourages Worcester County to support Ocean City's plans for continued growth and more intense development. PROTECTING PEOPLE As a highly developed and very popular coastal resort, Ocean City's population varies seasonally. The year-round resident population is estimated at about 5,700 (1972). In contrast, the estimated average daily residential and transient population ranges from about 11,500 during January to as high as 232,000 during August (see Figure 3C-1). An even higher population may occur on weekends during June through September. Although the permanent population is low, it also has been increasing in the last few years, partially as a result of retirees moving to the city. The requirements for providing for the safety of Ocean City's population varies with the season, and is dependent upon both the number of people on the island and the type of storm that .may occur. Unfortunately, the season of highest population occurs during the hurricane season which lasts from June through November and peaks during August and September. The high winds, high water levels and waves associated with hurricanes can all cause injury or death to those exposed to the storm. It is essential that everyone in Ocean City either be evacuated prior to the time a hurricane is predicted to strike the city, or, as a last resort, be provided with safe shelter to weather the storm. During the late fall, winter and spring, northeastern storms pose the greatest risk. Although these storms pose less threat than a large hurricane, they can be intense and long lasting. Populations levels are much lower during these months of the year, but there are still a sufficiently large number of people on the island to cause evacuation concerns. It has been more than 20 years since Ocean City was affected by a major storm. During the March 1962 storm, tides wre nine f eet above mean low water, parts of Ocean City were completely underwater, and several feet of sand were deposited on streets and lots. Although many buildings in Ocean City were destroyed FIGURE 3C-1. Estimated Average Daily Resident and Transient Population (000,s) 1978 1979 1980 1981 'Januaxy 20.8 '12 a. 0 13.1 11.5 Feb,,,uaxy 18.1 12.5 23.1 13.1 Ma&ch 22.6, 26.6 29.8 21.9 Aptit 24.6 27.6 33.8 43.8 May 53.7 58.7 69.9 74.4 June 87.3 119.0 134.4 158.7 Jay 141.0 161.9 @196.9 205.1 AuquAt 152.8 173.7 199.7 232.3 SeptembeA 71.3. 99.7 103.2 123.2* Octabe& 23.2 31.8 45.8 53.8 NovembeA 19.8 22.8 25.8 41.8 DecembeA 11.8 11.5 24.8 Monthty AveAage 53.9 63.2 74.2 83.7 SouAce: Ocean City Heatth SeAvicu -57- or severely damaged, the efforts civil. preparedness, Police, VOILIDteer firemen and other volunteers were credited with providing emergency warnings for evacuation or safe shelter and for rescuing those who required assistance. Today Ocean City is well aware of the potential for another damaging storm similar to the 1962 northeaster or for an even more damaging hurricane. City officials have expressed their belief that Ocean City is well prepared to provide sufficient warnings, evacuate people if necessary, and survive the storm just as they did in 1962. These views are based on the existence of an "Ocean City Emergency Operations Plan" and confidence in those city employees and volunteers who would assist in implementing the plan. The "Ocean City Emergency Operations Plan" was developed several years ago (the plan is undated) and is reviewed annually and updated as needed. Table-top exercises are also held periodically, but apparently no field exercices have been held. The Emergency Operations Plan provides a detailed breakdown of individual and department responsibilities, available equipment, coordination with county and state emergency management agencies, and which of the three potential evacuation routes that should be used by different geographic areas within Ocean City. However, the plan does not address several important issues: special evacuation needs of certain segments of the population, such as the elderly and handicaped; how much warning time is likely and whether the population can be evacuated within that time; the time at which one or more of the evacuation routes may become impassable due to flooding. Additionally, information regarding the evacuation routes and other key elements of the plan do not appear to have been made available to most residents and property owners. A Storm Evacuation Planning Map was released in June 1983 that includes the Ocean City area. This map was prepared by the National Ocean Survey in cooperation with the Maryland Emergency Management and Civil Defense Agency. The map identifies the key (-vacii.al ion routen ovo-Y a large geographic area, but- provides no ,details OLI evacuaLion procedures for any area. I I I I I APPENDIX F I I SHORELINE SETBACK RULES & REGULATIONS I COUNTY OF KAUAI I I I I I I I I I I I BEFORE THE STORM: REDUCPNG DAMAGE. POTENTIAL -61- EROSION AND FLOOD CONTROL Four beach protection plans which address beach erosion and flo od control in varying degrees, are currently being considered by federal, state and city officials for Ocean City, Maryland. They include the following: 1. "Hurricane Protection and Beach Restoration Plan" prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, and described in Atlantic Coast of Maryland and Assateague Island, Virginia - Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement, revised August 1980; 2. "Interim Beach Maintenance at Ocean City" plan prepared by Trident Engineering Associates, Inc. and described in The Trident Report On Interim Beach Maintenance at Ocean City, October 19749; 3. "Hyb rid Plan" prepared by the Coastal Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater Administration which combines features of the Corps and T-ident Dlans; and, 4. "Groin Location Plan for Interim Beach Maintenance" jointly agreed upon by the state and city in April 1982, referred hereafter as the status quo. For purposes of this section, analysis of these various storm and beach protection alternatives was made regarding their. effectiveness and their costs and benefits. Following the next section on land use management controls, implications of their implementation on other proposed hazard mitigation ineasures will be discussed. Effectiveness The effectiveness of each beach protection plan varies with respect to its erosion and flood control functions. To make a qualitative evaluation of each plan's effectiveness, seven basic design characteristics were assessed. The characteristics included: (1) beach width; (2) berm width; (3) berm height; (4) dune width; (5) dune height; (6) bulkhead height; and,(7) nonstr uctural measures. For purposes of this discussion, those characteristics relating to width (nos. 1, 2 and 4) are considered to pro ;vide for erosion control,and those relating to height (nos. 3, 5 and 6) are considered to provide for flood control. Nonstructural measures are associated with flood control. Two other aspects considered in the evaluation of effectiveness include the length of time required to complete the plan and the long-term effectiveness. Table 4A-1 summarizes the basic 'information used for evaluating the four plans. In general, the Corps and hybrid plans have the most effective design for both erosion and flood control. They both incorporate dunes and bulkheads and are expected to offer protection against the 100-year frequency storm event 0% chance of occurring in any given year). Both plans are estimated to take ten years to complete. The actual construction procedures have not been established but it is assumed that sections of beach and dune would, be completed in order to provide both erosion and flood control for each section of shorelline. A major difference between these two plans would be the order in which sections are completed.. Table U-1. Summary of Basic Design Characteristics of the Four Current Beach and Storm Protection PlansforOcean City, Maryland. EROSION AND FLOOD CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS STORM PROTECTION Dune requ ncy Beach Berm rest Bulkhead event in Work Plans Wi dth Width Heightl Width Height Height years) Schedule 1. "Hurricane Protection and 200' 135' 8.7' 25' 16' 100 10 years to Beach Restoration Plan" extends from extends from complete (Plan 3) Corps of Engineers August 1980 27th St. to N. Division State Boundary St. to 27th St, 2. "Interim Beach Maintenance 170' 90, 8.7' 8 47 short groins at Ocean City" Trident with sand fill Engineering Associates, over 5 years Inc. October 1979 10 years to 3. Hybrid Plan (1&2) DNR- 170' 90, 8.7' 25' 16' 16' 100 construct groins Coastal Resources extensions same as Corps Plan dunes and bulk- Division head 2 short groins 4. Status Quo Yearly 170' 90, 8.7' 4 0 1 per year for Allocation from State @5 years f Work _ FSchedule 1 Referenced to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Section 7. Activities Subject to These Rules and Regulations. All proposed public and private construction or subdivision involving landswith- in the shoreline setback and all applications, therof for permits, reviews, approvals, and any other similar procedures for governmental review shall be subject to these rules and regulations. Such construction shall include but not be limited to work involved for repairs, remodeling, reconstruction, re- placement, or maintenance. Approval based upon compliance with these rules and regulations shall not relieve the applicant of the responsibility of compliance with all other applicable statutes, codes, ordinances, or rules and regulations. Section 8. Authority to Waive Field Surveys. Whenever in the opinion of the Director, the proposed construction as indicated by data submitted by the applicant is clearly and unmistakably located on shore- line properties at a considerable distance from the shoreline setback, he shall be vested with the authority to waive the requirement for instrument surveys by a registered land surveyor for the establishment of the shoreline and the con- firmation by the Chairman of the Board of Land and Natural Resources. In grant- ing such a waiver, he may require certification from the applicant that none of the proposed construction is intended for or will be constructed within the shoreline setback. Such certifications, if required, shall bear the sign and seal of notary public commissioned under the laws of the State of Hawaii. Section 9. Authority of the Agency Along Shorelines. All construction, improvements, grading, and such related activities within or immediately inland of the shoreline setback shall be subject to review and approval of the Agency under these rules and regulations. Such activity proposed for lands seaward of the shoreline shall not come under the jurisdiction of these rules and regulations. Where the jurisdiction of the Agency is limited for lands within the shoreline setback and with adjacent inland lands under the jurisdiction of other agencies, review by other agencies as well as this Agency shall be required. -5- Estimated Priority Areas (determined from 1979 and 1981 profile data).., A - Shortest distance from Mean High Water to the Building Limit Line or Boardwalk. B - Shortest distance from Mean Low Water to the -6 foot contour ASSAWOMAN (Trident, 1979). BAY C - Shortest distance from Mean Low Water to the -8 foot contour (Trident, 1979). 1 highest priority 0 5 lowest priority ISLE OF WGKI SAY @ 71 S1b C@ Figure 4B-1. ATLAN C OCEA 0 F-MILES 0 IEP,Inc. _66- not been quantitatively determined, but qualitatively they have been considered ineffective because they are too short and spaced too far apart (Trident, 1979). While filling each groin cell with sand is considered a primary requirement to assist in avoiding the negative impacts of groins, a borrow site for sand in the initial phase of the status quo plan between 7th and 9th Streets has not yet been identified. Another disadvantage to the use of groins relates to their ineligibility for credit towards any federally funded beach restoration project. Since groins are not part of the proposed Corps plan, no funds will be reimbursed to the city or state if and when the federal plan is approved and authorized. Other erosion and flood control efforts which occur on an emergency basis and whi.ch are limited to isolated areas, are considered least effective. Beginning with an emergency authorization in June 1976, bulldozing of beach sands to form dune-like mounds has apparently become an accepted form of beach maintenance. The largest direct expenditures that have been documented includes approximately $136,000 in October and November 1977 and approximately $648,000 between December 1977 and February 1978. State reimbursement totalled $250,000 for these periods. The bulldozing occurred without study of the actual effect it had on beach erosion, but generally, the effort is considered to have long-term value (Public Hearing testimony, June 7, 1977) and a diminishing value as offshore slopes steepen (Trident, 1979). A request by the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service to the Corps of Engineers on September 21, 1977 focused on the need for monitoring either by the applicant (city), Corps of Engineers or the Maryland Shore Erosion Control and the Maryland Geological Survey to determine "...amount, frequency and overall -67- f f e c L 'L ven ess of bo I I doz i ng an a ho-ach ma in Lon a tic 4, technique t doesn't appear any action has been taken on this request. Private or individual efforts to establish dunes in front of their property are isolated and have limited effectiveness. While these efforts should not be discouraged, recognition of the discontinuous nature of the isolated dunes is emphasized. A substantial benefit and increased effectiveness would occur if these dunes were incorporated into a dune plan, similar to that proposed in the Corps and hybrid plans. All four large scale plans, emergency bulldozing and individual efforts to establish dunes are actions which emphasize the public desire to stabilize Fenwick Island. The long-term committment of these actions has different implications regarding mano s desire to stablize and fight nature versus nature's power to move the barrier regardless of what man does. The long-term value and effectiveness of bulldozing and constructing discontinuous dunes is that they can be implemented at any position the shoreline takes . They will only provide protection for particular areas and only during low frequency storm events (less than 10-year event). Three of the four large scale plans that require groins have the least amount of long-term value and effectiveness because of the static position they will hold. Groins will not respond to .natural changes in the beach position or offshore slopes. Groins will have their best results if they are positioned properly with respect to mean low water, if they are properly spaced apart, if they have a bedding m@terial, if they are wide and long enough and if they are filled to capacity with sand. In reality, removal of beach fill between the groins during erosional storm processes will -68- expose the groins and other detrimental impacts may result. The Trident and status quo plans are short-term or interim plans in the f i r s t p 1 a c eThey are not expected to have long-term e f f e c t iveness. The incorporation of a dune line in the hybrid plan gives it more long-term value; however, the groins would detract from the overall value. The Corps plan, or one like it, has the greatest long-term value and effectiveness because of its ability to fluctuate and mov e in response to gradual and immediate changes in beach form and offshore slopes. Exchange of sand between the beach and offshore environments will not be impeded by shoreline structures such as groins . The relative position between the beach and dune must remain fairly constant but it can shift seaward or landward and not lose any of its ability to provide erosion and flood control. The preceding discussion of beach nourishment activities assumed that sea level will follow its previous trend. However, an Environmental Protect ion Agency report to be released this summer projects a substantial rise in sea level resulting from emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorocarbons. Increasing concentrations of these gases are expected to produce a global warning which could cause ocean water to expand and glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica to melt. The EPA.report projects a rise in sea level of one-half to over two feet by the year 2025, and two to ten feet by 2100. Without additional beach nourishment activities, such. a rise in sea level could cause several hundred feet of erosion. of the projects under consideration, only sand replenishment is likely to effectively stabilize the shore. Directly or indirectly, it would Section 16. Validity. If any section or part of these rules and regulations is held to be invalid for. any reason whatsoever, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections or part of these rules and regulations. ADOPTED on the 22nd day of June 1971, by the PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI Its Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Approved this 22nd day of June A,D. 1971. County Attorney, County of Kauai Mayor, County of Kauai Received this 22nd day of June A.D. 1971. County Clerk, County of Kauai -10- I I I I I APPENDIX G I I SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) I RULES & REGULATIONS I COUNTY OF KAUAI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA I I I RULES AND REGULATIONS I I I OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI I (As Amended) I I I I I I I I I -72- 10-year 20-year 50-year 100-year (storm frequency) 1979 $2.9 million 5.3 32.9 50.8 2020 6.4 8.4 39.1 73.7 -73- COMPARISON WITH OTHER COASTAL STATES AND COffl4URITIZS The state and local- regulations that currently govern Ocean City provide at least a minimum protection from flood hazards when compared with national standards and the regulations prevalent throughout coastal communities. Many states and communities have concluded that they pre'fer more than minimum protection. Often the decision to adopt flood protection requirements that are more stringent than required or in common practice has come after a community sustained severe damage from a hurricane or northeaster. This section looks at some of the actions other coastal states and communities have taken to see how they compare to the existing requirements affecting Ocean City. Elevation Requirements. Currently, within the V-zone, Ocean City Flood Damage Control Regulations require elevation to or above the 100-year flood level, including wave heights. Several communities have recognized that the FEMA methodology for determining coastal flood elevations is conservative (especially when wave heights have not yet been included) and subject to numerous errors along the coast because of the limited detail in which the flood insurance studies are performed. Consequently, these communities require the lowest floor of buildings in the V-zone to be elevated from one to five feet or more above the 100-year flood elevation (e.g., Southhampton, NY, East Providence, RI, Wrightsville Beach, NC, and Scituate, MA). The State of Connecticut amended its state building code in 1981 to require any structures within the V-zone to be elevated at least one foot above the 100-year flood level with wave heights. Among the reasons for establishing this requirement is to allow sufficient freeboard for the passage of wave-tossed debris without damaging the structure. Building Limit Line. The Ocean City Building Limit Line provides a setback of structures from the beachfrong. Setbacks are a common regulatory method used by coastal states and communities. Some setback regulations required a special permit or variance in order -74- for a structure to be located within the setback line (State of Florida), and others prohibit construction within the setback line as does Ocean City. Setbacks may be intended to . protect structures from flooding or from erosion, and may also be intended to preservenatural features such as sand dunes and wetlands. North Carolina has establish,ed setbacks for three critical areaa: areas of rapid erosion; areas where inlets may from or inlets are known to shift; and areas of estuaring shoreline concern. The setback distance can be determined based on several factors, but two common criteria used are the landward extent of the FEMA designated V-zone (e.g. Panama City Beach, FL) and the western edge of the primary dune (e.g. Wrightsville Beach, NC). In areas of severe erosion some communities (e.g. San Diego, CA) have adopted a setback distance sufficient to protect 'the structure for its expected life. If erosion averaged 2.5 feet per year and a structure was expected to last 100 years, the setback requirement would be 250 feet. A similar requirement is to establish a setback keyed. to the financial investment in the structure (State of Michigan), e.g. a 30-year life based onthe length of the average home mortgage in an area with 2.5 feet of erosion per year would have to be setback 75 feet. Dune Protection and. Restoration. Regulatory setback requirements are often combined with programs designed to maintain and restore the natural dune line. Dune protection and restoration through the use of sand fencing and dune vegetation is practiced by. numerous communities as a means of reducing the impact of storm surge. For example the town of Avalon, NJ embarked on.a successful dune restoration program after suffering damages in the same March 1962 storm that affected Ocean City. Acquisition of Hazardous Areas, Following the March 1962 storm, Avalon and Sea Isle, NJ acquired several storm damaged properties using funds provided by the State of New Jersey Green Acres program. Other communit. ies such as Scituate, MA and Gulf Shores, AL have used federal. funds (FEMA Section 1362 program) to acquire flood damaged properties following a major disaster. Other communities use their zoning or subdivision regulations to require developers to set aside or dedicate to the town hazardous areas that are part of their development. This technique has been used in Clearwater, FL to require 10% of the area of a subdivision to be set aside for public use. Construction Standards. Ocean City, like most coastal communities$ relies on a standard building code and the certification of a professional engineer or architect to ensure that all buildings in coastal flood hazard areas are properly constructed, and floo-d- proofed if necessary, to withstand the expected forces of wind and waves. Most building codes do not contain specific standards for. f loodproof ing buildings and instead rely on performance criteria that are subject to varying interpretation by the engineers and architects responsible for design and construction. Few of these engineers and architects have been trained,in the propertechniques for construction and floodproofing in coastal flood hazard areas. Likewise, few building inspectors have any sound basis for judging the design proposed by the engineer or architect. The loss of hundreds of buildings during coastal storms to the forces of wind, wave impact, or a combination of waves and, wind are evidence of the inadequacy of most building codes and constuction techniques. Some of the major problems that have been observed are inadequate connections between the foundation and the upper structure, improperly designed walls that do not. permit the passage of waves,'and failure to sink pilings and other foundations properly and deep enough to withstand general erosion and.scour around the foundation. In response to these'problems, some communities, such as Scituate, MA and Gulf Shores, AL, that have suffered major building losses during a coastal storm have enacted supplemental standards to their building code that provide specific, requirements for -76-, foundaL ion co.nsLruct ion, depth of pi I Ingg , foundation bracing, and connections throughout the structure. These standards apply, mostly to one and two story structures and are largely based on research sponsored by FEMA into proper construction techniques in coastal high hazard areas. These research results are also resulting in the addition of specific construction and floodproofing standards in some basic building codes. The BOCA code was revised earlier in 1983, but the Standard Building Code used by Ocean City has not been revised. Warning and Evacuation. Even when other measures to reduce flood losses have been taken, it is not safe to remain in vulnerable coastal areas during a major hurricane. In the last few, years many coastal communities have become increasingly concerned about their ability to evacuate the people in their towns in the time that is available following a hurricane warning from the National Weather Service. Florida has led the nation in the development of detailed, regional evacuation plans. These evacuation plans are based on a detailed evaluation of the number and special needs of people that will have t .o be evacuated from a given area, how their evacuation routes may be shared with other communities, flooding and other problems that may restrict the use of some evacuation routes, and the capacity of the routes to handle the traffic that will be required. Florida is also developing its own hurricane warning system to supplement the information provided by the National Weater Service so that it can provide Florida communities with additional warning of the probability of a hurricane striking any given area. The community of Sanibel, FL (an island off the southwest coast of FL) was sufficiently concerned about its ability to evacuate residents and visitors to the island that it established a cap on growth keyed to the ability to safely evacuate within@the warning time provided by the National Weather Service. -77- CONCLUSIONS AND RECODMNDATIONS 1. The most ef f ect ive ero s ion and f lood contro 1 p lan f or Ocean City on a long-term basis appears to be the Corps of Engineers' "Hurricane Protection and Beach Restoration Plan" based on its level of protection, time of implementation, long-term ability to endure and adapt to shoreline changes and study justification (benefit/cost ratio). 2. Any erosion and flood control plan that incorporates the use, of groins will require a higher degree of shoreline stability to be effective on a long-term basis. 3. Groins will.have their best results if: - They are positioned properly with respect to mean low water; - They are properly space apart; - They have a bedding material; - They are,wide and long enough; -They are.filled to capacity with sand; and Everyone realizes they will only provide interim or short-term, 10-year storm protection. 4. No detailed benefit/cost analyses exist for any erosional and flood control plan other than the Corps plan; therefore, comparison of the four proposed plans is not possible at the present time. 5. A source of sand for beach or dune restoration must be identified and selected regardless of what individual or combination of interim or long-term plans is implemented. 7. Strategies for obtaining financial contributions from permanent residents, developers, merchants and seasonal visitors who invest in the recreational amenities of Ocean CiLy should be devised to compensate for additional costs of an erosion and flood control plan. 8. A more detailed and complete Emergency Operations Plans should be developed that: Determines the time required for evacuation given different population levels, the capacity of evacuation routes, including impediments to evacuation such as road level below flood level and use of evacuation routes by other communities. - Evaluates evacuation time compared to expected warning time tq be provided by the National Weather Service, and if evacuation time exceeds warning time, identifies measures to *rove the' capacity of evacuation routes, limit development or other appropriate actions. - Provides guidance to owners/managers of motels and condominums for development of their own warning and evacuation procedurs which will be coordinated with the Ocean City Emergency Operations Plan. - Provides for evacuation procedures for special segments of the population such as the elderly, handicaped, and families of emergency workers. 9. Land.use controls should recognize that the delineation of hazard areas on a coastal barrier is imprecise because of uncertaini- ties in the methodologies employed, and that the hazard areas are subject to constant change. Consequently, hazard areas delineation should be viewed as conservative and Oland use controls modified to reflect this situation. The Comprehensive Plan for Ocean City should be revised to reflect an awareness of the flood hazard and the changing nature of the hazard. Setbacks from the oceanfront should be increased, wetlan,d areas on the bay side recognized as protected, open space areas identified that coincide _79- with potential. washover areas, infrasturucture located to increase useability during early stages of storms, and emergency facilities located to provide 'protection to all parts of the town during a flood emergency. The Ocean City Open Space Implementation Program should be updated, including the specificfunding mechanisms, and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. The Building Limit Line should be modified by the town and state toconicide with the currently designated V-zone or the western edge of the former natural dune line, and reevaluated and adjusted as necessary each time the flood hazard areas are revised. The Ocean City Zoning Regulations should be revised to conform with the revised.Comprehensive Plan ad Building Limit Line. The Ocean City Erosion Control Regulations should prohibit destruction of theremaining natural dunes, and Ocean City should provide strict enforcement of requirements to maintain artificial dunes and berms. - The state Tidewater Administration and the Erosion Control Division of DNR along with the Worcester Soil Conservation District should assist the Town of Ocean City in developing a long-range, comprehensive program of dune maintenance and restoration that is coordinated with property owner responsibilities for dune maintenance. - Additional canals that increase the potential for island breaching should be prohibited. 10. Construction standards should also recognize the uncertain and conservative nature of hazard,area delineation on a barrier island and be modified accordingly. Particular attention needs to be addressed to the potential hazards associated with development on the bay side of the island. - The current building code for Ocean City should be supplemented with the best available specific standards for construction in coastal flood hazard areas, e.g., the appropriate sections of the recently revised MCA code. -80- Protectiou of individual buildings by seawalls, bulkheads, and similar means should not be permitted if there will be any potential increase in erosion or flood damage to adjacent properties. Current and revised constructions standards should be strictly ,enforced. 11. Additional state investments that would permit or encourage growth in Ocean City should not be made unless and until a detailed evacuation plan has been prepared that clearly demonstrates the ability to evacuate the population with Available warning time. 12. All public.. investments by Ocean City in new buildings and .infrastructure should ensure that they will withstand a 100-year flood, and critical facilities such as police, fire, and emergency care facilities should be built to an even higher standard. AFTER THE STORM. YU gq* Ti7 4A@ 1,4 GUIDING E V L 0 P M ErL*jm T -82- Ocean City is fortunate that it has not been affected by a major storm in over 20 years. Inevitably though, another major storm will strike the island and cause considerable damage. The cl-ty will then be faced with many hard decisions regarding recovery and reconstruction. These decisions will begin immediately after the emergency relief and rescue operations have ended and will, continue for several months. Most communities are not prepared to deal with a natural disaster. Commonly, the period following a disaster is extremely disruptive. Although officials and citizens, usually aided by state and federal governments, exert enormous efforts and cooperation in dealing with the effects of the"disaster, the toll in personal stress and economic losses is great. In the end, the community usually rebuilds so that it is nearly as vulnerable to a natural disaster as it was before. Although the disruption caused by a major disaster cannot be eliminated, it can be minimized if Ocean City takes actions beforehand to prepare itself for dealing with the aftermath of the disaster. Ocean City can also seize the disaster as an opportunity to correct some of the previous land use decisions that may have contributed to storm losses. Just as important will be the need to determine if the City is left in a more vulnerable position than it was before the storm and to take appropriate actions regarding redevelopment. -83- ACTIONS TO TAKE BEFORE THE STORM The previous section of this report identified severa-1 hazard mitigation actions which Ocean City could take now to reduce potential flood losses during the next major storm. There are also actions which the City should now in order to strengthen its ability to take effective flood hazard mitigation actions during the reco.very and reconstruction efforts following that storm. Some of the pre-storm actions needed to enable effective post-storm hazard mitigation actions are described below. Revision of the Comprehensive Plan of Ocean City. The Comprehensive Plan should be revised to include a statement of policy that recognizes the hazard vulnerability of Ocean and the intent of the City to permit development and redevelopment only in locations and in a manner that provide adequate protect ion f rom a 100-year f lood . The policy should further state that the f lood hazard areas in Ocean City are subject to both gradual and sudden change as a result of long-term erosion forces and strom impacts. Consequently, in order to protect people and property it may be necessary to periodically reevaluate the f lood hazard areas and adjust them as necessary, particularly following a major storm. Following adjustment of the f lood hazard areas, the Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations may have to be revised to reflect the change in hazard areas. The Comprehensive Plan should also reference a Post-Disaster Recovery/Redevelopment Plan. Preparation of a Post-Disaster Recovery/Redevelopment Plan. A Post-Disaster Recovery/Redevelopmeut Plan should be prepared before the disaster to avoid unnecessary confusion, delay and inappropriate actions after the disaster. The purpose of the plan is to expedite recovery from the disaster while also identifying ways to mitigate future loss potential. The plan should identify the actions and decisions that will be needed after the disaster, who is responsible for each decision _84- or action, and the criteria upon which the decisions will be made. The plan should identify any special roles that city officials, employees and citizens may have in the recovery effort, such as a recovery task force and damage assessment teams. It should also identify any types of services needed that may be beyond the capacity of the local government during the disaster and for which outside assistance will be required. Figure 5A-1 lists the major activities that Ocean City will need to undertake following a disaster. Each of these activities is discussed later is this section. Some of the activities involved in the recovery plan are the same as activities already addressed in the Ocean City Emergency operations Plan, such as damage assessment. Other recovery activities such as hazard mitigation evaluation may require a modification of the way some emergency operations are normally handled, e.g. non-. emergency debris removal should not occur until the debris can be examined for evidence of the specific causes of damage. Therefore, the recovery plan should be coordinated with the Ocean City Emergency Operations Plan. Authority to Impose a Temporary Building Moratorium. After a disaster, important opportunities for flood hazard mitigation are often lost because property owners immediately begin rebuilding their damaged buildings in the same location and to the same level of protection as before the storm. This often occurs because the community's permitting officials are overworked. They may not be able to,give each application the attention.it needs to assure compliance with applicable requirements and property owners may undertake reconstruction without seeking a permit. A temporary building moratorium can avoid this situation as well @as provide time to reassess the City's flood hazard vulnerabil,@ ity and to identify hazard mitigation opportunities. The Mayor and City Council should act to establish the clear legal authority to impose a temporary moratorium on all redevelopment Figure 5A-1 Sequence of Local Activities in Assessing Damages and Permitting Reconstruction Weeks Events 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Disaster and Declaration x Damage Assessment Deploy Assessment Teams x Assess, Classify, and Map Damages Submit Damage Survey Reports to State and Federal Agencies Notify Property Owners of Damage Classifications and Repair Requirements Attend Applicant's Briefing and Submit Requests 01 for State and Federal Assistance Reconstruction Permitting Deploy Recovery Task Force x Declare Moratorium on Repairs and New Development x Set Calendar of Milestones for Other Tasks x Begin Repairs to Critical Utilities and Facilities ---------- ? > Lift-Moratortum for "Minor" Repairs ------------------------> Lift Moratorium for "Major" Repairs to Conforming - - - - ? - - - ------------> Structures Evaluate Hazards and the Effectiveness ? - of Mitigation Policies Amend Policies ? - Initiate Negotiations for Relocations -------------------------------- > and Acquisitions Lift Moratorium on "Major" Repairs (with changes - - - ? to conform) Participate in Federal Hazard Mitigation Planning --------------------------------------------> Lift Moratorium on New Development ? -86- and new development following a major natural disaster. The maximum duration of the moratorium should be identified (e.g., six months). The authority may also include provisions for lifting the moratorium on "minor" rehabilitation prior to "major" reconstruction or new development. Appoin tment of Special Teams and Task Forces. Recovery and recon- struction after the disaster will require duties that are beyond the normal scope of city officials and employees. Special needs will have to be met such as damage assessment, evaluation of hazard vulnerability, evaluation of effectiveness of current hazard mitigat ion requirements, and identification of additional hazard mitigation opportunities as well as coordination of the entire recovery effort. These activities can.be partially handled by city officials and staff, but many may require or be aided by the addition of citizens with specialized expertise and the use of outside services. All of the special task forces and teams that are identified in the Post-Disaster Plan should be formed prior to the disaster. Individuals should be assigned to the various groups and briefed on their responsibilities. Outside services or products that may be procurred should be identified to the extent possible. -87- DAMAGE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES Damage assessment will be the first step in the recovery and rede- velopment process. Damage assessment may occur more than once during disaster recovery and serve several purposes. In each instance it will be necessary to assess the damages, classify the damages by several categories, and map the location of the damaged property. Damage assessment teams may need to be established for different categories of property. For example, there may be teams assigned to public property (buildings, equipment, roads, bridges, sewer, water, etc.); commercial establishments (retail store.s, restaurants, hotels and motels, etc.); and residential property (individual, private dwellings, mobile homes, condominums) . The composition of each team may differ in order to provide the greates exertise in making the damage assessments. The initial damage assessments will be the least detailed and will probably be of the "windshield survey" type. This initial assessment should occur as soon as the storm has subsided enough to enable the assessment teams to safely survey. the area. The results of this assessment will enable the Mayor and City Council to determine if the damage is sufficient to declare a continued state of emergency, to impose a temporary building moratorium, and to request state aid to supplement local resources. The initial survey will result in a determination of the number of structures, roads and other property categories that have been damaged; whether the property has received minor or major damage or is destroyed; and a rough dollar estimate based on "rule of thumb" estimating procedures. This initial damage assessment may be performed by key city employees rather than the full damage assessment teams. The second damage assessment will occur as soon as the damage assessment teams can be assembled and given their assignments. They should be supplied with forms and maps for recording the -88- dakijml,,4-F; ThO S 41 foi ins @hoii Id provide for record Ing 1nfor[TM t- I Ork irk a forinat that is consistent w] Lb the luformaL lon required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for federal disaster assis- tnace. They should also provide for additional information that will be important for local decision making. For example it will be important to classify private property according to whether it was damaged 50% or more of market value. Properties damaged more than 50% of warket value will be required to comply with the flood damage controls and other sections of the Ocean City code relating to nonconforming uses. The results of this second damage survey should be submitted to state and federal agencies as part of the process of applying for federal disaster assistance. Relevant information should also be supplied to property owners along with information regarding permit and other requirements for making temporary or permanent repairs or for rebuilding structures that were destroyed. The, property owners should also be notified of the building moratorium if it has been imposed by the Mayor and City Council. Notification of property owners will be especially important in Ocean City since many owners to not occupy the property or live on the island. In addition to recording damages to property, the damage assessment teams should also determine the cause of damages The structure should be examined as well as the surrounding area, including debris that may be left on the property. Damages should be classified according to whether it was caused by wind, direct i,mpact of waves, overw.ash,(either from the ocean to bay or bay to ocean), high water levels, wind blown debris, water tossed debris, or a combination of two or more of the above categories This information.will be essential for determining the effectiveness of the existing hazard mitigation measures in Ocean City and for identifying possible new hazard mitigation measures. If a presidential disaster declaration is made, the damage assessment teams will also be involved in still another round of damage assessments. FEMIA will assign teams federal and state empl.oyees to prepaye Damage Survey Reports. These reports will verify the damage assessmetiLf; subm*Itted to the State and federal government by the Ocean City damage assessment team and will determine the extent to which the properties are eligible for federal assistance These Damage Survey Reports will be prepared over a period of weeks or months. It is important,for the Ocean City damage assessment teams to accompany the federal/state team on their inspections so that they can clarify information concerning their damage estimates and provide information about the cause of damages that may no longer be evident because of debris removal or other reasons. -90- PERMITTING RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION After the initial damage asse ssments Iare completed, the Mayor and City Council will have to determine if they should declare a temporary building moratorium. Criteria will have been established to aid in making this decision. For example, the decision may be based on the number of buildings that were d,estroyed or received major or minor damage. It may also be based on the estimate of total dollar damages. Another criteria will be the initial obser- vations regarding the extent of, erosion and washover (and possibly. breaching) that occurred. A decision will also have to be made regarding how long the moratorium will remain in effect. Once a building moratorium is established (and even if it is not) a timetable will need to be developed for the major actions that will occur. The timetable will be based on the best estimate of the time required to complete the various tasks involved in disaster recovery and the sequence in which actions will have to occur. A general sequence of events and timetable such as shown in Figure 5A-1 will need to be prepared before the disaster as part of the Disaster Recovery Plan, but the specific time s and dates can only be determined based on the extent and nature of damages that occurred. The first repairs that will be undertaken are to critical utilities,and other public facilities. Temporary .repairs (including debris removal) should be made to the major roadways and bridges providing access to Ocean City, to the water and sewer facilities, to electrical and communications equipment, and to essential public buildings such as police, fire, emergency medical serv-ices and Town Hall. After completion of the detailed damage assessment, the temporary moratorium on minor repairs may be lifted. Minor repairs would include those that suffered less that 50% damage. The moratorium on major repairs (greater than 50% damage) should continue until -91- the hazard vulnerablAity and mitigation effectiveness evaluatIons aie completed. Immediately after the storm an evaluation of the hazard vulner- ability of the island should begin. This will include determining the amount of erosion that occurred, damage to protective sand dunes, changes to the bay side of the island, and areas that were affected by overwash and may have caused or increased the potential for island breaching. Although this evaluation should begin as soon as possible, final conclusions regarding the amount of erosion that occurred should not be made until several days have passed in order to permit the shoxefront to readjust naturallyto the temporary effects of the stiorm. Results of the vulnerability analysis will be a critical factor in decisions or issuance of rebuilding permits. If erosion has been severe and the protection from storm surge and wave impact greatly reduced, it may not be wise to permit redevelopment of substantially damaged building in the same location. Closely related to the vulnerability analysis is the evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing hazard mitigation measures. A major factor influencing this evaluation will be the estimated retu rn frequency of the storm. If measures to protect property against a 100"year storm proved to be ineffective in a storm estimated to have a 50- to 75-year return frequency, then they should be considered inadequate and either strengthened or replaced with a,different hazard mitigation measure. Hazard mitigation measures that should be evaluated include the building code, the location of the Building Limit Line, the beach protection program, the sand dune preservation program, flood elevation, requirements. flood proofing requirements, foundation requirements, etc. Ocean City should conduct its own evaluation of the effectiveness of hazard mitigation actions and it should actively participate in the federal and state hazard mitigation -92- teams that will be requIred to prepare haZaTd mitigation reports. If hazard mitigation measures are found to be inade.quate or the vulnerability of the island has significantly changed, then additional hazard mitigation measures should be considered. .Among those to be considered would be strengthening the building code requirements, relocating the Building Limit Line, and acquiring properties that should not be rebuilt because of their hazardous location. Once decisions of new or improved hazard mitigation measures are made, then the building moratorium can be lifited on those structures that suffered major damage but can be rebuilt in the same location and be considered safe if they conform to all codes and hazard mitigation measures. Properties that suffered major damage and cannot be rebuilt in the same location without being subject to a flood hazard should be denied a building permit. In these instances determinations will have to be made as to whether the property should be acquired by the city, if the property owner should be permitted to build in another location (transfer of development rights) or if no form of compensation will be offered. APPENDIX A APPENDIX 141 V-ZDNE 4. IRMA= qr SON A ji t 7S '@Sa ,A v-z0NE ..r-v-zDw v-zom N.- ;4." -:7 ----- -win zz.@; r ,6d '"CINE A 68 6 68 65 64 73 72 71 70 STATE OF MARYLAND AERIAL PHOTOGRA Example of a plate @howing approximate DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BEACH EROSION CONTROL location of Flood insurance Rate ki ap DELAWARE STATE LINE TO ThE OCE. formation. Set,of eight will be completed TIWwATIR AD61*15TRAT9W CAp,)TAL PWvRAU3 ADUjNjbTRATK)N OCEAN CITV. VARYL 4 A-- for Final Report. COASTAL ZONE DIVISION ;"M EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM MAY 196 Ocean City, Maryland Man-Made Canals and Natural Creek Channels Oriented Perpendicular to the 9ioreline (measurements in feet) Distance to Minimum Boardwalk or Street Width Length Coastal Highway 13-14 80 340 1160 17-18 -80 450 900 18-19 80 160 900 24 60 620 930 25-26 50 470 940 28-29 120 980 600 29-30 70 1200 1520 36 40 600 230 37-38 60 240 320 48 60 230 460 52-53 40 380 630 53-54 80 670 310 54-55 80 600 280 59-60* 90 260 500 61-62* 1?0 460 5104 63-64* iio 1400 700 66-67* 90 1530 800 73-74* 150 600 74-75* 80 700 550 77* 10Q 600 500 79-80* 40 400 520 82-83* 100 800 420 86* 200 600 500 88 180 540 1200 91-92 @70 1120 1200 92-913 60 1060 1180 951 80 2820 1240 99* 60 -7500 360 106-107 50 2000 100 108 50 1950 120 109-110 50 1910 140 ill 40 1900 130 117 100 2050 210 118 100 3100 220 122-123 140 2920 160 124 150 Modified 1000 126* 150 Modified 1000 130-131 120 1000 780 135-136 80 1300 530 Signifies natural tidal creek channels Ocean City, Maryland Barrier Widths (measurements in feet taken from May 16, 19113 FIRM-,) Bay to Bay To Bay T( Street Boardwalk Street Coastal fliqhwav Street coastal 11-. N. Jetty 760 28th 3200 74th 1170 Worchester 1260 29th 3400 75th 1420 Caroline 1460 30th 3000 76th 21'10 1st 1550 31st .3800 77th 2540 2nd 1550 32nd 38,80 78th 1900 3rd 1550 33rd 920. 79th 940 4th 1560 34th 750 80th 1530 5th 1540 35th 8310 81st 1800 6th 1520 36th 230 .82nd @1270 7th 1460 37th 840 83rd 800 8th 1460 @38th 84th 1220 9th 1520 39th 1090 85th 1200 10th 1520 40th 1090 86th 530 11th 1520 41st 1080 87th 1890 12th 2040 42nd 1020 88th 3180 13th 2340 43rd 800 89th 3270 14th 2320 44th 620 90th 15th 2240 45th 550 91st 3930 16th 2440 46th 710 92nd 4000 .17th 2340 47th 550 93rd 4030 @18th' 2370 48th 470 94th 4040 19th 2420 49th 740 95th 3790 20th 1520 50th 750 96th 3780 21st 1530 51st 1000 97th 3760 22nd 1160 52nd 1530 98th 3820 23rd 1600 53rd 1010 99th 3710 24th 910 54th 1130 100th 3440 25th 1640 55th 1110 101st 2850 26th 3400 56th .1090 102nd 2850 27th 3700 57th 950 103rd 2250 58th 710 104th 2240 59th 1000 105th 2470 60th 960 106th 3340 61st 2430 107th 3180 62nd 246o 108th 3100 @63rd 2450 109th 3100 1860 110th 3120 2330 11 1th, 3130 65th 66th 2220 112th 2150 67th 2160 113th 2000 68th 2200 114th 20610 69th 2370 115th 2100 70th 2430 116th 3200 71st 2300 117th 3220 72nd 1400 118th 3320 73rd 1240 Barrier Widths (Continued). Bay To !et Coastal Highw .h 3680 -h 3720 A @3750 id 3780 Id 3080 .h 2880 :h 1980 -h 2540 ,-h 2600 .h 1500 h 3920 ':h 4200 ;t 4500 id 4870 @d 4900 "h 4840 ;I h 4710 h 4420 '-h 3930 Z; h 3700 iett 3600 qarthy 3600 3660 Aford' 3900 -kley 4010 ]or 3840 ley 3640 te Bound 3790 I j - -- - - I- - - Q: I @ 1 3 6668 14101 00