Flood insurance ocean city md

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]






                                             COASTAL ZONE
                                         INFORMATION CENTE%


                               REDUCING THE
            FLOOD DAMAGE POTENTIAL
             IN OCEAN CITY5 MARYLAND












                                                                                                 -ism
                                  !W;










   A

             HD
             1676
             H86
             1984
                                               A Report
                                           Prepared for the
                             Maryland Department of Natural Resources
                                                  By
                                               IEP, Ina
     Coastal zone
      Information                                And
         CeInter                      L.R. Johnston Associates






















                          REDUCING THE FLOOD DAMAGE POTENTIAL

                                  IN OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND





                                         April 1984









                                         Prepared For

                                Department of Natural Resources
                                    Tidewater Administration
                                       State of Maryland






                                         Prepared By

                                     Stanley M. Humphries
                                           IEP, Inc.
                                         6 Maple Street
                                 Northborough, Massachusetts


                                      'Larry R. Johnston

                                   L. R. Johnston Associates
                                       21 St. John Place
                                     Westport, Connecticut
















                                               PREFACE




             Coastal flood hazard vulnerability and the opportunities to        mitigate the
             damages that result from a storm have changed substantially since
             March 6-8, 1962, when the last major storm impacted the mid-Atlantic
             States.   Ocean   City, Maryland is one of many develop-ed barrier beaches
             in -this region which faces an ever-increasing potential loss of life and

             property unless pre- and post-disaster planning is improved.           The most
             retent government supported document providing information critica.1           to
             understanding more about the problem in the Ocean City area is                  @A
             Geographical Analysis of Fenwick Island,          (Dolan, et al,     1980).    It
             serves as a valuable resource in the continuing effort of assisting,
             Ocean City, Worcester County and the State of Maryland in comprehensive
             disas'ter planning.


             The purpose of this study is to summarize specific existing information
             on flood hazard vulnerability and identify measures that can be taken
             both before and after a major storm in addition to* emergency management
             activities and efforts.      The study also examines the effectiveness of
             the several beach protection plans recently proposed for Ocean City and
             how those plans relate       to other nonstructural      flood  loss reduction,

             measures.



             Unlike other more costly hurricane preparedness studies that are based
             on the application of current computer models (e.g. SLOSH) or recently
             collected coastal     process  data,   this  study represents a      lower cost
             effort designed to integrate existing scientific, legal and planning
             information, and recommend a set of general guidelines and criteria.


             This study is sponsored by the Coastal Resources Division, Tidewater
             Administration, Maryland Department of Natural Resources wi       th  assistance












                provided    by    other    relevant    state agencies,       Worcester     County
                Commissioners, the City Council of Ocean City and the City Manager's
                office of Ocean City.     This project has been financed with federal funds
                @from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.under assistance agreement
                award identification number EMP-K-0065.       The contents do.not necessarily
                reflect the views and policies of the Federal Emergency Management
                Agency.,  nor   does   mention   of   trade   names   or  commercial     products
                constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
















                                      ACKNOWLEDGMENTS





           This study was performed under the direction of Dr. Sarah Taylor and
           Mr. Earl Bradley of the Coastal Resources Division and members of the
           State's Post-Disaster Planning Task Force which includes: Ms. Marguerite
           Whilden, Water Resources Administration; Mr. Larry Fogelson, Office of
           State Planning; and Mr. John Peabody, Maryland Emergency Management and
           Civil Defence Agency.    The staff of the Coastal Resources Division,
           specifically Dr. Christopher Zabawa, Mr. Jeffrey Hutchins, P.E. and
           Mr. David Burke, provided many services and much assistance during the
           course of the study.


           Dr. Stephen Leatherman greatly contributed to the historical shoreline
           analysis, stratigraphic interpretation and geomorphic characterization.


           Technical support, data refinement and data analysis [email protected] additionally
           provided by Mr. John Rohrer, Mr. Michael Rapacz and Mr. Andrew Miller of
           IEP, Inc. and Mr. Beach Clow of the University of Maryland.


















                                            EXECUTIVE SUKKARY





                 The Town  of Ocean City, Maryland is an extensively developed resort
                 community located on a coastal barrier beach along the Atlantic Ocean.
                 Intensely  developed    with   individual   homes,    commercial    businesses,
                 motels, mobile homes, and high-rise motels and condominiums, as well as
                 being heavily populated in the summer months, Ocean City is subject to
                 potentially high    levels  of damage from coastal storms and floods.
                 Vulnerability to these hazards is particularly acute because of the
                 geographic and geologic characteristics that define the long, low and
                 n.arrow coastal   barrier   which   the   City occupies.      This  study was
                 conducted in order to summarize existing hazard vulnerability, storm and
                 beach protection alternatives, and land use ordinances and controls so
                 that a set of actions could be recommended to reduce the flood damage
                 potential  before and after      a storm.     With the tremendous economic
                 [email protected]'tments in Ocean City, there is a great need to reduce the damage
                 potential.   However, with the present level of development and strong
                 pressures for continued development and redevelopment, the opportunities
                 for mitigation are limited and the cost will be high.



                 FLOOD HAZARD VULNERABILITY



                 Five general areas across the coastal barrier were analyzed in order to
                 characterize the existing natural and built environment and to identify
                 areas of greatest risk to flood and erosion processes.        These five areas
                 include: the nearshore zone; the shore zone; the high hazard zone, the
                 100-year floodplain and the bays.      A steep offshore profile, established
                 since the last major storm in 1962, will remain as long as the static
                 shoreline position of the City is held.       As a result , a major increase
                 in beach  recession can be expected during the next major storm.              An
                 eroding, low, narrow beach dotted with numerous ineffective groins only



                                                         iv













           provides   protection    from  storms with approximately a 5-year return
           frequency.    Very   few  sand   dunes    now  exist   along   the  Ocean    city
           beachfront.    They have been -largely replaced by over 335 habitable
           ..structures and numerous parking lots.       These b.uildings are exposed to
           waves greater than three feet during a 100-year storm.         Essentially, the
           entire City is within the 100-year floodplain and historical photos of
           .the 1962 storm (a 50-year event) show a majority of the major r              oad
           through the City to be covered by overwashed sand.         The threat of inlet
           formation is also considerable because of existing man-made canals and
          @natural   channels,   barrier narrowness, previous inlet formations and'
           several "buried valleys" that have been mapped.         During a low frequency
           storm event, there is also a considerable hazard       along the bay shoreline,
           of Ocean City as a result of high water flowing back over the barrier

           toward the ocean.



           Three broad areas that are at greatest risk and thus likely to suffer
           heavy damages during a major storm were identified based on a composite.
           of."natural and built characteristics.       The- area between 74th and 87th
           Streets   is   particularly   vulnerable    to   erosion  damage during high
           frequency minor storms (i.e., 10-year       event) because of a narrow beach
           and low dunes.    The area between 112th    and,132nd Streets is particularly
           vulnerable to flooding damage during        moderate frequency storms (i.e.,
           50-year event) because of a wide velocity zone.          The area between 32nd
           and 57th Streets is particularly vulnerable to damages caused by inlet
           formation during low frequency storms (i.e., 100-year events) because of
           a narrow barrier width, several bayside channels, an historical inlet
           and a mapped "buried valley."



           IS OCEAIN CITY PREPARED?



           Historically, Ocean City has provided storm and beach protection only          on
           an  emergency basis.    Following the March 1962 storm, the beach and dunes



                                                    V.













                were reconstructed to provide 10-year storm protection.             Small groins
                have been placed at various locations in response to localized erosion
                problems.    In 1976 and 1978 lower portions of the beach in certain areas
                were   bulldozed    to   create    "dunes"   which   provided    only    immediate
                post-storm, protection.      Currently,    the  City   and   State  are    jointly
                funding the placement of     a series of groins over the     next 25 years which
                will provide protection      against a 10-year storm event.         The two mos t
                important     features    of  the   groin    plan   (besides    the   engineering
                specifications) are: (1)     the groins must be placed sequentially from 9th
                Street northward to the Maryland-De      laware line; and, (2) each groin cell
                must be filled to capacity.       There are currently limited efforts of the
                County Soil Conservation District and private citizens to reestablish

                and stabilize dunes.



                Several agencies within the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
                have substantial responsibilities for administering State legislation
                and regulations that relate directly to flood hazard mitigation.             ocean
                city   and    Worcester   County    also   have   land   use   and   construction
                regulations, some of which are related to State programs.            These State
                and local regulations that currently govern Ocean City and the coastal
                por ti6ns  of Worcester     County generally provide at least a minimum
                protIection from flood hazards when compared with national standards           and
                regulations prevalent in coastal communities.          But there. is a need    for
                modification    and   improvement   to   existing   land use regulations.      and
                development controls      to better    define  State and local roles and to
                provide more than minimum protection.


                The   city    relies   heavily   upon    its   building   code   and    floodplain*
                regulations to ensure that buildings are designed and constructed to
                withstand the forces of wind and water during storms, but much of'the'
                present development occurred during the late        60's and mid 70's when many
                of   the   present   land  use   and construction controls did not exist.



                                                          Vi













           .Enforcement of regulations appears not' to. have been        uniform over the
           years , and p .erhaps most importantly, the special, changeable nature,        of
          @@Ocean City as a barrier island has not been fully recognized in most          of
           the existing regulations and development decisions.            Many Ocean. City
           officials and residents /property owners believe that having survived one
           severe. storm in 1962 they can fare. equally well during the next major
           storm.   There is little evidence to support the optimism.        Ocean.City   is
           subject to more severe erosion and flooding than in 1962, much more
           property is at risk, and it is unclear whether the City can be evacuated
           in the available time.      In summary, today Ocean City is more vulnerable
           to losses from a major hurricane or nor'easter than at any time in           i ts'

           past.



           REDUCING DAMAGE POTENTIAL



           Only    limited   structural   and  nonstructural.   flood hazard mitig9tion
           alternatives are available to Ocean City.         Most of the    attention ov I er
           the last several years has focused on selecting and             implementing a
           bea ch   protection    plan.    Less   attention   has   been   given   to    the
           consideration of nonstructural measures such as improved elevation
           ,requirements, construction setbacks, land acquisiton and building code
           -improvements.    To effectively reduce the damage potential related to
           coastal storms, Ocean' City must adopt a comprehensive flood hazard
           mitigation   strategy which     utilizes   a combination of structural and
           nonstructural    measures.    Perhaps some measures can't be implemented
           unti   after a storm occurs; they should be considered and planned for

           before a storm.


           short-term, interim protection against beach erosion is currently beiqg
           sought with     a. groin plan modeled after recommendations by Trident
           Engineering Associates.      A beach nourishment plan providing much longer
           term protection against both erosion and flooding has been proposed by



                                                   vii













                 the  U. S.   Army   Cor ps  of   Engineers.      A hybrid, groin      plan    which
                 incorporates   features   of all    the Corps    and Trident plans has been
                 proposed by the State.      While this groin plan will do little to directly
                 reduce flood-related damages, it may provide a wider beach which is
                 necessary   for   dune stabilization. Beach restoration and maintenance
                 requirements of the plan must be fulfilled.         As the groin plan is being
                 implemented-,   the    beach    must    be   monitored    and    maintained     and
                 opportunities must be taken to construct dunes' as required in the hybrlid
                 plan.   This, approach would    provide more of a transition from strictly
                 erosion protection to both      erosion and flood protection.        In short,. a
                 50-year protection plan would be created.


                 Several changes should be made in the plans, programs and regulations
                 that govern land use in Ocean City in order to recognize the changing
                 nature of flood hazard vulnerability on a coastal. barrier and to protect
                 people - and property over a long period of time.              Revisions to the
                 Comprehensive     Plan  For   Ocean , City,   and Open Space        Implementation
                 Program, zoning regulations, erosion and sediment control regulations,
                 the   State7Ocean     City  Building    Limit   Line    Authority    and   several
                 construction standards need to be made.          Some revisions can take place
                 now, but some cannot be made until after a major storm occurs.                   In
                 general,   the   suggested   revisions    focus   on  funding   sources,    public
                 awareness,    enforce .ment, and 'most    importantly,    the  opportunities     to
                 establish     specific   standards    as   opposed    to   general     performance
                 sItandards.   Of particular importance are the need to establish            a set
                 back provision and stringent foundation requirements for structures on
                 the bay side of Ocean City, to provide greater setback from mean high
                 water along the ocean front, and the adoption of a building code in
                 Worcester   County.    Also essential is the development of a detailed,
                 evacuation plan for Ocean City and nearby areas of Worcester County.








                                                          Viii

















             .GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT



             Ocean City needs to be better prepared for what will           happen af ter   a
             disasterous   storm   occurs:  to prepare for recovery,       res.toration and
             mitigation.    Such preparation will not eliminate the personal stress,
             economic loss and the effects of a disaster, but it will reduce some of
             the pressure to respond in the emergency and recovery phases and improve
             the, efficiency of    the relief effort.      Disaster assistance policies,
             procedures and financial aid provided by the federal government as well
             as natural changes of the coastal barrier environment will, in part,
             control the decision-making process.      Knowledge of these limitations and
             possible changes    is  an essential part of pre-disaster planning -for
             post disaster actions.


             Establishment of necessary authorities and procedures must occur prior
             to a disaster and must address at least the following:
                   1.   Revision of the Comprehensive Plan of Ocean City;
                   2.   Authority to impose a temporary building moratorium;
                   3.   Appointment of special teams and task forces;
                   4.   Identification of outside products and services; and,
                   5.   Sources of funding for disaster recovery and mitigation.


             In Addition, a Post-Disaster Recovery/Mitigation 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: -1) expedite recovery from the disaster while also identifying ways
             to mitigate, future loss potential; 2) identify the actions that will be
             ,needed as well as the authority and criteria for these actions;
             3) identify any special roles of officials and citizens; and,
             4) identify types of outside assistance that will be required.              The
             major actions recommended in the Plan are decribed in the following

             areas:






                                                    ix














                    1. Emergency or Disaster Declaration;
                    2. Damage Assessments;
                    3. Beach and Dune Restoration; and,
                    4. Reconstruction Permitting.

















































                                                  x











             Chapter                       Description                                Page

                                Emergency or Disaster  Declaration                     [email protected]
                                Damage Assessments                                     137
                                Reconstruction Permitting                              139
                                Beach and Dune Restoration                             143


                          REFERENCES



                                            APPENDICES


             Appendix A    1981 Photogrammetric. Survey of the Beach Control
                            District and Approximate Location of the Oceanfront
                            Flood Insurance Zones (1983 FIRM)
             Appendix B    Federal Role in Emergency Response and Procedures
                            for Obtaining Federal Disaster Assistance
             Appendix C    Glossary
             Appendix D    Additional Recommendations and Research Needs



                                         LIST OF FIGURES


             Figure No.                    Description                                 Page

                 I         Location of Ocean City, Maryland                              2
                 2         Northward progression of development between
                            1901 and 1972                                                7
                 3         Typical cross-section of the barrier beach
                            (Fenwick Island) at Ocean City, Maryland showing
                            five selected hazard prone areas in reference to
                            the flood insurance zones and several cultural
                            features                                                   12
                 4'        Shoreline change rates between 1929 and 1980                1.7
                 5         Shoreline change rates between 1850 and 1980                19
                 6         Distance and elevation measurements within the
                            area between mean high water and the Building
                            Limit Line (1981)                                          21
                 7         Location and length (in feet) of existing seawalls          @28
               @8          Approximate extent of sand deposited by overwash
                            processes during the March 1962 storm                      31
                 9         Qualitative comparison between March 1962 storm
                            overwash and 1983 FIRM                                     .34
               10          Existing subsurface,geologic data revealing possible
                            "buried valleys" in the vicinity of 37th, 60th,.83rd
                            and 100th streets                                          38
               11          Locations and dates of formation of inlets cut across
                            Fenwick and Assateague Islands during major past
                            storms                                                     44
               12          A simplified cross-section of Ocean City showing the
                            general extent storm damage and direction of flooding
                            for certain storm events                                   45
               13          Sequence of local activities in assessing damages and
                            permitting reconstruction                                  135
















                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS



                 Chapter                        Description                                   Page

                     I          INTRODUCTION
                                   Understanding Barrier Beaches'                               4
                                   Ocean City: An Urbanized Coastal Barrier                     6
                                     Growth and Development                                     6
                                     The Fenwick Island System
                               FLOOD HAZARD VULNERABILITY

                                   Hazard Prone Areas                                         11
                                      The Nearshore Zone                                      13
                                      The Shore Zone                                          16
                                      The High Hazard Zone                                    22
                                      The 100-Year Floodplain in Fenwick Island               29
                                      The 100-Year Floodplain for Worcester County            37
                                      Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays                        40
                                   Conclusions                                                45


                                IS OCEAN CITY PREPARED
                                   Protecting The Land                                        50
                                      Interim Beach Protection                                51
                                   Beachface Bulldozing and Dune Stablization
                                                                                              54
                                   Protecting Property                                        58
                                      State of Maryland Authorities                           58
                                      Ocean City, Maryland Authorities                        64
                                      Worcester County Authorities                            69
                                   Protecting People                                          73

                    IV          BEFORE THE STORM: REDUCING DAMAGE POTENTIAL
                                   Analysis of Storm and Beach Protection Plans               81
                                      Effectiveness                                           82
                                      Costs and Benefits                                      88
                                      Implementation With Nonstriuctural Measures             91
                                   Comparison With Other Coastal States and Communities'      96
                                   Conclusion and Recommendations                            105
                                      Structural Measures                                    105
                                      Land Use Controls                                      106
                                      Construction Standards                                 118
                                      Warning and Evacuation  Procedures                     121

                     V          AFTER THE STORM: GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT
                                   Establishment of Necessary Authorities and Procedures     125
                                      Revision of the Comprehensive Plan of Ocean City       125
                                      Authority to Impose a Temporary Building Moratorium    125
                                      Appointment of Special Teams and Task Forces           126
                                      Sources of Funding for Disaster Recovery and
                                       Mitigation                                            129
                                      Post-Disaster Recovery/Mitigation Plan                 134















                                         LIST OF TABLES

             Table No.                     Description                              Page

                1          Contour Shifts from 1929-1965
                2          Inventory of Existing Groins                               23
                3          Comparison of the 10-year and 100-year Ocean
                            Storm Elevations                                         @25
                4          Summary of the Estiamted 10-year and 100-year
                            Ocean Storm Elevations                                   25,
                5          Comparison of the Estimated 10-year, 50-year,
                            and 100-year Bay Storm Elevations Predicted
                            by Corps of Engineers/Flood Insurance Study Data          42
                6          Areas of Greatest Risk Selected-on the Basis of
                            Several Geomorphic and Geologic Characteristics           47
                7          Estimated Average Daily Resident and Transient
                            Population (000)                                         .74
                8          Summary of Basic Design Characteristics of the
                            Four Current Beach and Storm Protection Plans
                            for Ocean City, Maryland                                 .83
                9          Implementation of the Storm and Beach Protection
                            Plans and the Necessity for Nonstructural Flood
                            Hazard Mitigation Measures                                94







                                                      INTRODUCTION






                                                                                           IN
                                                                                                                          P4,
                                                                                   MV 97      Vt @t il





                                                                                                         Iwo-















                                                                   .4i












             The Town of Ocean City, Maryland (see Figure 1) is located on a coastal
             barrier beach referred to as Fenwick Island that stretches along the
             Atlantic coasts of Delaware and Maryland.           Ocean City occupies, the
             entire section of barrier beach south 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 accommodate 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 and the State Development Council chaired by the
             Department of State Planning 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 developdd with a tremendous
             economic investment in new real estate and that there are only limited
             opportunities for reducing the flood loss potential of this existing
             development.   Ocean City will 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
             metropolitan    areas   of   Washington,   D.C.   and   Baltimore,    Maryland.
             However, opportunities to control new growth will be explored.


             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 and Ocean City to reduce.





















                                                                                 ...... ....








                                                                                                                      I..W


                                                                                                                                            Cj







                                                                             .7...











                                                                 b                                                                                                                                                                   I?

                                                            IL                                                                                                                                    woo op WWW

                                                                                                                                                                                                 Is" of WNP"
                                                                                                                                                                                                       MAY                      it
                                                            ki



                                                                                                                                                                                                                   dm

                                                                                                                                                                                       71


                                                                      AV


                                                                                                                                                                                                                      OCEAN
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         CITY
                                                                                          A,








                                                                                                                                                                                               40






                                                                              FigureL-1. Location of. Ocean City, Maryland.












            the flood 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 (or hazard mitigation) measures.


            Specific objectives of the planning study and the general approach       to
            identifying* additional hazard mitigation measures are described within
            the following five tasks:


                  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;


              2.  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;



              3.* 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;


              4.  Determine what modifications may be appropriate to existing codes,
                  ordinances, legislation plans, programs and other land use control
                  and tax incentives; and,


              5.  Develop performance criteria that can be used by state, county And
                  city officials in guiding relocation/redevelopment decisions and
                  actions after a major storm has occurred.



                                                 3
















                                       UNDERSTANDING BARRIER BEACHES




                .Coastal barriers have    been the subject of intense research over the past
                 15. years and, to date, three theories of origin are prevalent (Hayes and
                 Kana, 1976).     Class if ication. schemes, including subclasses by shape,
                 have been presented       (Leatherman,   1982).    Regional variations as a
                 function of tidal range have been described (Hayes , 1979 ). Ecologic and
                 geomorphic, descriptions of individual. barrier components, beach erosion
                 and barrier     inventories, as well as geological atlases, have been
                 compiled in the last 10 years to serve as useful baseline information
                 .(Humphries and Benoit, 1980).     Currently, research on sea-level rise is
                 being con  ducted in several barrier environments (Titus et al, 1983).
                 The overwhelming majority of these data demonstrates significant levels
                 of flood hazard vulnerability, rates of landward movement or migration
                 of   barriar    beaches    and   degrees   of   sensitivity    to    man-induced

                 modifications that'exist on most barrier beaches.



                 Efforts to improve public awareness and education concerning the hazards
                 and costs of living on barriers require translation of that scientific
                 research.,   The  National Flood Insurance Program and the Coastal Zone
                 Management -Act    are two primary mechanisms for bringing about and
                 improving    the* understanding of scientific research for the gen           eral
                 public.    Among  the many conferences and workshops that have presented
                 information on     barriers,   the Barrier Islands Workshop in Annapolis,
                 Maryland    (1976)   and    the  Barrier - Island    Forum   and   Workshop    'in
                 Provincetown,.    Massachusetts    (1980)   were    specifically    devoted     to
                 expanding public awareness and changing management policies within            the
                 federal    government.    These   educational    efforts   contributed to     the
                 passage,of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 and the Coastal
                 Barrier Resources Act, of '1982.which curtail federal expenditures that,





                                                         4












            in the past, have promoted unwise growth and 'development on previously
            undeveloped barriers.


            As in the case of undeveloped barriers, scientific      and planning research
            must precede changes in . governing policies and regulations.          Baseline
            data need to be collected to better understand the specific flood hazard
            vulnerability,   erosion   trends   and  migration    rate of   a particular
            developed barrier and should address the       -following four factors: (1)
            onshore   sediment   movement;    (2)   storm   activity;    (3) equilibrium
            readjustment to sea level rise; and, (4) construction activities along
            these shores (Fisher, 1977).


            Developed and highly urbanized barriers no longer have the, natural
            environmental characteristics they once had in the undeveloped state.
            Instead, a large financial investment and population center has been
            substituted.    However, the hazard vulnerability of the barrier still
            remains  and actually may increase with expanded growth and development.
            Based  on.,the scientific understanding of a particular barrier, planning-
            studies  can be used to formulate a, set of site specific recommendat ions
            for reducing or mitigating future storm damages.           It is then up to
            government officials to select and implement the appropriate recommended
            mitigation activities.



















                                                   5
















                                   OCEAN CITY: AN URBANIZED COASTAL RARRIER





                  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 2).        Since that time, the small resort community
                  of'sinepuxent Beach has become a major east coast recreational center of
                  Ocean-' City, Maryland.


                  In 1878 the railroad provided the first established means of transpor-
                  tation to Fenwick Island.            Today almost all transportation is by
                  automobile. The opening of the Cheasapeake Bay Bridge in 195.2 connecting
                  Sandy   Point @ (on the western shore) with Kent, Island (on the Maryland
                  eastern shore) was probably. the most significant factor affecting ocean
                  City's @ growth    (Dolan . et I 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. Routes   50 and
                  Maryland Route 90 cross (east to west) over           Isle of Wight and Assawoman
                  Bays "and, the Coastal Highway. Naryland 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 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [COE],
                  1980).    The potential groundwater supply was estimated to be several
                  times the 1973 capacity assuring a continued growth rate for some time
                  to come (Slaughter, 1973).






                                                             6




















                                              ........              ..... .
























                                                                                                                                44












                                                 1901                1946                 1955                 IN2                 1972







                                  Figure 2.           Northward progression of development between 1901 and 1972.
                                                      fSource: Dolan et al.,1980).












                  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 of 4 million gallons per
                  day.  After expansions of the facility, a capacity of 12.4 million
                  gallons per day with secondary treatment has been provided since 1981. A
                  Nor th Ocean    City  Inter.cep,toi  Sewage   Pipeline    is  currently under
                  construction which will @provide "pacity to accommodate additional
                  growth in this'part of the City.


                  The close proximity of Ocean        City to major metropolitan 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
                  Ocean 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, particularly    in late spring and late summer.        The development
                  also has an effect on the natural protective features provided by the

                  barrier.



                  THE FENWICK ISLAND SYSTEM



                  The  barrier beach which Ocean City occupies still provides a storm
                  damage prevention and flood control function which. affects other barrier
                  and mainland environments in spite of its developed status.           This nine
                  mile  long,  five to 25 foot high landform which averages 1/2 mile in
                  width divides the Atlantic Ocean from Assawoman and Isle of Wight Bays
                  taking the   brunt. of storm waves and tides, and thus protecting inland



                                                          8













            areas    The point of attachment for Fenwick Island lies within the State
            of Delaware to the north.      During parts of the year, the southern coast
            of Delaware is benefitted by longshore sediment being transported north
            from Fenwick Island.     To the south, the island terminates at the Ocean
            City . Inlet which separates it from Assateaque 'Island.         The downdrift
            offset relationship between these two barriers has been well documented
            (Leatherman, 1979) and is briefly des&ibed 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
            benefits from the. natural functions of the barrier island: bay tidal
            ranges   are reduced from 3.4 feet to 2.2 feet (NOAA,            1983)p    fetch
            distances are limited and the topography of Fenwick Island, although
            quite low, absorbs a major part of coastal wave and current damages..
            Because of' this     relationship, the 100-year floodplain of Worcester
            County directly west of Ocean City will be addressed as a hazard prone
            environment in the   Ocean City area.


            Although Fenwick    Island is no longer an undeveloped barrier in            its
                     state, this somewhat stabilized island is still characterized by
            low-lying, hazard prone areas     subject to both gradual and sudden changes
            as, evidenced by its storm history.      Within a relatively short distance
            perpendicular to shore, the geomorphic characteristics and hydrodynamic
            processes of Fenwick Island change rapidly.          Hypothetically during a
            major storm    event, deep water waves exceeding 30 feet in height will
            travel landward over a wide, flat nearshore zone, diminish to           a size
            about 0.55 times the depth of water, break on a steep beach, run up the
            face of any dune or other elevated obstruction and overwash onto         higher
            ground with the possibility of joining the bay waters.             Due  to the
            somewhat stabilized nature on the islands onshore area, its offshore
            profile has steepened increasing the potential for damage from future

            storms.






                                                   .9














                 Three moderate to major storms in 1902, 1933 and 1962 have occurred in
                 Ocean City, thus,     inflicting significant damage to Ocean City about
                 .every 30 years.     In August .1933, a hurricane was responsible       for the
                 formation of Ocean City Inlet.       On March 6-8, 19.62, a northeast storm
                 left an estimated damage of $11.3 million in 1980 dollars (COE,           1980).
                 The hurricanes that occurred in 1%38 and 1944 and northeasters that
                 occurred in    1960 and 1978 were considered to be minor storms (COE,
                 1980).   Study of the high frequency, minor storms (i.e., . the          10-year
                 event), moderate frequency storms .(i.e., the 50-year event)           and. low
                 frequency, major storms (i.e., the 100-year event) is important         for the
                 identification of vulnerability of the area to the hazard of erosion,
                 floods or a combination of the two.       For this study, wind processes are
                 not, consider.ed   directly,   but   such   related hazards    should not     be
                 ,overlooked by officials, particularly with respect to hurricanes.


                 The following    section details each of the major hazard areas of the
                 barrier islapd   that collectively define the overall hazard vulnerability
                 of Ocean City.

























                                                         10







           FLOOD HAZARD
           VULNERABILITY














                     i k" M














                                          HAZARD PRONE AREAS




              Hazard planning for barrier island, resorts such as Ocean %.ity, Maryland,
              often fail to fully recognize the impact of natural geologic and
              geomorphic processes on the built environment and island users. To

              summarize and assess      the available data on the natural and built
              environments for Fenwick Island, five subenvironments were selected on
              the basis of their geomorphic characteristics and hazard vulnerability:
              (1) the nearshore zone; (2) the shore zone; (3) the high hazard zone;
              (4) the 100-year floodplain; and, (5) Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays
              (see Figure 3).    The compilation of existing data and information will
              provide a characterization of existing hazard prone areas, serve as a
              basis  for  selecting areas     of greatest risk and contribute to the
              evaluation of existing erosion and flood control plans.
              A specific study of beach dynamics which might include beach profiling
              and littoral environmental observations similar to that conducted in
              Avalon, New Jersey (Farrell and Stinton, 1983) was not undertaken.


              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 across 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
              cont rast,  northeasters   are  characterized by     lower wind speeds      and
              smaller wave heights, but they can 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.




















                                                                                 HAZARD PRONE       AREAS

                                            SHORE ZONE     HI   HAZARD ZONE
                                   -e-NEARSHORE ZONE'                                      100 - YEAR                                     DAYS
                                                                                         FLOODPLAIN



                                                                                   FLOOD INSURANCE ZONES
                                   ..&:_ V- ZONES                                           A- ZONES
                                        wwt NEWT                                       WAVE "EIGHT LESS THAN V
                                       ORCATER THAN 3'


                                      BUILDING
                                      LIMIT LINE

                                                                               STAL HIGHWAY


                                                                                        'o-EXTENSIVE AREAB HAK SEEN IFILL19


                                                                                      y;
                                                                   :4








                                                                   Gm ?I.
                                                    0



                                       F igu re 3.    Typical cross-section of the barrier beach (Fenwick Island) at
                                                      Ocean City, Maryland showing five selected hazard prone areas
                                                      in reference to the flood insurance zones and several cultural
                                                      features.














            Throughout this section, several datums are referenced which, unless.
            briefly defined, can offer some confusion.        The mean tidal range for
            Ocean City on the Atlantic Ocean side is 3.4 feet.        The zero elevation.
            used in Ocean City is Mean Low Water (MLW); therefore, Mean High Water
            (MHW) is 3.4 feet.     The zero elevation for Ocean City converted to the.
            National Geodectic Vertical Datum (NGVD) equals -1.2 feet; therefore,
            MHW, is 2.2 feet NGVD.   Because FEMA and the Corps of Engineers use NGVD,
            city engineers, insurance agents and the general public in the Ocean,
            City Area must add at least one foot to. any elevations given by federal
            agencies if they normally use the City datum of MLW.



            THE NEARSHORE ZONE



            This zone is located seaward of MLW by standard classifications (COE,
            1977) and includes the offshore area.       Knowledge of historical changes
            in the offshore slope provides an understanding of the impacts which
            result from barrier island stabilization and the resultant increase in
            hazard vulnerability of the island.      In addition, the configuration of
            the offshore bathymetry has a direct influence on the process of wave

            refraction or concentration of erosion zones on shore.



            Offshore Bathymetry
            A significant trend emerges from historical bathymetric data of            the
            waters offshore of Ocean City.        The Corps of Engineers bathymetric
            profiles   (confirmed by comparison with original Coast and Geodetic
            Survey sheets) clearly indicate that the shoreface has been steepening
            through time.    The landward movement of the 20-foot depth contour. has
            been greater than the 10-foot depth contour, which in turn has migrated
            further than the mean high water contour (see Table 1).







                                                   13












                     Table 1. Contour Shifts from 1929-1965 (Trident Engineering 1979)



                                                       over 36                Average.
                                                       Year Period            Per Year



                            MHW contour.               86, feet               2.4 feet



                            -10 foot contour           252 feet               7.0 feet



                            -20 foot contour           350 feet               9.7 feet




                  It appears that the shoreline has remained in approximately the same
                  location. and is acting. as a hinge as the adjacent shoreface steepens.
                ..Although it is not known what angle of shoreface inclination is the
                  natural -equilibrium position, the current steepened condition cannot be
                  considered at equilibrium since recent bathymetric data have shown.that
                @the steepening trend has continued.


                  According to a geologic principle that most geomorphic change occurs in
                  quantum steps, a major coastal storm would provide the impetus for a
                  decrease in the angle of inclination by shifting and redistributing
                  nearshore sands in a landward direction to reverse        the steepening.trend
                  of the shoreface.     Thus, major shoreline recession will occur and the
                  shoreface inclination will return to its minimum angle. @Over time, the
                  shoreface. will continue to again slowly steepen until the next major

                  storm.



                  Applying this principle to        Ocean City,' Maryland, steepening of         the
                  offshore profile has probably continued since the last major storm in
                  1962.   A quantum step in beach recession will occur during the next



                                                           14












         major storm in order for a lower equilibrium slope to be reestablished.
         However, the static shoreline position now held by the City will mean
         that (1) a steep slope will still remain and (2) the impact of lesser
         storms may be just as great as that which occurred in prev          ,ious major

         storms.




         Wave Refraction and Sand Movement
         Wave  refraction analysis      for Maryland and     Virginia, (Goldsmith et.
         al. . 1975)   predicts  areas of   wave concentration along the coastline
         for various storm conditions.       As reported by the Corps of Engineers
         (1980),  offshore dredging can      also alter the characteristics of the
         incoming storm waves, perhaps      causing abnormal concentrations of wave
         energies  along certain stretches of the.coastline.-



         The, wave refraction data indicate wave concentration in the northernmost
         portion of the study area, near the Maryland-Delaware line, and also           a
         secondary concentration at the Ocean City Inlet area.          These data are
         not clearly reflected by the shoreline recession information, possibly
         .because of the. pulsaic nature of barrier island retreat and downdrift
         migration of low amplitude, very long period sand waves.               In less
         technical terms, the shoreline configuration in Ocean City is modified
         in a similar manner along the nine mile stretch of- beach with no one
         area experiencing more erosion than another over the long term because
         of wave refraction.       Sand moves alongshore as well as onshore and
         offshore in this zone.      The gross rates of sand movement are estimated

         to be about 450,000 cu.yds. per year northerly, and 600,000 cu.yds. per
         year southerly, resulting in a net drift of 150,000 cu.yds. per year to
         the south (COE, 1980).










                                                 15
















                  THE SHORE ZONE



                  For purposes of this discussion, the shore zone is located between the
                  nearshore zone and the. approximate seaward extent of development (the
                  State-Ocean City Building Limit Line) and includes         the beach and berm

                  areas.



                  Historical   shoreline   changes, natural beach characteristics and the
                  presence of -shoreline protection structures are primary indicators of
                  shore zone hazard vulnerability.       The shore. zone is the area of first
                  defense against damages primarily caused by erosion, but as elevation is
                  considered, flood control becomes an equally important issue.


                  Historical Shoreline Changes
                  National Ocean Survey (NOS) quantitative shoreline change           'data since
                  1849/50 were used to analyze historical shoreline erosion.             Automated
                  techniques   of   processing    the  data   and   plotting . maps   from    these
                  historical sources, specifically using stereoplotters and metric mapping
                  techniques, can be used to obtain highly accurate information concerning
                  historical   'shoreline movement trends (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 I certain time periods for these locations
                  determined.    Forty-two transects 1000 feet apart were used       to determine
                  shoreline   changes   from the    period   1850-1980;   1850-1908;    1908-1929;
                  1929-1980;  1929-1942; 1942-1962; and 1962-1980.-


                  Over  50   years of data between 1929 and 1980 (see Figure         4) indicate
                  erosion    was   mostly    concentrated    north    of   57th   street.     More
                  specifically, an average erosion rate of 2.7 feet per year existed north
                  of 21st Street and an average accretion rate of seven feet existed south
                  to the inlet.      The actual rate of accretion may have been slightly



                                                           16







                                         SWRELIK C"ANCES AT OCEA" CITVo MARYLA"D
                                                            1929     1989



               C
                         is
               A



               E


               p
               E
               R
                        -10


               E
               A
               R                                        N         S
                        -20




               F        -30
               E
               E
               T
                                                                                 C
                                                                                 7

                                                                                 0
                                 126   112  89   74    57   43    27.   14           ASSATEAOUE    ISLAND

                                                                        NUMBERS-
                                                   APPROXIMATE STREET

                               Figure 4. Shoreline change rates between 1929 and 1980.













                    higher because most of it occurred during              a   shorter time -period
                    (1929-1962).   This 50 year period is, important since the major changes
                    occurring during this time period include the             effects of the 1933
                    hurricane, the construction. of the      north jetty in   1933, the construction
                    of 50   groins,    the March      1962 1 storm,   post-storm beach       and dune
                    reconstruction and a major increase      in, oceanfront development.


                    About 130 years of data between 1850         and  1980 (see,.Figure 5.) indicate
                    the longer term average     erosion rate    north of 27th street is only 1.7
                    feet per year.     Erosion   was mostly concentrated between 5th and 89th
                    streets.   A comparison of the two periods (1850 to 1980 and 1929 to
                    1980) indicates beach erosion in Ocean City is occurring at a faster
                    rate on a short-term basis and is more problematic in the central and
                    northern portions of the barrier.


                    As noted above, several major changes have recently occurred which              may
                    explain the higher erosion rates.        Within the period from 1929 to 1980,
                    !erosion rates of 11.4 feet per year (1929-1942), 0.3 feet per year
                    (1942-1962) and 1.2 feet per year (1962-1980) occurred.            The impacts of
                    the 1933 hurricane probably account for the high rate between 1929 and
                    1942.   Subsequently, a period of relative          stability followed between
                    1942 and 1962.      During the most recent period (1962-1980), the March
                    1962 storm occurred, but its erosional impact was offset by an emergency
                    ,beai'.h and dune restoration effort and perhaps the newly constructed
                    groins.



                    Beach Characteristics
                    The area,'between MHW and existing development is an important indicator
                    of hazard vulnerability because the storm waves and flood-related
                    erosion focused here place oceanfront development in immediate danger.
                    Height  and width of       this   upper beach area indicate the level of
                    protection that is naturally provided.           Using a 1981 Photogrammetric




                                                              18








                                       SHORELINE   CHANGES   IN OCEAN CITYo MARYLAND




            C
            H
            A

                          - ---------                                                            ---------
            G
            E


            P
            E
            R


            Y
            E                                         N         S
            A
            R


            I


                    -15
            F
            E
            E
            T
                    -20                                                          C


                                                                                 0
                               126   112   89         57    43    27   14,          ASSATEAOUE   ISLAND

                                                  APPROXIMATE   STREET  NUM13ERS

                                Figure 5. Shoreline change rates between 1850 and 1980.













                   Survey of the Beach Control district, linear measurements between MHW
                   and the Building Limit Line (BLL) were taken at 150 street locations
                   f rom 'Ocean City Inlet        'the Mary land-Del aware -line and plotted (see
                   Figure 6).    The average distance from MHW to the         BLL is 135 feet; the
                   average height above MHW at the, BLL is [email protected]          01.9 NGVD); and, the
                   average slope. is .7.'2% or 1:14.      North of   50th Street, an equilibrium
                   slope appears to exist     established.     Generally,, the -wider the beach is
                   between   the MHW and       BLL,   the  higher    the   BLL   is  in elevation.
                   Conversely, the narrower    the beach  is, the lower the BLL.,


                   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.         The greatest protection
                   north of 7Lh Street exists between 50th and 60th -Streets and between

                   92nd and 118th Streets , approximately.       South of 7th Street, where beach
                   widths are greater than 200 feet because of accretion extending up the
                   beach from the North Jetty development is provided the most protection.


                   Using the average elevation of the beach at thb Building Limit Line (9.7
                   feet MHW) and assuming four feet of erosion would occur during a sto             rm
                   (as assumed during the most recent Flood Insurance Study, 1983), the
                   resultant 5.7 foot elevation would be exposed to waves during a very
                   minor event.     Using  the Corps of Engineers storm frequency distribution
                   curve (COE, 1980; Figure D-16), the current level of beach protection
                   afforded 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.



                   Shoreline Protection Structures
                   Development    in   the   shore   zone   is  limited, to coastal       engineering
                   st ructures   including the North Jetty,     a timber pile pier and .52 timber



                                                            20





















                                              t a          Elevations in feet.
                                               so
                                               3'q












                                                                                       no                     4"         soft
                                                               41                                                                    am                     am         Saft        Ism         Ism        Ism        MO         slash,


                                                  1010-




                                                  114110-




                                                  3100-













                                                           Olsiontes In feet.




                                                        Figure 6. Distance and elevation measurements within the area between mean
                                                                               high water              and the Building Limit.Line                            (1981).













                  and stone groins    (see Table 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.


                  The impact of the remaining groins is. less obvious.     Using the May 1981
                  photogrammetric  survey maps,    a quantitative analysis at each groin
                  revealed that no definitive trend exists regarding updrift accretion and
                  downdrift erosion.   The differences in position of MLW north and south
                  of each groin at a distance equal to the length of each groin averaged
                  about 25 feet.     Beach slopes (MLW to MHW) near the groins were
                  approximately 9.7% or 1:10.    Since the average slope is 7.2% or 1:14,
                  beaches near groins are steeper and less stable.



                  TE2 HIGH HAZARD ZONE



                  The high hazard zone is considered for this discussion to extend from
                  the BLL landward to the western edge of the V-zone (the area affected by
                  waves greater the three feet high during the 100-year storm) as
                  delineated on the 1983 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).           This zone
                  extends from 27th Street north to the Delaware line (about seven miles),
                  varies, between 70 and 310 feet wide and averages about 190 feet wide.
                  Existing and future development within this area is the most vulnerable
                  to flood damages during a 100-year flood because it is exposed to the
                  direct. effects of waves and high velocity water.      Appendix A contains
                  maps show the relationship between the location of existing structures

                  and that of the V-Zone.



                  Predicted Storm Elevations
                  For the most part    dunes and open space which once acted to buffer the
                  effects of storm waves, 'Currents and overwash have now been replaced
                  with single   .family residences, -high rise condominiums, motels and
                  parking lots. The most recent FIRM, effective May 16, 1983, predicts



                                                        22









                                                                                                                        Table 2. Inventory of                                         Existing Groins
                                                                                                                                                  (adapted from Trident Engineering,                                                            1979).


                                                                                                                        (2005#4           grain                                                                                                                                       upeato
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                1:81,ltt!d                            LetmO              Work
                       Location                                                   C                                     tenqtN            Wo,k             Sm 1 no                    L *CA t I on                                              C -V

                       Between 1. Division and,$. lit Street$                     191244                                0                                                             loth  Street                                              lost                   T              1,16-                               late
                       Worcester Street                                           1922-24                               0                                                             loth  Street                                              19?3                   S              170.               pa               6so
                       Sonwrist Street                                            1931                                  0                                                             315t  Strait                                              lots                   T              140-               0"               lift
                       Talbot street                                              1929                                  0                                                                        revision                                       19?8                                                     PM
                       a. Division Street                                         1931                                  a                                                             34th  Street                                              19?11                  7              260                ork              11610
                       0. lit Street                                              1930                                  0                                                             alit  street                                                                     S              no                                  low
                       tod Street                                                 till                                  0                                                             47th  Street                                                                     3              too                                 I M
                       Between 3rd and 4th Strests                                tell                                  0                                                             list  Street                                              ills                   T              20                 am               2100
                       Between 4th and Sth Strait&                                lilt                                  0                                                             $It%  Street                                              1978                   T              too-               go               011
                       Between Ith and 6th Strait$                                1931                                  0                                                             Both  Strott                                                                     S              110-                                no
                       setw" Ith and M Street$                                    1932                                  0                                                             Plat  Street                                              ills                   T/S            too-               me               6110-
                       oth street                                                 1932                  1               20.                                01).                       Wit   Street                                              1141                   1              too                                 1".
                       9th street                                                 1934                  T               30.                                400-                       Between lack and lit% Street$                             1961                   T              too                                 450.
                       letwoon loth and Ilth StrOlti                              1934                  T               70.                                SM.                        loth  Street                                              1961                   7              130-                                "0.
                       12th   Street                                              1938                  TIS             too.                               370.                       l7th  Street                                              1974                   T/S            1811).             on               900
                       13th   Street                                              1142                  US              go-                                370.                       Wth   Street                                                                     .5             230-               low              900
              LO       Jack   Street                                              3930                                                                                                43rd  Street                                                                     S              too-                                M
                                    Me I red                                      1973                  T               too!              Do               SOO-                       Nth   Street                                              Ills                   T              .170-              on               ISO
                       loth   Street                                              1933.1960             T                                                                             loth  Street                                              197S                   T              I "                010              ASO.
                               - extension                                        1918                  S               170-              0104             450-                       list  Street                                              till                   T              ISO                Dim              SM.
                       loth   Street                                              1938                  T/S             140.                               520.                       93rd  Street                                                                     S              ISO-                                1140
                       let%   Street                                              19411                 T               140-                               490.                       loth  Street                                                                     S              ISO-                                sm
                       Between loth and 2M Streets                                1962                  T               140-                               490.                       102ad  Street                                             Isis                   T              too                ON               %sm
                       fist street                                                19SI                  S               ISO-                               320.                       112th  Strait                                                                    5              ISO-                                Me
                       21nd Street                                                1962                  T               go.                                4so.                       118th  Street                                                                    S              too-                                1"So
                       13rd   Street                                              1951                  T               too-                               $Do-                       I?Sth Street                                                                     5              120-                                1108
                                    repaired outboard Ind                         1918                                                    0111                                        Roth   Street                                             1975                   T/S            too-               110              ISO
                       Isth   street                                              1274                  T               110-              on               370.                       130th  Street                                             1974                   1              40.



                       I    Where me date to entered. It IS Presumed teovittleft Occurred between ftY 14. 1919 Ind Joel, 3. 11111-                                                    4DNA Indicates work, to" by ParylarA Demarcating of natural honorees.
                       I S - Stemet I         Timber                                                                                                                                         Indicate$ welt 4M by "Others' (Presumably DePartmeet Of Transportation).
                       3    Langth in feet.                                                                                                                                            "a "try indicates unkrom merit responsiblility.
                            (.) indicates totally empsood evrfacel otherwise. there Is intermittent ellpeavre.                                                                         0110MCO to meet 41111141P It?"t number) Brain In feet.
                            Standard 61:0811 City IrOlftl     .between South lit Street and 130ch Street a                .re approximattly M ft In Is            noth.                N indicates spacing PIOU Car" of lingiftewr standards.













               .100-year frequency storm surge elevations with. waves to reach 11 feet
               NGVD within this developed area.            This estimate is two feet above the
               previousTIRM predictions          which did not include wave heights.                The.
               methodology employed in the-revised FIRM assumed four feet of shoreline
               erosion would occur seaward of all development north of 15th Street.
               S.ix trangects were used to determine the landward boundary                      of the
               V-7zone.    They were located at approximately 6th, 20th, 44th, 81st,
               Purnell and Franford Streets.


               In addition to the 100-year storm predictions,               consideration of flood
               elevations for the 10- and 50-year frequency                  storm events is also
               important    for    a. better    understanding of       the   overall    flood hazard
               vulnerability.      Using storm frequency data from          the Corps of Engineers
               (COE, 1980) and Flood Insurance Studies              (FIS,   1983), the 10-year and
               50-year flood elevations for the V-zone              were   derived (see Table 3).
               Based on the FIS 100-year elevations, the'                  difference between the
               stillwater level (8.1 feet) and the V-zone elevation (11.0 feet) is 2.9

               feet.    This differential was used to            obtain   values for the 10- and

               50-year V-zones .      The stillwater elevations from the Corps of Engineers
               are 0.6     feet higher      than    those   in   the FIS.      The Corps value it,
               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 MLW datum are shown            in
               Table     4.,    This  summary    information     provides     an   easier   means     of
               evaluating other maps and charts that use different datums and                should   be
               used in specific building requirements.


               By comparing the V-zone elevations with           the BLL elevations, analysis of
               hazard vulnerability during the 10-year,               50-year and 1007year storm
               events was made for the high hazard zone              north of 27th Street.         Since
               beach erosion       is  related    to   storm intensity and duration and is.,
               therefore,    somewhat independent       of   the storm    frequency event,      a four



                                                            24


















               Table 3. Comparison of the 10-year and 100-year Ocean Storm Elevations
                          (NGVD in feet)


                                  STILLWATER                       V-ZONE

               100-year           8.7/8.1(1)                       12/11

                50-year           8.0/7.4                          11/10

                10-year           6.4/5.8                            9/9

                                  (')Corps of Engineers (COE)/Flood Insurance Study (FIS)






               Table 4.   Summary of the Estimated 10-year and 100-year' Ocean Storm
                          Elevations (MLW in feet)


                                  STILLWATER                       V-ZONE

               100-year           9.9                              13.2

                50-year           9..2                             12.2
                10-year           7.6                              10.2









                                                 25














                    foot erosion value is assumed as it was in the 1983 FIS.            In terms of
                    which oceanfront areas can be expected to receive flood induced erosion,
                    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   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 will be 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 existing
                    Iupland topography without considering differential vulnerabilities to
                    flooding and erosion except at the six transects.              Several of the
                    factors one must      consider   in defining differential vulnerabilities
                    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.     Nonetheless, the 1983 FIRMs represent the most
                    accurate hazard mapping product avaialable.


                    Impact of Development
                    Human modification in the high hazard zone has had a profound effect on
                    the  storm susceptibility of Fenwick Island.           The built environment
                    affects the barrier's ability to respond na       turally 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   back    barrier
                    susceptibility to storm waves; and, 3) construction of tall buildings
                    and  seawalls which can       force highly erosive currents through gaps,

                    between the structures.



                    On a barrier island that is          in its natural state, sand is, often
                    transported from the beach to the barrier flats during storms.               This




                                                            26












            transport occurs by both aeolian and overwash processes          During periods
            of. quiescence following storms, some of this sand is transported back to
            the beach by the wind.      This aids in natural beach restoration and dune
            formation.   Areas having the vegetation to trap sand, like that found on
            Assateague Island, are exceptions on Fenvick Island.


            Human intervention by development of barrier islands, such as Ocean
            City,   have  diminished    the effectiveness of this process.          Sand is
            prevented from moving to the back dune areas in 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 and snowplows 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
            with the natural migration processes of a barrier beach, but clearly the
            barrier surface has not been allowed to build vertically, as would occur
            in a natural setting with sea level continuing to rise.


            An inventory of man-made obstructions located in the high hazard zone
            included   the identification of the number and extent of seawalls (as
            shown on  the 1981 Photogrammetric Survey), and the number of structures
            (as shown on the 1981 Photogrammetric Survey and May 1983 aerial oblique
            photos).   A total of 18 seawalls were identified as having a cumulative
            len gth of 3,690 feet or 10% of the shoreline. between 27th Street and the
            Mary land- Delaware line (see Figure 7).      A count of 336 residential and
            commercial structures was made without       a distinction of size, and any
            portion of a structure in the V-zone was regarded as a total structure.
            Sixteen    new    structures   were   identified    as   completed   or    under
            construction since 1981.      Eighteen buildings are over 10 stories high




                                                    27








                                        OCEAN CITY,
                                        MARYLAND
                                          A&'










                                                                                      IGLC ep
                                                                                          fav









                                                              0


                                      0
          00
                                                                                                     160.


                                             OCIA11















                                                                                                                                                                          IEP, Inc.         JOB No 83 -10




                                                          Figure 7.. Location and length (in feet), of existing seawalls.












            and only eight of the .119 blocks inventoried are currently vacant in the
            V7zone.   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 a lower number of structures in such areas is that many
            high rise condominiums are located in these areas.          Reduced copies of
            the .1981 Photogrammetric Survey are contained in Appendix A showing the
            Flood Insurance Zones in relation to the existing development.


            The present position 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 will
            predominate over natural processes and      make any prediction of We most
            hazard prone areas more difficult.



            THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN IN FENWICK ISLAND



            According  to the recent FIRM, the entire city north of 27th Street          for
            all practical purposes 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 27th Street also has this designation.        Even within the areas
            designated as a 500-year floodplain (B-zone) shallow flooding less than
            one foot may occur.









                                                    29
















               .Predicted Storm Elevations
                Flood elevations of the 100-year storm (A-zone) decrease west of the
                V-zone toward the bay from nine feet to six feet respectively.               This
               ..updIated information broadly contrasts with information presented in the
                1976 FIRM.     In the 1976 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 higher beachfront elevations and lower
                bay elevations: 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 by using a methodology that is used in coastal areas
                for  the purposes of defining hazar.d prone areas and           properly   rating
                structures for insurance purposes.        Again only six transects were used
                along the nine mile stretch of Ocean City, and the information was
                interpolated between these transects in order to produce a hazard map
                for the CiEy.     The FIRM also didn't consider the hazard potential of an
                ebb surge flowing back over Fenwick Island as a storm passes from the

                ,area.




                Historical Overwash



                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 Corps 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 8).      For proper perspective, it must be emphasized
                that the March 1962 storm was a 45-year event in the Ocean City area.





                                                         30







                                             OCEAN                     CITY1
                                             MARYLAND







                                                                    0

                                                                                                                                                -4
                                            [email protected]                                                                                         .4 it



                                                  OCS AN                                                                                                                              [email protected] streets *,Or* vVertiesh reached
                                                                                                                                                                                             Sim-Neft COP415 or cheswels
                                                                                                                                                                                             which exist ft 1103 oft mmtl-
                                                                                                                                                                                              f 1*4 *Sst of the city.











                                                                                                                                                                                 IE P.  kc.         j" No 93-00



                           Figure B. Approximate extent of sand deposited by overwash processes during                                                                            the March 1962 storm.














               Comparative Analysis of Historical and Predicted Storm Impact
               A qualitative comparison of the March 1962 storm with the. 1983 FIRM
               based on the extent of overwash represented in Figure 8 was made for   10
               segments 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;
                     between 52nd and 67th Streets, overwash generally did not
                     cross the Coastal Highway and would have followed the
                     A-zone (elevation nine feet) delineation remarkably close;
                 7.  between 67th and 85th Streets, overwash entirely crossed
                     the Coastal Highway and generally extendea into the A-zone
                     (elevation six feet);
                 8.  between. 85th Street and Channel Bouy Road (approximately
                     112th Street), overwash entirely crossed the Coastal
                     Highway and generally followed the A-zone (elevation nine
                     feet) delineation;
                 9.  between Channel Bouy Road (approximately 112th Street)
                     and 118th Street, two extensive washovers crossed what
                     would have been A-zones (elevation eight feet and
                     elevation six feet); and,





                                                    32













               10. between 118th Street and the Maryl and-Del aware line,
                   overwash generally did not cross the Coastal Highway and
                   generally followed the A-zone (elevation nine feet)

                   delineation.



            Summarizing the comparison (see Figure 9), 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 percent of the shoreline.                This
            relatively poor correlation emphasizes the variability and unpredictable
            nature of overwash processes and flood hazard delineati-on.


            The most dramatic overwash and threat of inlet formation during the 1962
            storm occurred in the vicinity of 71st Street.         Bulldozing of sand into
            the breached area prevented the formation [email protected] new inlet.


           'Barrier Width and Bay Shoreline Configuration
            .The island remains quite narrow in portions, particularly between           32.nd
            and 61st Streets where it is less than 1000 feet from the Coastal

            Highway to the Bay.     The island is widest north from 87th Street to the
            Mary land-Delaware - line, except in areas where canals have been dredged.
            But 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
            4900 feet at 133rd Street and 230 feet at 36th Street, and 37 canals and
            channels have been constructed along the bay side of the island.


            The. significance of barrier width relates to the vulnerability and
            isolation of areas by high water and overwash sand deposition.                The
            narrowest sections are likely to be 'the most difficult to pass while



                                                    33








                                      OCEAN CITY,
                                      MARYLAND
                                                                                                                                                       fail








                                                                                                                                                                                                  V0

                                                                                    111tc 9F
                                                                                   Wes"? 64T
                                                                                                                                                                              kA



                                                                                                                                        A
                                                            0                                                                          k







                                                                                                                                                                          (0) Overwash C611118ted with 48118"tieft of
                                                                                                                                                                              A-soft fug).
                                         AnA"Tc                                                                                                                               ovenash 91welly mi cWtat"d Wfthfa
                                           MAN                                                                                                                                A-teft.
                                                                                                                                                                              OvInISSW did "t ewiviou with "y
                                           k'A                                                                                                                                Overwask parsIly enterArd fate A-1VW
                                                                                                                                                                              Cad).






                                                                                                                                                                                    09          W



                                                                                                                                                                        11EP. Ine.         im Po 63-10


                                      Figure       9. Qualitative comparison between March 1962 storm                                                overwash            a'd    1983      FIRM.
                                                                                                                                                                          n












            -evacuating during a storm because streets oriented, perpendicular to the
             shoreline will carry overwash debris and water onto the Coastal Highway.
             In addition, narrow sections and canal or channel sites will be
             vulnerable   to breachin   g and possible inlet formation (as discussed
             later).    The   implication   is   that   every effort should be taken to
             evacuate   the island before a storm occurs because once a storm hits,

             travel on  the island will be hazardous.



             The lack of efficient storm water drainage, resulting in impounded water
             on streets, parking lots and other paved areas, affects Fenwick Island's
             ability to respond naturally to storm conditions through infiltration.
             During a major storm event, high, water levels will impede rescue,
             evacuation and immediate storm response.        The lack of efficient drainage
             becomes a post-storm problem and will impede recovery and restoration.
             During minor    storm events, rainfall contributions may create "major
             stormlike" conditions during and after the event.             Adequate drainage
             could reduce these problems, but might not be feasible because of low,
             flat topography.      Ocean City is giving consideration to undertaking
             measures to improve drainage from Coastal Highway.


             Barrier Geology


             A  geomorphic evaluation of storm susceptibility of a barrier island
             should    also    involve    a   consideration     of   the     three-dimensional
             stratigraphy of the island.      For a landward migrating barrier, the upper
             sand surfaces of the island roll over top of underlying sedimentary
             environments     that   were    previously    in   more    landward    positions.
             Accordingly,    coring down    through barrier beach sands should reveal
             previous stands of the salt marsh and other vestiges of previous bayside
             sedimentary environments .     Dating these buried salt marsh peat deposits.
             can provide an indication of the rate to which the barrier island
             migrates landward.     The yo unger the age of the peat, other factors held




                                                      35













                 constant, the faster the island is migrating.      Since barriers migrate by
                 undergoing erosion on their oceanward sides concurrent with baywatd
                 accretion, an island that is found to be rapidly migrating is more
               Aikely    to  sustain   severe   erosion   and   related   damage   in   storms.
                 Unfortunately, there is presently no three-dimensional data available
                 for, Fenwick Island, Maryland.


                 Three-dimensional stratigraphic modeling of barrier islands based on
                 core and auger data has been undertaken for the south. shore of Long
                 Island (Leatherman,   1983).    The results of this study indicate that
                 certain portions of    the Fire Island barrier system migrate much more
                 quickly than others .  The availability of similar data for the Maryland
                 barrier system would   aid in prediction of long-term shoreline dynamics
                 and coastal flood hazards.



                 Two-dimensional stratigraphic studies are also useful in determining the
                 depth to the sand-clay interface under a barrier island.       Since sand is
                 much more easily erodable than clay, inlets may preferentially breach
                 through portions of the barrier where the sand layer is thickest.          The
                 sand saturation that occurs immediately prior to inlet breaching is
                 aided by the presence of a considerable depth of beach sand since clay
                 is less permeable to water.


                 The Maryland Geological Survey (MGS) has collected well log and bore
                 hole information to determine the depths to . the sand-clay interface
                 along the length of Fenwick Island and has obtained a two-dimensional
                 view.  The areas with a generally deeper sand-clay interface can be
                 inferred as being more likely to undergo the severe erosion and scouring
                 that accompanies inlet formation.


                 Depth to compact clay under Ocean City varies from less than 16 to more
                 than 50 feet along the length of the island according to data provided



                                                        36













            by  the MGS.      Figure   10 shows     the  irregularity, of     the   subsurface
            sand-clay inter  face and so called "buried valleys" that may exist as a
            result of past inlet positioning.. There appears to be four areas where,
            the depth to. sand would increase the likelihood of new inlet formation
            in the event of down cutting during storm conditions.                The deepest
            "buried valley" is located near 83rd Street, where the clay contact is
            encountered . at   more    than   50  feet   below mean sea       level.     Valley.
            structures are also present in the general vicinity of 37th, 60th and
            100th Streets      Other things being equal, these areas should be more
            vulnerable to inlet       formation and breaching during extremely large

            storms.




            THE 100-YEAR FLOODPIAIN FOR WORCESTER COUNTY



            The westernmost shoreline of Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays comprises
            an extensive area of salt marsh, agricultural land, rural development
            .and several small towns.     This part of Worcester County is protected by
            Fenwick Island during coastal storms to the extent that no waves greater
            than three feet in height are predicted to occur there (FIS, 1982).
            Four reaches were studied for insurance purposes I and they include:


              1. Ocean City Back Channel/Upper Sinepuxent Neck, West Ocean
                   City to Dog and Bitch Islands;
              2.   Isle of Wight Bay/Upper Sinepuxent Neck, Turville Neck,
                   Jiankins Neck, St. Martins River outfall, and west side
                   of Isle of Wight;
              3.   St. Martin River/North and South Banks from outfall at
                   Isle of Wight upstream to Piney Island; and,
              4.   Assowoman Bay/East Side of Isle of Wight, St. Martins
                   Neck, Greys Neck and Dirickson Neck.







                                                     37









                                Depth fin feet)                                              Stratigraphic
                                                                                            Cross-Section
                                         F -    -J                          [email protected] St.            Along
                                                                                     Ocean City, Maryland
                                                                           137th St.

                                     1-4        4
                                                                           41 st St.



                                                                          I45th St.
                                                J.

                                                                         j48th St.


                                       A                                I52nd St.
                                                  A
                                                   I
                                                                        i56th St.

                                                -4



                                                                           Rt. 90


                                   f"                                 66th St,


                                      ----------

                                                                     71 st St.

                                                                                Key:
                                        ........ .
                                                                                          Surface
                                                                    76th St.
                                                                                          Mean Sea Level
                                                                                          Sand/Clay Interface


                                                                                Cores:

                                                                 86th [email protected]                 Sand
                                                                                       I  Silt/Clay
                                                                                 Blank    Mixture or Unknown
                                                               i92nd St.





















                                                               120th St.
                                                                                          Source: Maryland Geological survey



                FigUre 10. Existing subsurface geologic               data revealing possible "buried valleys"
                                in thp virinitv of 37th- fi(Ith- 93rd and 100th strt-ptq.













            The maximum wave crest elevation through reach number 1 which connects
            Ocean City Inlet with Isle of Wight Bay is ten feet (NGVD) and for the
            other reaches, numbers 2, 3 and 4, the 100-year surge elevation is six
            feet (NGVD).   Aside from a one foot increase in elevation for part of
            reach number 1, no major change in the 100-year floodplain occurred
            since the prior study in August 1978.


            The Worcester County bay shoreline can be divided into areas north and
            south of the St. Martin River for purposes of discussing the extent of
            development, as well as storm vulnerability.       The area south of the
            river is closer to Ocean City Inlet, has more existing development, has
            more land prepared for future development and includes Routes 50 and,90
            which will be used for evacuation purposes from Ocean City.      The closer
            proximity to Ocean City Inlet may present more. vulnerability to the
            flooding hazard than -is identified on the FIRMs because the tidal range
            .in Isle of Wight Bay is larger than in Assawoman Bay.         Much of the
            developed land and land to be developed consists of extensive low-lying
            ,dredged and filled areas. extending into the bay.        Areas along Golf
            Course and Keyser Point Roads, Turville and Mankiln Creeks and in Ocean
            Pines should consider minimum elevations for buildin   g above the six foot
            flood elevation identified on the flood insurance maps.           Heightened
            discharge of the St. Martin River also contributes to the flood.hazard.



            Areas north of the St. Martin River have extensive marshlands that act

            to bu ffer upland areas from rising bay waters.    The tidal range is less
            than that closer to Ocean City Inlet making the six foot elevation a
            good minimum flood level.    Areas along Goose Pond, Grey'  s Creek and in
            Little Georgetown are being developed in the 100-year floodplain.









                                                 39














                JSLE OF WIGHT AND ASSAWOMAN BAYS


                .These two bays located south and north of the Route               90 bridge,
                respectively, differ in several ways.        Isle, of Wight Bay   has a three
                mile width (west to east) that is approximately equal to its length
                (north to south) and has a fairly, uniform depth of four feet below MLW.
                Isle of Wight Bay has two major channels: one           .just west of Fenwick
                Is.land,. and another paralleling the west side of the bay, passing close
                t.o shore at the Route 50 Bridge and at the north end of Captains Hill in
                West Ocean. City.    Both are deep and have strong currents, and both are
                migrating away from the center of the Bay.         This migration has caused
                .numerous bulkhead failures along Edgewater Avenue in Ocean City and in
                Captains Hill.    Some of these bulkheads have collapsed with surprising
                speed.    In the presence of a major storm, a number of these older
                structures and    their backfill could be lost, threatening houses and
                apartment buildings with undercutting.        Bulkheads in these areas are
                gradually being replaced, with 40-50 foot long steel pile sheeting being

                needed in a number of areas.



                In contrast, Assawoman Bay is longer (five miles) than it is wide (2.5
                miles) and has a more distinct channel (approximately six feet below
                MLW). bordered by an extensive tidal flat (two feet below MLW) behind
                Fenwick Island.     About 85% of the discharge through Ocean City Inlet
                comes from these two bays, with the remaining 15% coming from        Sinepuxent
                Bay to the South.     The 100-year flood stage decreases toward the north
                gradually from 8.1 feet at Ocean City Inlet to 5.6 feet near the
                Mary 1 and-Del aware -line (Corps of Engineers, 1980).     Overall,. data from
                the Corps and the Flood-Insurance Studies compare quite well, although
                .the Corps flood elevations are generally higher (see Table 5).







                                                       40













            'Bayside Flooding of Ocean City
            A major shortcoming in the wave height methodology used in the 1983 FIS
            was not accounting for the hazard of the ebb surge flowing over the
            island as a storm has passes from the area.                In addition, waves may
            actually form along the bay side of a barrier and this was not addressed
            by the wave height methodology.


            During a hurricane, increased rainfall, heightened discharge of tidal
            rivers (St. Martin River) and an easterly.wind direction all contribute
            to the impounding of vast quantities of water in the bay behind the
            barrier island, particularly along the mainland shore. A rapidly moving
            hurricane can pass over Fenwick Island and the winds abruptly shift
            around and blow strongly from the west or northwest.                  The impounded
            water is     then pushed toward the barrier and Ocean City Inlet.                  Bay
            waters pose an increased flood hazard to developed low-lying filled
            land.    Several areas in Ocean City that were once marshlands have been
            filled and channelized.       The banks of these areas have been bulkheaded;
            however,    the   elevation    of   these    areas   remains   low.      Construction
            standards    in these flood hazard areas should address bay floods in

            addition to ocean floods.



            Threat of Inlet    Formation
            Existing canals and channels, previously discussed, will offer a pathway
            for   ebbing bay water       and act to channelize high velocity waters.
            Weakened portions of the barrier could be breached and serve as outlets
            to the ocean for ebbing tidal waters.               Island breaching and inlet
            formation    is   a very common occurrence because of              this    condition.
            Overwash channels formed during a storm most often serve as natural
            pathways for inlet breaching.         When overwash channels are aligned with
            man-made canals the possibility of inlet formation is increased.                  From
            Figure 8. note the proximity of overwash occurrence in the March 1962
            storm to existing canals or channels can be noted at 12 street




                                                      41




















                    Table 5.  Comparison of the Estimated 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year
                              Bay Storm -Elevations (NGVD in feet) Predicted by Corps of
                              Engineers/Flood Insurance Study Data.



                                      100-year       50-year        10-year
                    segments(l)               (2)
                       1              8-1/7.8        7.3/6.7        5.4/5.5

                       2              7.5/7.3        6.7/6.0        4.9/4.5

                       3              5.6/5.6        4.4/4.6        2.8/2.9




                    MCorps of Engineers                     Flood Insurance Study

                       1. 27th Street to Inlet              1. 15th Street to Inlet
                       2. 90th to 27th Streets              2. 27th to 15th Streets
                       3. MD/DE line to 90th Streets        3. MD/DE line to 27th Street
                     (2)
                       Corps/Flood Insurance Study Elevations.












                                                      42













            locations.   Six inlets have been formed during past storms within eight
            miles of Ocean City Inlet (see Figure 11), but it is not known how many
            were formed from the bayside.


            Ocean City Inlet, as the nearest link between the Atlantic Ocean and
            coastal bays, remains a topic of general discussion.        Many problems a   re
            currently being     addressed which include deterioration of the South
            Jetty, a 45-60 foot scour hole at its base, additional dredging and
            continued    migration   of   Assateague    Island.    The   impacts   of    the
            alternatives   to solving these problems as they relate to the flood
            hazard vulnerability of Fenwick Island is an important issue,           but is
            beyond the scope of this study.


































                                                   43










                            DELAWARE
                            MARYLAND



                                                                                            FENWICK
                                                                           ft               INLET
                                                                                         4777 -1820)






                                                                                    tole of Wight
                                                           Isle of Wight            Life Saving Station


                                                            isle of Wight
                                                                Boy
                                                                                           BEACH
                                                                                           INLET
                                                                                          (no date)




                                                                            Ocean City
                                                                                   OCEAN CITY
                                                                                    INLET (1933)


                                                                               INLET SHALLOWS



                                                        -k


                                                                        SINEPUXENT INLET
                                                                                 (1920)



                                                 q

                                                Irv
                                                                  SANDY     POINT INLET (192-0).

                                            %
                                                     State Pork             19 Life Saving Station


                         Figure 11.     Locations and dates. of formation of inlets cut. across
                                       Fenwick and Assateague Islands during major past
                                       storms (adapted from Truitt).


                                                                 44













                                              CONCLUSIONS




             The flood hazard vulnerability of Ocean City is a function of several
             geographic,    geomorphic, hydrodynamic, and built characteristics that
             define a developed barrier beach (Fenwick Island).               During the last
             century,    this barrier     landform has been extensively developed and
             essentially     stabilized    in   one   geographic    location.     The    natural
             processes of landward barrier migration in response to sea-level rise
             has been interrupted.       Thus, the more Ocean City is developed and the
             less Fenwick Island is allowed to migrate, the higher the flood damage
             potential will become.


             Five hazard prone areas have been classified for the barrier system and
             several characteristics have been analyzed in order to identify areas of
             greatest risk, isolation and breaching during the high (10-year
             ,moderate   (50-year) and     low frequency (100-year) storm events.            The
             extent of flood And erosion damage caused by these three storm frequency
             events can be generally depicted (see Figure 12) and described in
             relation to several cultural features and regulated zones in the city.


                                                                                     Soyside
                               Oceanfront        Vr zone        Coastal Highway       Margin

                 100-year

                  50-year

                  10-year





             Figure 12. A simplified cross-section of Ocean City showing the general
                          extent storm damage and direction of flooding for 'certain
                          storm events.

             Flood   related impacts associated with ocean surges, tides, waves and
             currents can be expected to extend westward           to near   the current FIRM




                                                      45













                  V.zone limits, the Coastal Highway, and the Bays during the 10-, 50- and
                  100-year  storms,    respectively.     Impacts associated with bay surges,
                  tides and currents, but very little wave. action, can be expected to
                  extend eastward to the Coastal Highway and V-zone during the 50- and
                  100-year storms, respectively.       No bayside flooding is expected during
                  the 10-year event, but street flooding from poor drainage of rainwater
                  can be    expected.    The   interaction 'of ocean and bay waters during
                  moderate to low frequency storms will leave few if -any areas isolated
               ,.from   flooding,    and   will   present   distinct    opportunities    for   inlet

                  formation to occur.



                  To be more specific      in the [email protected] of greatest risk areas a
                  comprehensive summary of. characteristics in each of the five hazard
                  prone areas has been compiled in Table 6.          The northernmost eight mile
                  stretch of beach from 10th Street [email protected] the Mary 1 and-De laware line was
                  considered   for   this  analysis    and equal weight was given to these

                  characteristics.



                  Three high risk areas were identified based on the total number of
                  characteristics (e.g., three or more) found at a particular street             and
                  the total number of characteristics represented by a group of streets.
                  Area I was identified between 32nd and 57th streets because of a steep
                  shoreface     slope,  high    erosion   rates   (1850-1980;    1942-1962;     and,
                  1962-1980), low dunes, narrow barrier width, several bayside channels,
                  near the ocean and an historical inlet location.         Area 2 (i.e, 74th to
                  87th street) has    a steep shoreface, high erosion rates (1929-1980, and
                  three intermediate time periods), narrow beaches, low dune&, a narrow
                  barrier width and several channels near the ocean.           And Area 3 (i.e,
                  112th  to   132nd streets) has a       steep shoreface, high erosion rates
                  (1929-1942; 1929-1980; and, 1962-1980), narrow beaches, low dunes, wide
                            channels near the ocean and an historical inlet location.






                                                          46









                                Table 6. Areas of Greatest                                    Risk Selected                  on the Basis of Several                               Geomorphic and Geolocic Characteristics.



                                                                                                        AREA1                                                         AREA 2                                                                     AREA 3
                                                  STREETS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   F
                                                                                                                                                                         0
        ZONE /CHARACTERISTIC
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   i<    <\x
        1. NEARSHORE ZONE
              -STEEP SHORE FACE SLOPES
              LINN! I dIameneestmm
                    to - 4 fee.
              Ishisetesi illowmes from                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                0
                             tnt,

        Z.SHORE ZONE
                   EROSION RATES

              I. owtow (2-9 to 4.0)
                                  230)
              S. "g-490 f4s, to 261                                                                                                                                                                               0
              4-042-09119(7.W1062)
              5. IM-1990 (3.6, to 7.8)

              -NARROW BEACHES
               Los Mim 90' Irm Iowa
               WO Wa1w to "ke
               Limit 1.104.


              -LOW DUNES                                                                                            N
               Lee Kw V stmift" at
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  S'%,\"b*11k\       14                    see
               WA =rq Limit LW

                                                                                                                                                                               <
        3. HIGH HAZARD ZONE                                                                                                                                                 \\\\
              -WIDE VELOCITY ZOW II(MM                                                                                                                                      \\\\14
                                Imm ffe
               90" LWA LA" to WA"wd
               INMI as opm A BIT FINA


        4. 100-YEAR FLOOOPLAIN
              NARROW BARRIER WfOTI4
                                                                                        X\_
                                                                                                          a a
               Less th" 1000, tmm the
                      Ilm Com" 1,110-61.
                                                                                                                                                                \\\V1\\\\J

              -MAN-MADE OR NATURAL
              CHANNELS NEAR
              OCEAN                                                                  K\\
               LOU 00 M'ft" I"
               Ce"161 Hit""

              -HISTORICA     IL INLETS



                         VALLEYS
                                                                                                                                                                N-
          N ote:           Each           dot  represents the relative importance of a particular characteristic in the vicinity                                                                                                  of a       particulir              street.














                Based on a comparison of characteristics between each risk area, a
                distinction    can   be  made    in  terms   of vulnerability      to  a certain
                storm-frequency event.      Narrow beaches and low dunes make Area 2 most
                vulnerable to a 10-year storm and these same characteristics plus a wide
                .V-zone make Area 3 vulnerable during a 50-year storm in addition to
                Area 2.     Virtually all of the barrier will be vulnerable to change
                during a 100-year storm, but narrow barrier widths plus bayside channels
                near the ocean make Area I highly vulnerable to the potential of inlet
                formation.    There    is   reluctance    to    be   any   more   specific     with
                identification of greatest        risk areas because of the unpredictable
                nature of storm processes; but, those streets having more than four
                hazard pr,one characteristics include: 33rd, 74th, 79th, 83rd, 119th.and

                126th.



                In addition   to the natural hazard characteristics, built characteristics
                and    their   influence   on   increasing    damages   cannot   be    overlooked.
                Buildings not fronted by vegetated dunes; areas adjacent to seawalls,
                bulkheads,   and solid (not elevated) foundations; buildings directly
                ,behind seawalls; utilities Jocated close to the ground and buildings
                with. shallow     piles   on   the  bayside   of   the barrier     are extremely
                ,vulnerable to excessive flood damages. There are also times of greatest
                concern as they relate to barrier habitation, storm occurrence and high
                tide I events.    These include: late summer hurricanes and late spring
                nor'easters; full and new moon tides; predicted periods when the moon
                and earth are closest        to on another     (perigee); and, the long-,term
                future, in general, as long as no short-term mitigation techniques are
                implemented.












                                                        48







                             Is

                                    OCEAN CITY

                                                          PREPARED









                                                                  I       4r- z c,
                              Or
                                                            zi
                                                           I 'i

                                                                                                 wwl
                                                      [email protected]








                                                                                                                                                                                       110,




                                                                                                                                            U." f.
                                                                                                                                                                   [email protected] I
                                                                                                                                                       4U












           Ocean City is aware of its location on a barrier island exposed to the
           impact of hurricanes and northeasters.   In the 20 years since the 1962
           northeaster caused extensive damage at Ocean City, the City, State a  nd
           county have developed several regulations and programs that directly or
           indirectly reduce the potential for flood losses from these storms.   At
           the same time, development at Ocean City has increased the amount of
           property and number of people that are at risk from a major storm.


           This section describes the major regulations and programs relating to
           flood and erosion control that now affect Ocean City, and examines the
           extent to which Ocean City is currently prepared to withstand a major

           coastal storm.














































                                              49













                                          PROTECTING THE LAND




                Immediately after the March 1962 storm, the Corps of. Engineers developed
                an emergency plan to clear sand from the roads and rebuild dunes that
                had been washed away. This plan titled Operation Five-High included,
                beach and dune reconstruction from the Mary land-Del aware line south to
                ocean Lity Inlet.    The basic plan consisted of' a continuous berm and
                dune with a dune crown not less than 12 feet above mean low water on a
                line approximately 150 feet west of the mean high waterline, and the
                erection of a    sand fence extending along the entire dune crown.      Much
                of the sand used was that cleared from the streets, but an additional
                1,050,000 cubic yards was pumped in from Assawoman, Isle of Wight and
                Sinepuxent Bays.    As stated in the preface of the document Operation
                Five-High:


                          The dunes constructed by the Corps of Engineers
                          were designed to protect against Atlantic storms as
                          severe as any that are expected to occur in an
                          average 10 year period.   State, County and City
                          officials have been informed of the limits of the

                          protection and are here again advised that complete
                          protection has not been provided. Steps should be
                          taken by all interests to preserve the constructed
                          work by planting grass and shrubs erecting
                          additional sand fences, and to further build up the
                          dunes as protection against storms of magnitude
                          greater than those of a 10 year frequency.


                Twenty years of growth and development since the March 1962 storm have
                eliminated almost all dunes on the island and covered up most other
                available sand on the island with parking lots, roads, shopping centers



                                                      50












            and condominiums.     The 10-year frequency storm protection no longer
            exists; there is now less than 5-year storm protection.



            INTERD( BEACH PROTECTION



            Several beach protection plans have been developed in the past several
            years that would reduce Ocean City's vulnerability to coastal storms.
            One of these, a Corps of Engineers plan (1980), would provide protection
            from a 100-year flood, but it has not I been funded.         In April 1982 a
            formal beach protection plan was agreed upon by state and city offici       als
            which provides for the installation of two groins a year for the next 25
            years.   Beach fill between the groins is required, but no borrow site
            has been selected as a source of sand for the fill.        This plan does    not
            include dune restoration.      This agreement was recently formalized in a
            Memorandum   of   Understanding    between   Ocean  City   and   the Maryland
            Department of Natural Resources with an emphasis being place on the.
            construction of two or more adjacent groin cells (3 or more groins per
            year starting in FY 1985).


            The specific engineering    design of the current groin plan is based on
            .recommendations for short groins made in the Trident Report on Interim
            Beach Maintenance at Ocean City, 'October, 1979.        To be more effective
            than the existing 52 asphalt, timber and stone groins, the proposed
            groins will extend further seaward, end at lower point in the surf-zone
            and be spaced more       proportionally according to Corps of Engineers
            specifications.     They will    also be built to acceptable engineering
            design methods .   A set of four maps at a scale of 1"=200' and titled.
            "Groin Location    Plan for Interim Beach Maintenance" prepared by the
            Shore   Erosion    Control   Program,    Capital    Programs    Administration,
            Maryland Department of Natural Resources shows the approximate location
            of the 50 groins      No existing groins will be removed and. some existing
            groins which meet the spacing criteria will, be expanded.        They will be



                                                    51













                placed sequentially from south to north.        Further analysis of the 'groin
                plan maps indicates that ten will be built on existing groins, 12 will
                -be expansions to existing groins that meet the spacing criteria and 28
                will be newly constructed.      Seventeen existing groins, now exposed, will
                remain with the field.      When the plan is completed, 67 groins will be
                .present. ' Both in the Trident Plan and the subsequent agreement between
                Ocean City and the Department of Natural Resources, it is noted that no
                groins will be constructed. within one mile of the Maryland-Delaware
                State   Delaware   State   line without     coordination with the Delaware
                Department of Natural Resources to ensure that Delaware's beach areas
                are  not   adversely    affected   by   the  groin   construction.    The basic
                difference between the plan agreed by Ocean City and the Department of
                Natural   Resources   and   the  Trident   Plan   is  that   the  Trident    Plan
                anticipated the completion of the entire groin system within five years
                ,and emphasized the need for sand fill between the groins while the rate
                of groin construction under the agreement will be considerably less and
                could take up to 25 years.


                The placement of the first two groins was completed at 7th and 9th
                Streets   in May 1983.      The state legislature allocated the estimated
                $350,000 it would cost for the two groins; however, with an additional
                $90,000 the project was still 10-15% over budget.        Some of the high cost
                is attributed to difficulty in some of the construction methods.             More
                importantly, the space between the groins was not filled with sand and
                their effectiveness is thus suspect.        The purpose of the new groins is
                to hold the new sand longer; therefore, filling the groin cells to
                capacity is a primary design requirement.



                Several areas have been identified for source sands to be used in the
                groin plan: three areas offshore; at least two areas          in Isle of Wight
                Bay; and, at the North Jetty. An offshore site located seaward of           Ocean
                City Inlet    is a sand source which could be reduced because of its




                                                         52












             association   with   the    inlet   (Dean,   1977).    Costs,    logistics    and
             environmental problems of bringing sand in from offshore and the bay
             have been primarily responsible for these sources not being selected.
             Legal and political problems cloud the alternative of using sand at the
             North Jetty.   But, a very innovative and cost-effective approach can be
             implemented that would recycle the sand there.              A pumping system,
             entirely on land, could transport sand from the end of the north jetty-
             to the groin cell.     Sand that eroded from or bypassed the groins would
             be trapped at the jetty.      The sand would continue to be pumped back to
             the beaches as it came to the jetty.


             Ocean City's current objective is        to begin implementing a plan which
             meets  their   immediate needs     for   erosion   control  and provides      for
             additional recreation area while the more extensive Corps plan (COE,
             1980) awaits   funding.    The Corps has emphasized that (1) recreational
             projects have a very low priority and it is doubtful the plan will get
             approval, and   (2) their  plan doesn't utilize groins so no reimbursement
             will. be made  for groin   work done now by the City (pers. comm. Robert
            -Linyer,  U.S.   Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, 6/8/83).
             Given the Corps position, the city needs to begin planning for an
             alternative means of providing long-term protection while an interim
             plan is implemented.      Implementation of a long-term plan with another
             source   of   funding   without   any   interim   protection   might   also    be

             considered.



             It is imperative that the public, and particularly the property owners,
             recognize that the groin plan is designed. to provide a wider beach (if
             cells are filled to capacity) for recreational purposes and perhaps
             reduce the frequency of beach nourishment.          The groin plan is not an
             effective means of @protecting buildings from coastal flood damages.            A.
             wider beach may cause storm waves to break further seaward, but levels
             of flooding will not be reduced.         In addition, updrift accretion and




                                                     53













                 downdrift erosion caused by groins is more of a rule than an exception.
                 Both have occurred locally because of the North Jetty; it can occur on a
                 smaller scale.    On a more positive side, the wider beach will contribute
                 to a more successful dune stabilization effort.



                 BEACHFACE BULLDDZING AND DUNE SUBILIZATION



                 Other' erosion and flood control efforts        which occur on an emergency
                 basis have been limited to isolated areas.        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     include
                 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 occu   rred without,
                 study of the actual effect it had on beach erosidn, but generally, the
                 effort is not 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 Program and the
                .Maryland   Geological    Survey   to  determine    "...amount,   frequency and
                 overall effectiveness of bulldozing as a beach maintenance technique."
                 Kerhin and Halka (1981) concluded that bulldozing the beachface is
                 fu tile in that it steepens the profile and simply accelerates later

                 erosion of the backshore.



                 Private, efforts   to establish. and stabilize dunes in front of their
                 property have been    organized   through the Ocean City Dune Stabilization
                 C   ittee.   Their goal is to organize property managers and owners to
                 act in the most effective, technical and economic manner to enhance and



                                                         54













            develop a protective dune line.      Less than 20 percent of the sites had
            maintained dunes in 1982.      The goal is to have a complete maintenance
            program by 1987.    An "Ocean City Dune Packet" is distributed which lists
            key committee members, highlights the value costs and schedule of due
            establishment, identifies types of plants, recommends fertilizers and
            lists helpful publications.       The packet    is   trying to promote the
            following nine objectives:
               1.  Increase the number of property owners/managers interested
                   in property protection through dune stabilization.
               2.  Establish a procurement committee whose charge it is to
                   determine the cheapest and best methods to acquire fence
                   materials, fertilizers, plant materials, labor and other

                   materials as needed.

               3.  Establish cooperative relations with all divisions of
                   government interested in proposed activity and others
                   that might be of assistance including conservation
                   oriented groups.
               4.  obtain assistance in developing a conservation and
                   dune development and stabilization plan for each land
                   owner who is a member of the group.
               5.  Establ,ish a preference for early dozer work for
                   participants of the dune stabilization program if
                   the city continues to doze sand.
               6.  Follow the dune development and stabilization suggested

                   schedule of activities.

               7.  Document successful and unsuccessful dune development
                   and stabilization attempts and the reasons why.
               8.  Twice a year (May and September) select a committee whose
                   charge it is to view the dunes and identify maintenance
                   work that need to be accomplished.
               9.  Inform the public through news articles of all activities
                   of the organized group. Establish an information campaign
                   to       increase       and       retain       group       membership.


                                                   55












                 The Worcester County Soil Conservation Service completed a follow-up
                 study of the dune stabilization project along the ocean front in the
                 summer of 1983. The results for a total of 241 sites are as follows:



                 Vegetation:


                   1.  Approximately 66% of the sites were completely devoid
                       of any appreciable vegetation.
                   2.  Only 2% were considered to be   "natural and well covered."
                   3.  7% were "natural and sparse."
                   4.  8% were considered to have "natural and medium" coverage.
                   5.  7% were "planted and well covered."
                   6.. 6% were "planted and medium."
                   7.  4% were "planted and sparse."


                 Fencing:


                   1.  60% of the sites had no fencing at all.
                   2.  4% were covered with less than 24" of the fence showing.
                   3.  6% were "broken down - inadequate for dune formation."
                   4.  30% of the sites were "adequate - in good shape."
                   5.  Virtually all of the sites with the exception of those
                       between 94th and 115th streets were easily accessible,
                       i.e.,, the sites were not adequately protected by fencing.


                 Dune Height:


                   1. 422 of the sites averaged less than 1 foot of height.
                   2. 11% of the sites averaged I foot to 3 feet in height.
                   4. 252 were 5 feet in height or greater.13. 22% averaged     3 feet to 5

                       feet.







                                                       56













           Vegetative Appearance:


             1. 66% of the sites were devoid of vegetation.
             2.   26%. of the vegetation was considered to be green
                  or vigorous.
             3.   8% was considered to be yellow or stressed.



           Dune Formation:



             1.   58% of the sites had some type of dune formation.
             2.   42% of the sites had no dune formation.



           While   these   efforts   must   be  applauded   and   further    participation
           encouraged, the fact remains that the width of the current beaches is
           not large enough to maintain the dunes for long-term protection. More
           involvement by property owners and managers to expedite the restoration
           of Ocean City beaches will not only benefit their own dune stabilization
           efforts, but further protect the longevity of the buildings behind them.

























                                                   57


















                                               PROTECTING PROPERTY




                 Several land use and building controls established by State, County
                 and City authorities are specifically intended to protect property from
                 @damage by floods and storms.        The major programs and legal controls
                 enacted by each level of government are discussed below.



                 STATE OF HARYLAM AUTHORITIES



                 Flood Hazard Management Act of 1976.
                 This Act establishes the basic floodplain management and flood hazard
                 mitigation authorities for both the State and local governments.                It
                 is administered by the Water Resources Administration, Flood Management
                 Division, of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR).              The
                 Act is significant both for its explicit recognition of the need to
                 mitigate flood losses and for its requirement that State and local govern-
                 ments establish programs for flood loss reduction. The Act states that
                 19the public interest necessitates management of waters and flood hazard
                 -areas for the objectives of preventing and alleviating flood threats
                 to life and health, reducing private and public economic losses, and
                 to the extent possible, preserving the biological values associated
                 with these land and water resources."



                 The Act places responsibility for action to reduce flood losses on both
                 State and local government. DNR is required to des'ignate priority watersheds
                 for conducting flood control planning and management studies.            DNR i s
                 then required to fund and prepare these watershed management studies..
                 The study may be prepared directly by DNR or delegated to the local
                 jurisdiction.     A watershed management study which will include Ocean
                 City and Worcester County is scheduled to begin in the spring of 1984.
                 This study, to be funded and prepared by DNR, will utilize the information



                                                          58














            contained in this present study as a basis for developing more detailed
           .information on flood frequency and magni  tude under existing and planned
            conditions and identify alternative management techniques.


            Following completion of a watershed management study, the Act require     .a
            the local jurisdiction to prepare a flood management plan based on an
            evaluation of the alternative management techniques and other findings
            included in the watershed management study.     Once the plan is approved
            by DNR, the local jurisdiction must then adopt a program to implement
            the flood management plan.    Specific capital projects to implement the
            plan may be eligible for cost-sbaring funding from the State. 'Priority
           .for funding is given to those projects which provide long-term solutions,
           ,do not require maintenance, and have minimal adverse environmental impacts.



            Flood Insurance Program.
            The Flood Management Division also provides coordination with the National
            Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency Management
            Agency (FEMA). It provides assistance to local government in developing
            floodplain management regulations and reviewing flood insurance studies
            and maps prepared by FEMA or the Department itself. The Flood Mauageme   .nt
            Division also assists FEMA in conducting Community Assistance Program
            Evaluations (CAPE's) which are designed to determine if a local commun-
            ity's regulations are in compliance with the minimum requirements of
            the National Flood Insurance Program and are being adequately enforced.
            FEKA and DNR have performed two CAPE's on Ocean City in the past few
            years, and found that Ocean City is largely in compliance with National
            Flood Insurance Program regulations (see section on Ocean City for further
            discussion).



            Shore Erosion Control Law.

            The Shore Erosion Control Program of DNR provides technical and financial
            assistance to property owners with shore erosion problems.        Individual



                                                  59













                landowners, municipalities and counties may apply for 25 year, interest-free
                loans for projects designed to control shore erosion.            Construction
                loans cover 100% of the first $50,000, 50% of the next $20,000, 25%
                of the succeeding $20,000, and 10% on any remaining amounts. DNR supervises
                the design and construction of the structures, but property owners are
                responsible for maintenance.


                To date, only one shore erosion control structure has been constructed
                along Ocean City's oceanfront under the provisions of this law.            In
                response to a request from a group of owners of the      Oceania Condominum
                located between 82nd and 83rd streets, DNR provided a 25-year interest-
                free-loan in the amount of $120,000 to construct a sheet steel bulkhead
                to protect the, Oceania Condominums from further beach erosion.           The
                bulkhead is approximately 260 feet long.


                Sediment Control Law.
                This Act and associated     Sediment Control Rules and Regulations        are
                administered by the DNR Erosion and Sediment Control Divison.            Each
                county and municipality is  required to adopt grading and sediment control
                ordinances. Approval of sediment control plans for construction projects.
                is required by the appropriate Soil Conservation District and, in some
                cases, by DNR.    DNR provides technical assistance to local governments
                and the soil conservation districts, and periodically evaluates the
                local governments' grading and sediment control programs as to their
                overall effectiveness in implementing the provisions of the Sediment

                Control Law.



                Beach Erosion Control District/Building Limit Line.

                Included within the Sediment Control Law is a provision creating a Beach
                Erosion Control District and a Building Limit Line that extends 'from
                the Delaware line to the Virginia line. This Building Limit Line legislation
                was enacted in 1975 following several years of controversy over dune



                                                       60













             restoration and maintenance and the        issuance of building permits-on
             and seaward of the dunes.      The State   had intervened on at least, one
           .occasion, seeking to prohibit the construction of a home being built.
             on the beach. After losing in court, the State enacted the Beach Erosion

             Control District Act.



             On Assateague Island the western boundary of      this  district is approxi-
             mately the vest crest of the existing natural      dune line. In Ocean City
             the western boundary is a line known as the "      State-Ocean City Building:
             Limit Line which coincides, more or less, with      the existing established
             Ocean City Building Limit Line and on occasion may coincide with the
             crest of the littoral system.11      The Building   Limit Line was surveyed
             by the State and recorded in April 1976.          Construction of permanent
             structures within the Beach Erosion Control District is prohibited except,
             for those approved by DNR and the Soil Conservation District for storm
             control, beach erosion and sediment control.


             The Beach Erosion Control District Act also provides that "If the prohi-
             bitions imposed on the beach erosion control district would constitute
             a taking of a property right without just compensation in violation
             of the constitution of the United States or the constitution of Maryland,
             funds under program open space      may be used to purchase or otherwise
             pay foranyproperty taken." Procedures establisbedbyDNRfor administering
             the Act provide that:
                     any private owner wishing to sell property vitbin:the Beach Erosion
                     Control District may offer to sell the property to the 'State
                     by notifying DNR.
                     DNR must submit   the offer to sell the property to the Attorney
                     General of Maryland for review and recommendation as to whether
                     establishment of the District created a taking of property right
                     without just compensation.
                     DNR must submit to the Department of General Services those properties



                                                    61














                       which the Attorney General recommends for compensation.
                       DNR may recommend purchase of other properties located within
                       the Beach Erosion Control District, provided there is a clear
                       advantage to the State of public ownership.


                In 1975 it was estimated that approximately 10 acres of       property   might
                need to be acquired because of denial for building permits. To           date,
                the State has acquired through the Program Open Space a total          of 34
                1/2 lots (5.2 acres) from 19 different property owners. , Land acquired
                by the state under this program is maintained as open space to provide
                greater beach access and beach area.



                Stormvater Management Act.
                This 1982 Act requires each county and municipality to adopt, by July
                1, 1984, ordinances necessary to implement a stormwater management program.
                The Stormwater Management Division of DNR has developed regulations.
                setting forth minimum stormvater management requirements for each county
                and municipality.


                State Wetlands Act.
                This Act defines two categories of     tidal wetlands:   State wetlands    and
                private wetlands.    State wetlands are defined as     "all land under     the
                navigable waters of the State below   the mean high tide, which is affected
                by regular rise and fall of the tide." Private wetlands are "all lands
                not considered.State wetlands bordering on or lying beneath tidal waters,
                which are subject to regular or periodic tidal action and which support
                aquatic growth."     The Wetlands Division of DNR reviews, and permits.
                if appropriate, all *proposed activities in private wetlands, except
                for certain bunting, fishing and agricultural activities which are.au.to-
                matically permitted. The Board of Public Works makes the final decisi
                                                                                           ion
                on  permitted activities within State wetlands.         The same permitting,
                policies generally apply toboth Stateand private. wetlands.     This  program



                                                       62.













           is carried out in coordination with the Corps of Engineers Section 404
           Permit Program, and DNR has a Memorandum of Agreement with the Corps
           for a joint permit review program.


           Prior to passage of the Wetlands Act, considerable dredging and filling,
           including the creation of canals, occurred on the bay side of Ocean
           City. Most of this dredge and fill activity is now prohibited.


           Coastal Zone Management Proptram.
           The Tidewater Administration of DNR administers the Maryland Coastal
           Zone Management Program.    This program operates primarily by providing
           technical assistance to, funding for, and coordination with State and
           local programs to ensure that the objectives and policies of the CZM
           program are carried out. With respect to floodplain/watershed management
           activities, the program has assisted stormwater management and erosion
           and sediment control study efforts, floodplain mapping efforts, the
           development of watershed management plans, and project reviews.          The
           Tidewater Administration is sponsoring this current study of the Ocean
           City area in a cooperative agreement with the Water Resources Administration
           with funding provided by the FEMA State Assistance Program.


           The State programs briefly described above provide the greatest and
           most direct potential for flood loss reduction in the Ocean City area.
           Other State programs can also affect the degree of flooding that may
           be experienced or the amount of damage that may occur, such as the State
           Highway Administration's programs and policies for design and location
           of State highways, the Department of State Planning's development policies
           and review and development of funding priorities for State funded capital
           projects, and the Maryland Emergency Management and Civil Defense Agency's
           programs for flood preparedness.






                                                 63















                      CITf. 9"YLUM AMMORITLU


               "The Code of the Town of Ocean City contains the following major provisions
                specifically related to flooding and erosion.


                Section 34. Buildinit Construction.
                The Standard Building Code published by the Southern Building Code Congress
                International, Inc . has been adopted as the Building Code of the Town
                of Ocean City. Appendix M, Flood Plain Construction Standards, of this
                code provides performance criteria for elevation, anchoring and construction
                materials for buildings to be constructed in flood hazard areas, based
                on the minimum regulations    established by the Federal Insurance Admini-
                stration for the National     Flood Insurance Program.      It also includes
                by reference some of the standards included in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                1972 document "Flood-Proofing Regulations." These criteria are provided
                as, guidance rather than as a part of the formal code.        The performance
                criteria can result in varying interpretations of design and construction
               ,specifications depending upon the experience and knowledge of coastal
                flooding design or the architect or engineer involved.


                Section 36. Oceanfront Building Limit Line..
                This section was adopted in 1971 to prohibit new construction east of
                a designated oceanfront building limit line.       This oceanfront   buildin g
                limit line has since beensuperseded       by the State-Ocean City    Building
                Limit Line which was established in 1975 and closely follows the     or  iginal
                Ocean City oceanfront Building Limit Line.       In most areas the.  Building
                Limit*Line is east of the natural dune line.



                Section 36. Open Space Implementation Program.
                This section also adopts an Open Space Implementation Program, establishes
                a City policy to acquire by acquisition or easement areas designated
                in the Open Space Implementation Program, and requires development of



                                                       64













          a financing program, to fund the acquisition of open space.       An "Open
          Space Program" was developed in 1971 that described a proposed easement
          program and a proposed acquisition program, including areas to be acqui .red
          and approximate costs.     However, according to the City Planner, this
          proposed program was apparently not maintained and carried out, although
          the City has acquired several lots and many easements along the beach.
          A formal Open Space Implementation Program with a separate financing
          program does not exist at this time, but the City Engineer indicated
          that the City still acquires easements along the beach when appropriate.


          Section 46. Erosion and Sediment Control.

          In 1971 two erosion and sediment control districts were established
          within Ocean City.   The Beach Erosion Control District extends 150 feet
          west of mean low water, or to the highest point of the natural dune
          if present, or to the point at which surface drainage is eastward, or
          to the boardwalk, whichever is greatest. The Bay Erosion Control District
          includes the remainder of Ocean City.


          Beach Erosion Control District: Within the Beach Erosion Control District,
          sediment and erosion control plans must be approved by the Worcester
          Soil Conservation District before any soil disturbance may occur or
          building permits may be granted.     Buildings may be constructed within
          the Beach Erosion Control District and the natural dune may be removed.
          However, a new dune and berm must be established prior to the start
          of construction. The new dune must include a berm     that gradually rises
          from mean low water to seven feet above MLW at a      point 100 feet west
          of MLW.   The dune must then rise to 16 feet above MLW at a point 150
          feet west of MLW. All portions of the dune east of     the dune crest (and
          not covered by structures or pavement) to 5 feet above MLW must be planted
          in suitable vegetation as approved by the Worcester Soil Conservation

          District.






                                                65














                All buildings constructed within the Beach Erosion Control District
                must be constructed on steel-reinforced concrete pilings properly engineered
                and designed to bear the load of the structure and be so certified by
                a registered professional engineer or architect.           The building must--
                also have a vertical clearance of at least nine feet above the berm.
                Retaining seawalls may be permitted by the Worcester Soil Conservation
                District, provided that a dune with a.minimum elevation of 16 feet MLW
                is established and can be maintained.



               ,Kaintenance of the. dune and berm, either natural or newly created, is
                the responsibility of the property owner. If the property owner provides
                the Town of Ocean City with a public easement for use of the property
                within the District, the City may, at its discretion, maintain the berm
                and dune. However, the City is not obligated to provide this maintenance,
                and the property owner remains responsible for maintaining the dune
                according to the original specifications.


                In past years the requirement for dune maintenance was not adequately
                enforced. Berms were often -maintained by bulldozing sand from the lower
                beach, but sand fences and vegetation were not provided to help the
                artificial dunes becomes established. As a result, there are few dunes
                remaining in Ocean City.


                During the  past two years the Worcester Soil Conservation District has
                taken a more active role in the dune restoration and maintenance program.,
                In 1982, the District surveyed and mapped Ocean City beachfront properties,
                including their size, vegetation and vulnerability to human destruction.
                The District has also begun working with a local Condominium Association
                to -encourage property owners to place sand fences and plant dune vegetation.
                In, 1982 54 properties were planted with beach grass in the cooperative
                project with the Condominium Association, and the District has used
                news articles, radio and television to encourage property owners to



                                                        66













            join the dune restoration project.


            Bay Erosion Control District.: Prior to any soil disturburance or issuance
            of any building permit, the Worcester Soil Conservation District must
           .approve the soil erosion and sediment control plans for the proposed
            activity.


            Section 52A. Flood Damaze Controls.
            This section adopts the Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by-the Federal
            Emergency Management Agency and sets floodplain regulations adequate
            to ensure that Ocean City qualifies for participation in the National
            Flood Insurance Program.       The regulations were initially adopted in
           ,1973 and were last revised in 1983.     The Flood Insurance Rate maps were
            revised in May 1983.


           .The maps identify A-zones (areas subject to flooding from a 100-year
            flood), V-zones (areas subject to velocity waters, including hurricane
            wave wash and tidal waves in the 100-year flood), and indicate expected
            water levels during a 100-year      flood.  This section also establishes
            minimum elevation requirements in   the A-zone for residential construction
            (lowest floor elevated to 10.5 feet above mean low water) and nonresidential
            construction (elevated to or above the level of the 100-year flood or
            floodproofed to the level of the 100-year flood).


            In V-zones, any permitted construction must. be located landward of the
            reach of mean high tide, be elevated on adequately anchored pilings
            or columns so that the lowest portion of the horizontal structural members
            of the lowest floor shall be elevated to or above the 100-year flood
            level, and have the space below the lowest floor free of obstructions
            or constructed with breakaway walls.     It also prohibits the use of fill
            for structural support in V-zones, placement of mobile homes in V-zones,
            and man-made alterations of sand dunes if the alterations would result




                                                  67














                 in an increase in potential flood damage.             Appendix A contains maps
                 showing   the relationship between the location of existing structures

                 and these zones.-



                .FEMA and DNR conducted evaluations (CAPE's) of the Ocean City Flood.
                 Damage Control regulations in 1976 and 1981 and found that the City
              ...was largely in compliance with the regulations.             The 1976 evaluation
                 also determined that the water and sever facilities were reasonably
                 floodproofed.    The 198l.evaluation indicated that all mobile homes in
                 the Montego Bay mobile home park appeared to have been adequately anchored..
                 The 1981evaluation also noted that confusion sometimes exists regarding
                 proper elevations because Ocean City uses mean low water as a local
                 datum instead of NCVD.        This resulted in some structures being rated
                 improperly for flood insurance purposes, but apparently had notresulted
                 in.construction to incorrect elevations.


                 'Section 54. Foundation Reptulations in Critical Areas.
                 This section establishes more, specific and more stringent standards.
                 for scour, impact loads, pilings, concrete cover of exposed structural
                 concrete, and     bulkheads for building -foundations located in defin            ed
                 critical areas.     The defined critical areas are 1) east of the easterly
                 right-of-way of Baltimore Avenue between North 10th Street and North
                 33rd Street, and 2) the area east of a point 265 feet east of the easterly
                 right-of-vay of the Coastal Highway from North 33rd Street to the Delaware
                 -Border.   Structures located. east of the Dune Line as defined in Section
                 46 may require additional measures if the Building Inspector determines
                 that they are necessary to withstand exposure to the elements.                 This
                 s ec t ion a Iso spec if ies that des ign wind load s, for bu i ld ings located , in
                 this area will be those established by Section 120 of the Southern Standard
                 Building Code for Coastal Regions.






                                                            68















           Section 105.    Zon ing .
           .The zoning regulations of Ocean City establish limits on lot coverage#
           building size, height, and other standard 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 City is situtated on 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 in any
           major way.      Ocean City officials have indicated that they intend to
           revise the Comprehensive Plan in 1984.








           WORCEST    COUiM AUMORITIES,



           Ocean City is located witl)in Worcester County, but most aspects of government
           and regulation of Ocean City are separate from the County.            Worcester
           County has established the following regulations pertaining directly
           to floodplain management.


           Buildiniz Regulations:    Title 1. Building, Plumbing and Electrical Codes.
           The County Commissioners are authorized to adopt uniform building,. plumbing
           and electrical codes governing construction within the County. To date
           they have adopted the Maryland State Plumbing Regulations as the local,
           plumbing code and the 1975 National Electrical Code as recommended by
           the National Fire Protection Association As the local electrical code.
           The Commissioners have not adopted a local building code.



                                                   69
















                Buildiniz Reitulations: Subtitle 3. Floodvlain Management.
              .'Floodplain Management regulations are included under Worcester County's
               'Building Regulations Authority. 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.      Nonresidential structures must be elevated
                to the 100-year flood elevation or floodproofed to the 100-year flood

                level.



                Natural Resources: Subtitle 2. Erosion.
                Prior to any type of soil disturbance, a grading plan must be approved
                by the Worcester Soil Conservation District and a grading permit issued
                by the Worcester County Sediment Control Inspector.        Exempt from this
                requirement are agricultural land management practices, agricultural.
                structures, single-family' residences on lots of two acres or more, and
                residential and commercial lots under two acres where the only earth
                movement involves excavations of less than 300 cubic yards. Enforcement
                of the sediment control program is shared by the Soil Conservation District
                and the Sediment Control Inspector.


                Natural Resources:   Title 3. Subtitle 1. Fill and Bulkhead Line, Borro      v

                Limit Line.
                This regulation describes 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 area limit line which sets
                a western limit for borrow areas for filling along Ocean City.            This
                reg ulation has been effectively               by the State Wetlands Act.



                                                        70















           Natural Resources:   Title 3, Subtitle 1. Construction alonit Shorelines.
           This regulation creates a Worcester County Shoreline Commission and
           gives it authority to establish construction standards and issue permits
           for construction along all shorelines of Worcester County except the
           Atlantic Ocean.    It defines and establishes separate permit conditions
           for major construction and minor construction.       Major construction is
           defined as, any construction that involves 1) any work done more than
           six feet cbannelward of mean high water; 2) any fill of more than five
           cubic yards placed channelward of mean high water; and 3) any digging
           or excavation involving an alteration of the shoreline. Minor construction
           is defined as all other construction done along a shoreline. The Shoreline
           Commission has developed minimum design standards for placement of rip-rap,-
           piers, and bulkheads.


           Zoning and Subdivision Control.
           The Worcester County zoning regulations include the establishment of
          ,a floodplain district which is similiar to but less detailed than the
           Floodplain Management provisions under the Building Regulations portion
           of the code. The zoning regulations also include a conservation    district
           for the protection of areas unsuitable for development and         in which
           development would have a significant adverse effect on the natural environ
           ment. The current zoning map designates a smaller portion of the   wetlands
           along Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays as a Conservation District than
           is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.


           Worcester County-Comprehensive Plan.
           The Worcester County Comprehensive Plan was prepared in 1976. In contrast
           with the Ocean City Comprehensive Plan, it specifically recognizes a
           need to preserve mucb of the remaining wetlands and stream valleys within
           the County.    The Plan recommends that most of the land fronting Isle
           of Wight and Assawoman Bays be designated as a Conservation Zone. The
          .Worcester County Comprehensive Plan does not make detailed recommendations



                                                  71













              for Ocean City, but recognizes it a highly developed area, and eucoura ges
             Worcester County to support Ocean City's plans for continued growth
              and more intense development.


















































                                                  72

















                                        PROT=IBG PEWLE





           As a highly developed and very popular coastal resort, Ocean City'.s
           population varies seasonally.     The estimated average daily residential
           and transient population ranges from about 111,500 during January to
           as high as 232,000 during August (see Table 7). An even higher population
           may occur on weekends during June through September.        Holiday weekend
           populations during the summer' of 1983 were reported to have exceeded
           300,000.   In contrast, the year-round resident population is estimated
           at about 5,700 (1982).     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 depends upon both the number of people present
           and the type of storm that may occur.        Unfortunately, the season of
           highest population largely coincides with the hurricane season.           The
           hurricane season lasts from June through November and the greatest risk
           of a hurricane occurs August through October.      Although the population
           drops dramatically after September, an average daily population of more
           than 50,000 is still in Ocean City during October.         The high winds,
           high water levels and waves created by hurricanes can cause flooding,
           erosion, extensive property damage, and injury or death    to those exposed
           to the storm.    Since all of Ocean City is subject to     high winds, and
           most of the city will be subject to flooding, it is not advisable for
           anyone to remain in Ocean City whenever hurricane force winds are forecast.


           During the late fall, winter and spring, northeastern storms --such.
           as.the March 1962 storm -- pose the greatest risk. Although these storms
           pose less threat than a large. hurricane, hurricane force winds (74 mph)
           can be reached during a northeaster.      In addition, they usually ltst.



                                                  73

















                    Table 7. Estimated Averaqe Dailv Resident and Transient Population (000) -




                                      1918          1979          1980          1921


                                      20.8          12.0          13.1          11.5
                   FebPaza4y          18.1          12.5          23.1          13.1
                   W.a,tch            22.6          26.6          29.8          21.9
                   Ap)LU              24.6          21.6          33.8          43.9
                   May                53.7          58.7          69.9          74.4
                   June               87.3          119.0        134.4         158.7
                   juty               141.0         161.9        196.9         205.1
                   Augu6t             152.8         173.7        199.7         232.3
                   SeptembeA          71-3.         99.7         103.2         M.2
                   OctobeA            23.2          31.8          45.9          53-S
                   Movembot           19.8          22.8          25.8          41.8
                   Decembvt           11.8          11.5          14.8          24.8

                   Montht.y
                     Avekage          53.9          63.2          74.2          83.7



                     -Sou,tce:  Ocean City Heatth SeAvices







                                                           74











            longer than a hurricane (up to eii tidal cycles), and the long period
            of high water and heavy wave action can cause severe erosion and extensive
            flooding. Population levels are much lover during these months of the
            year, but there are still a sufficiently large number of people in Ocean
            City 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 were nine feet 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 or severely damaged, the efforts of civil
            preparedness, police, volunteer 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 hur-
            ricane.    City officials have expressed their belief that Ocean City
            is we 11 prepared to provide suf f ic ient . 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.


            City officials  bave also expressed their concern about overemphasizing
            hurricane prepardness and evacuation warnings.      They are concerned that
            future development and tourism could be adversely affected if too prominent
            attention is given to the hurricane hazard.        They are also concerned
            about providing evacuation notices that turn out to be unnecessary because
            the track or intensity of a hurricane changed or was not accurately

            forecast.






                                                   75













                The current "Ocean City Emergency Operations Plan" was developed several
                years'ago (the plan is undated) . The 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 should be used by different
                geographic areas within Ocean City. The local Civil Preparedness Director
                indicated that the plan is reviewed annually and updated as needed        '
                And that table-top exercises are also held periodically. However, local
                and State civil preparedness officials indicated that no field exercices
                have been conducted to test community preparedness and the effectiveness
                of the-plau.   The city is reportedly   planning to hold a field exercise
                in 1984.



                The Emergency Opertions Plan does not address several important -issues,
                including: special evacuation needs of certain segments of the population,
                such  as the elderly, handicaped, and families of emergency workers;
                time required to evacuate Ocean City given different levels of population
                present; designation of available emergency shelters for non-residents;
                and. the location and relative time at which one or more of the evacuation
                routes may become impassable due to f loodiug.     Since the plan is not
                dated and updates ate not indicated or dated, it appears impossible
                for City officials to know if they have the most up-to-date version
                of the emergency operations plan.    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.        At least one
                condominum -- the Sea Watch Condominum -- has developed a simple set
                of hurricane procedures for owners, renters and staff to follow. However,
                    gency.hurricane procedures are apparently not provided by most motels
                emer

                and condominums.,



                The Maryland Emergency Management and Civil Defense Agency, through
                the State office in Pikesville and the Worcester County office in Snow



                                                      76













           Hill, provides support and coordination with Ocean City emergency proce-
           dures. The State and County organizations are responsible for mobilization
           of public and private resources to save lives, limit damages, and speed
           recovery in emergencies and disasters. Their emphasis is on planning,
           training and exercises designed to achieve operational readiness.


           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. It is intended to be used by agencies responsible for evacuation
           to assist them in planning detailed evacuation routes and procedures.
           The map identifies the key evacuation routes in the Ocean City/Fenwick
           Island area, spot elevations on major evacuation routes, flood zones,
           summer and winter populations of major communities, and the location

           of storm evacuation shelters.




































                                                  77

















                                                 CONCLUSIONS




                Ocean City today is more vulnerable to losses from a major hurricane
                or northeaster than at any time in the past. Some of the major reasons
                for this increased vulnerability are highlighted below.


                The tremendous growth of Ocean City since the late         1960's has greatly
                increased the amount and value of property subject to damage from flooding,
                erosion, and high winds. Similarly, the number of people in Ocean City
                at all seasons of the year has greatly increased, compounding the potential
                problems of evacuation and safe refuge from a storm.


                The., present narrow width of the beach between Mean High Water and the
                Building Limit Line combined with the total or partial destruction of
                most of the natural dune line, leaves Ocean City with very limited protection
                from storm waves and overwasb --        subject to damage from storms with
                a five-year return frequency or greater.


                The current   program of groin placement         if implemented according to
                approved plans __ will provide only for 10-year storm protection when
                completed in 25 years. This groin placement program will be more useful
                for maintaining a viable recreational beach than for providing increased
                storm protection.     Currently, the groins are being constructed without
                sand f ill and, consequently, they will have little or no ef f ect on increased
                storm protection or'improved recreational beach.


                The  practice in recent years of bulldozingi sand from the lower beach
                to form temporary berms may actually result in increased rates of erosion,
                and  cause long-term costs which outweigh         any short-term economic or
                storm protection benefits.




                                                         78














            Current efforts to properly restore or create dunes will increase the
            amount of storm protection provided.     However, unless the width of the
            beach is increase d, the dunes will be subject to destruction by storms
            with a 50-year return frequency or greater.


            The State, County and City have developed and implemented several regulations
            and programs that have positive flood loss reduction benefits. However,
            these regulatory measures often do not fully, recognize the extremely
            vulnerable nature of Ocean City as a coastal barrier. subject to both
            change and movement as a result of long-term natural forces and short-
            term storm events.    Some of the -current regulations are inadequate to
            deal with the flood and erosion potential of a developed coastal barrier;.
            some of the regulations are out-of-date; some regulations appear to
            conflict with one another; some basic regulatory requirements ar       e. no t
            in effect; and enforcement of some regulations appears not to have been
            uniform over the years.


            Partially as a result of having survived the 1962 Ash Wednesday storm,
            many Ocean City officials, residents and property owners appear unduly
            optimistic regarding their ability to come through a major hurricane
            relatively. unscathed.   This optimistic view is    compounded by concerns
            that too much emphasis on hurricane preparedness will result in a possible
            decrease in future development and tourism.      Consequently, insufficient
            attention has been given to hurricane warning and preparedness measures
            and dissimenation of information to the public.














                                                    79






  BEFORE THE
  STORMW
















                     REDUCING



                    POTENTIAL














              ocean City is faced with understanding the current status of their flood
              hazard vulnerability and potential damages that could result from a 10-,
              50-, or 100-year storm event.        Short-term responses which may provide

              for   a  better   beach   for   bathers   next   summer   or   individual     dune
              stabilization efforts which may protect one or several structures are
              not   enough.    A comprehensive      hazard mitigation      strategy must      be
              implemented before a storm occurs to reduce the damage potential across
              the entire city.     In addition, the actions taken now will serve as a
              basis for guiding redevelopment after a storm occurs.



              This section provides an analysis of four storm and beach protection
              plans  regarding   their   effectiveness   and their costs and benefits as
              structural (beach erosion and flood control) measures.         The   implications
              of implementing any of the structural measures with other proposed
              nonstructural     techniques    care  discussed.     Finally,    a   number     of
              nonstructural (land use control) techniques available to the city              and
              state are compared with other coastal states and communities.

























                                                        80

















                              ANALYSIS OF STORK AND BEACR PROTECTION PLANS




                 The northeast storm of March 1962 created a need for emergency storm and
                 beach protection efforts by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but a
                 longer term solution was And is still needed.          Four storm and beach
                 protection plans that address beach erosion and flood control in varying
                 degrees, are currently being considered by federal, state and city
                 officials for Ocean City, Maryland.      They all are considered structural
                 solutions because they keep the water away from the people.                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 1979;


                 3.  "Hybrid Plan" prepared by the Coastal Resources Division,
                     Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater Administration
                     which combines features of the Corps and Trident plans; and,


                 4.  "Groin Location Plan for Interim Beach Maintenance" jointly
                     agreed upon by the state and city in April 1982 and recently
                     revised, referred hereafter as the status quo.





                                                         81













             The primary approach in analyzing the effectiveness and cost/benefit of
             these plans     focuses on the short-term and long-term value of these
             structural    alternatives.       Beyond the specific differences          in design
             characteristics     and storm-frequency protection,          the time required to
             complete the plans is important because changes in the             natural and built
             environments will continue to occur.             The impact of     sealevel rise is
             considered in a general manner to emphasize more                   dramatically th    e
             importance of long-term hazard mitigation planning on a developed

             barrier beach.



             EFFECTIVUESS



             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;
                  bulkhead height; and, (7) nonstructural measures.              For purposes of
             this"   discuss Iion,   those    characteristics     relating     to   a    horizontal
             dimension (nos.      1, 2 and 4) are considered to provide for erosion,
             control and those relating to a vertical dimension (nos. 3, 5 and 6) are
             considered to piovide for flood control..          The erosion and flood control.
             functions of beaches and dunes are not mutually exclusive as one might
             infer by this separate consideration of the horizontal and vertical
             dimensions.      This   is simply one way of comparing effectiveness. 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    8 summarizes 'the basic        information used for
             evaluating the four plans.









                                                        82










              Table 8. 'Summary of Basic Design Characteristics of the Four Current Beach and Storm Protection
                        Plans for Ocean City, Maryland



                                          EROSION AND FLOOD CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS              STORM
                                                                                               PROTECTION
                                                                    Dune                       (frequency
                                    Beach          Berm         Crest             Bulkhead      event in     Work
                                                                                                  years)
             Plans                  Width      Width Height-'   Width Height      Height                     Schedule

  1. "Hurricane Protection and      2001       1351   8.7'      251    161        161              100    10 years to
     Beach Restoration Plan"                                          I-                                  complete
                                                                extends from      extends
     (Plan 3) Corps of Engineers                                27th St. to       N. Division
     August 1980                                                State Boundary    St. to 27th St


  2. "Interim Beach Maintenance     170'       90,    8.71                                         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) ONR-         170'       90,    8.7'      25'    16'        161             100     construct groins
     Coastal Resources                                                           -                        dunes and bUlk-
     Division                                                   extensions same as        Ian             head

                                                                                                          2 short groins
  4. Status Quo Yearly              170'       901.   8.71                                       -40      per year for
     Allocation from State                                                                                25 years
                                                                                               P1
                                                                                                             Work
                                                                                                        @Schedul







           Referenced to National Geodetic Vertical
           Datum (NGVD).
















             General Assessment

             All four large scale plans, emergency bulldozing and individual efforts
             to stabilize dunes are actions which emphasize the public desire to
             stabilize Fenwick Island.       The long-term committment of these actions
             has different implications regarding man's desire to stabilize 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 high frequency storm events (less than
             10-year event).


             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.    Both plans are 'estimated to take ten years to complete and
             as more time-passes, more sand will be needed to comply with the plans.
             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 shoreline.       A
             major 'difference between these two plans would be the order in which
             sections are completed.       Construction of groins      in the hybrid plan
             requires the sections to be completed in order from south to north. This
             would   leave  sections   in north Ocean City vulnerable until project
             completion.    The Corps plan, however, seems to have more flexibility
             whereby lower, more vulnerable sections of beach could be constructed on
             a  priority   basis.     Also,  a   proposed warning and evacuation plan
             associated with the Corps plan addresses an additional flood hazard
             mitigation concern.     The warning and evacuation plan could be designed
             to complement the beach and dune construction plan so that short-term,
             nonstructural protection is provided to those sections not completed
             during the ten year period.



                                                     84















                  The Trident and status quo       plans are comparable in that they are
                .designed to provide only limited and interim erosion control.             Neither
                  plan proposes dune or bulkhead construction and only' offer protection
                  against the 8- to 10-year frequency storm event. Both plans incorporate
                  the installation of groins; however, the major diff      erence lies with the
                  length of time required to complete each plan.        The estimated five year
                  [email protected] period for the Trident plan makes it more effective than
                  the 25 year period estimated for the status quo plan.              Beach areas
                  toward  the   north   end   of Ocean    City would continue       to   have an
                  uncontrolled erosion problem until the status quo plan is completed. No
                  additional nonstructural measures are proposed for either plan,           other.
                  than flood insurance which is currently available.


                  Specific Evaluation
                  In all plans, except for the Cbrps plan, groins are         a primary feature.
                  The long-term performance record of groins, in the United States has
                  generally not been good.       Several problems which can result include;
                  interruptjon of, the littoral drift; loss of sediment offshore as it
                  passes around the outer ends of the groins and shifting of erosion
                  problem down drift      (Leatherman, 1982); complication of erosion and
                  accretion patterns (pers. comm. Steve Gabriel, Public Works, Ocean City,
                  New Jersey 7/11/83) and a hazard to swimmers and bathers.           Some groins
                  have satisfied their intended purpose, but most have been either
                  ineffec-tive or have had detrimental effects (Leatherman, 1982).              The
                  effectiveness    of   existing   groins    in   Ocean   City   has   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 s and in. the initial phase of the status        quo
                  plan between 7th    and 9th Streets has not yet been agreed upon by           the





                                                          85













             city.   Groins will not help to build a beach higher than what. would
             occur without them.       They may,    however, keep sand in a particular
             location    for  a   longer   period   of   time.    In the   short-term,     11ess
             replenishment would be required in an area with groins provided the cel.1
             was filled to capacity.


             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 material, if they are wide and long
             enough and if they are, filled to capacity with sand.         This is certainly
             a long list of conditions.        In reality, removal of beach fill between
             the groins during erosional storm processes will expose the groins and
             result in downdrift erosion.      Although some trapping of sand will occur
             on one side of a groin (updrift), erosion and sand deprivation probably
             will occur on the other side (downdrift)       .   The Trident and status quo
             plans are short-term or interim plans in the first place.           They are not
             expected to have long-term effectiveness.         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.        As beach geometry changes,
             the relationship with respect to the groin position and design will also
             change.   Groins may accelerate erosion in one location or transfer it to
             a number of others .      What is certain is that a beach will no longer
             change and adjust to natural conditipns after groins are constructed.


             The Corps plan, or one like it, has the greatest long-term value and
             effectiveness because of its ability to fluctuate and move in response
             to gradual and immediate changes in beach -form and offshore slopes.          The
             transport of sand along the beach environment 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




                                                     86














               ,.control.   The maintenance requirement for sand replenishment a continual
                  basis, will be -no higher than that for the groin plan.                Only the
                  frequency of nourishment could be higher.


                  Sea Level Rise Considerations
                  The preceding discussion of beach nourishment activities assumed that
                  sea level will follow its previous trend.           However, an Environmental
                  Prot ection Agency report (Titus, et al, 1983) has been released that
                  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 2.025, 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
                  preserve   the  barrier    form.    Directly   or   indirectly,   it would be
                  necessary to raise the entire beach profile and barrier elevation by the
                  amount of sea level rise.     Assuming that the closure point, or critical
                  change in nearshore slope, is 1500 feet from dune line a 1-1/2 foot rise
                  in   sea   level , implied    by   EPA's   medium    scenario   would     require
                  approximately 3.5 million cubic yards of sand along the eight miles of
                  shoreline by 2025, in addition to the quantity required by programs to
                  address erosion that has occurred in the past.


                  The prospect of accelerating erosion and increased flooding from sea
                  @level rise could also have important consequences for post-disaster
                  planning.   In the absence of a major disaster, Ocean City may prefer to
                  wait   for  better   projections    of   sea  level   rise, which    should be
                  forthcoming in the next decade.         However,  because of the substantial



                                                           87













             amount of resources involved in the rebuilding phase, the. private sector
             would need a clear signal of the City's anticipated response to                 sea
             level rise in the following decades.


             Most importantly, Ocean City would have to explicitly decide whether its
             policy would be to maintain the 1980 (year?) shoreline regardless of
             cost,   or   whether    there   is   an   upper   limit    to  the  annual    sand
             replenishment that the City is willing to consider.          In the latter case,
             ocean   front   property, owners    considering reconstruction of severely
             damaged houses would want to consider whether future erosion would be
             likely to cause increased risks and insurance premiums in the future;
             and the City would wan't to consider whether the benefits of rebuilding
             damaged structures would be worth the price of the future public beach
             being cluttered with houses.        If not, additional set back requirements
             might be necessary.



             COSTS AND BENEFITS



             The costs and benefits (in dollars) for each of the four plans are not
             completely documented.      Cost estimates exist for all- four plans but,
             unfortunately,    benefit    estimates    only   exist    for the   Corps    plan.
             Existing cost     estimates   have   been made over      a three    year    period
             (1979-1982) and changes       in construction costs      (material and labor),
             inflation and interest rates make direct and quantitative comparisons
             difficult.    The Corps and Hybrid plans have estimated costs which exceed
             the Trident and status quo plans primarily because           of the added costs

             associated with dune and bulkhead construction.              Groin construction
             costs for the hybrid plan make it the most expensive         initially; however,
             annual beach maintenance costs are expected to be           lower if the groins
             successfully trap sand as they are designed.           As   previously discussed
             cost overruns may also contribute to any groin plan.          Other factors not
             considered, but which are admittedly difficult to           assess and derive @a




                                                      88














                  long-,term cost, are the maintenance of the groins themselves and the
                  lack of eligibility for disaster funding following a presidentially
                  declared disaster, as was the case with the 1962 post-storm federal
                  disaster assistance efforts.       Another disadvantage to the.use of groins
                  relates to their ineligibility for credit towards any federally funded
                  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, as stated earlier.


                  Costs associated with the status quo plan should be expected to be
                  higher than those for the Trident plan because of the up to 20 year
                  separation in completion      dates (and an expected increase in costs). It
                  appears that the Trident      plan would have the lowest costs of the four.
                  plans   but   a  selection    based    solely   on   this   criterion   would     be
                  shortsighted.    Costs of any plan should be balanced with longer term
                  .erosion and flood control   benefits that are provided.



                  The average annual benefits of the Corps plan have been estimated to be
                  2.4  times greater than its average annual costs.           This is fairly high
                  for a Corps project.         But the benefit to Ocean City is primarily
                  recreational and, thus, the plan has a low priority status for Corps
                  approval.    No benefit/cost ratio exists for the Trident, hybrid of
                  status quo plans which precludes any comparison of plans in terms of
                  their dollar value.       Qualitatively, the primary benefit for all four
                  plans . is   recreational    with   additional    hurricane protection       (flood
                  control) provided by the Corps and hybrid plans.            Any benefit analysis
                  for these two plans would account for damage reduction to structures
                  utilities and lives as a result of the protection provided by dunes and
                  ,bulkheads.   Since the primary benefit        of the Trident and status quo
                  plans is erosion control, a benefit analysis is primarily confined to
                  evaluating the day usage during the summer months (i.e., recreational

                  value).




                                                           89














            one of the major benefits of a plan that incorporates groins is that it
            provides   a way in which the State and City can begin working in a
            cooperative effort to decrease. hazard vulnerability in Ocean City with
            at  least some plan.      Selection and use of a sand source for beach
            restoration and cost-sharing. arrangements can thus be expedited.
            An advantage to having a beach restoration plan of any kind is that
            federal reimbursement of sand lost during a presidentially           declared
            emergency or disaster is possible.       Without any committment    to beach
            restoration, the beach does not become a public facility and will not be
            eligible for disaster funding.


            Benefits based solely on sand dynamics lie with any plan which is least
            dependent on shoreline protection structures.       Complicated patterns of
            erosion and accretion changing relationships between depth, length and
            height of groins and beachface slope, width and height will be avoided.
            Ocean City now has the benefit of not relying on shoreline structures or
            being financially committed to them.


            As Ocean City continues to grow as a recreational facility, pressures
            will increase to maintain a recreational beach.      However, growth of the
            community is also translated in numbers of structures, extent of
            infrastructure and possible damages that can result from storms.          The
            benefit of a hurricane protection plan will have higher value over time
            because   of  the   increased   investment  relating   to  the recreational
            benefits.   Estimated storm damages four years ago as compare     d to those
            in 37 years without hurricane protection increased substantially as
            noted below (COE, 1980):










                                                   90













                 Storm Frequency       10-year         20-year    50-year    100-year


                       1979           $2.9 million     5.3        32.9       50.8



                       2020           6.4              8.4        39.1       73.7



                 General Deficiencies
                 The City and State do not have the benefit of considering a protection
                 plan designed for a moderate frequency storm (i.e., the 20- or 50-year
                 event).   Creation of a new plan which either upgrades an interim beach
                 protection plan or downgrades a long-term flood control plan would be
                 advantageous.    Recognizing that plans often provide less protection than
                 that for which they were designed, Ocean City must avoid the downgrading
                 of the status quo plan where they may only equal the protection they now
                 @have.  By not filling the groin cells to capacity for example, Ocean
                 City would basically retain- the beach they now have, p             roviding no
                 adverse impacts occurred (i.e., downdrift erosion).            If the City and
                 State   seek   100-year    design   protection    and    only  achieve    50-year
                 protection,   then they will still be improving upon the existing level of
                 production.


                 Nor do any plans have nonstructural measures associated with them.             The
                 Corps plan acknowledges the need for warning and evacuation, but                no
                 details are provided in the r     eport.   Incorporating higher building code
                 standards, new zoning by-laws, acquisit-ion strategies or any means of
                 removing - damageable resources from the threat of floods along with a
                 beach restoration plan will reduce the potential cost's of damage.



                 IMPLE XTATION WITH NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES



                 The four structural storm and beach protection plans are receiving
                 priority attention and justifiably so.. Shoreline erosion has continued



                                                          91














             to be unimpeded while      ocean-front development has remained in a static
             position and increased     in density.    The first line of defense obviously
             lies with improvement      of the beach and dune resources.        But while the
             immediate concern is      beach erosion and current efforts are directed
             towards short-term interim protection (i.e., for the 10-year storm),
             protection against flooding during a lower frequency storm (i.e., 20-,
             50- or 100-year) should receive concurrent attention.


             The   nonstructural    mitigation    al'ternatives   which    include    elevation
             requirements,    construction setbacks, land acquisition, building code
             improvements and evacuation will fulfill a more comprehensive flood
             hazard mitigation strategy when combined with any of the structural
             storm and beach protection plans..          The implementation of particular
             measures and the specific standards associated with them is related to
             the type of beach protection plan that            is selected.     If a 10-year
             protection plan is implemented and a 100-year storm occurs, the need for
             a greater number of flood mitigation measures and standards to reduce
             damages is higher than that associated with a 100-year protection plan
             that's in place when a 10-year storm occurs.         Table 9 is used to better
             describe the relationship.






















                                                      92
























                   Table 9. Implementation of the Storm and Beach Protection Plans and
                              the Necessity for Nonstructural Flood Hazard Mitigation
                             Measures.


                         Storm Frequency         10-year       .,50-year      100-year



                         Plan


                         Corps                   Low            Low           Moderate
                         Hybrid                  Low            Moderate      High
                         Trident                 Moderate       High          High
                         Status  Quo             High           High          High

























                                                       93













              The low necessity for incorporating nonstructural measures with the
              Corps and Hybrid plans is due to 'the fact that             dunes will protect
             .against substantial flooding.        The moderate necessity for additional
              measures' with these plans is due to the increased vulnerability' to
              bayside   flooding    (not mitigated by oceanfront dunes) and increased
              vulnerability with reduced beach protection over time.            The groins in.
              the Hybrid plan make the latter factor more significant than in the
              Corps   plan.    The beach and dunes will simply not be permitted to
              fluctuate and adapt       to  long-term changes.      The necessity for more
              nonstructural    measures,    then   becomes   an   even  higher   concern     for
              protection against the 100-year storm as time goes on.


              The   time   required    for   implementation    is   the only    factor    which
              distinguishes the difference between a moderate necessity for 10-year
              protection by the Trident plan and a high necessity for 10-year
              protection by the status quo.        At least widespread erosion protection
              will be offered in a relatively short period of time with the Trident
              plan versus a very limited number of areas that will be protected until
              the status quo plan is completed (up. to 25 years).        Because each plan is
              designed   for short-term erosion     control during storms greater     than the
              10-year frequency, the necessity for implementing nonstructural flood
              hazard mitigation measures       is high if the City and. State desire a
              reduction in damage potential.

















                                                     94
















                      COMPARISON WITH OTRn COASTAL STATES AND COMKMTIRS




            The State and local regulations that currently govern Ocean City and
            the coastal portions of Worcester County generally provide at least
            a minimum protection from flood hazards when compared with national
            standards and the regulations prevalent throughout coastal communities.
            In some cases, the regulations affecting the Ocean City area go beyond
            minimum standards. In other instances, minimum standards are absent.


            Many coastal states and communities have concluded that they prefer
            more than minimum protection. Often the decision to adopt flood protection
            requirements that are more stringent than required or in common practice
            has come af t er 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
            requi.Lrements affecting the Ocean City area.


            Elevation RecLuirements.
            FIA minimum requirements for community participation in the National
            Flood Insurance Program require that structures within the designated
            V-zone be elevated to or above the 100-year flood level -- including
            wave height, if wave heights have been determined.     Prior to May 1983,
            wave heights had not been determined in Ocean City, and the elevation
            requirement in V-zones was to or above the still-vater elevation. Since
            issuance of the new maps, structures must be elevated to or above the
            wave be ight e levat ion


            Several communities recognized that the FEMA methodology for determining
            coastal flood elevations for V-zones was limited if it did not include

            wave heights, because other factors cannot be accurately modeled or
            measured, and because of the. limited detail in which the flood insurance



                                                  96














                studies are performed.      Consequently, these communities required the
                lowest floor of buildings in the V-zone to be elevated from one to five
                feet or more above the FEKA determined V-zone elevation (e.g., Southhampton,
                NY, East Providence, RI, Wrightsville Beach, NC, and Scituate, MA Musler,
                1982)).   Even when wave height were included in the flood insurance
                study, some jurisdictions have required more that the minimum elevation.
                for example, the State of Connecticut amended its state building code
                in 1981 to require any structures within the V-zone to be elevated above
                the 100-year flood level with wave heights. Among Connecticut's reasons
                for establishing this requirement was to provide for a margin of error
                in the flood insurance studies and to allow sufficient freeboard for,
                the passage of wave-tossed debris without damaging the structure.


                Requirements for buildings to be raised above the minimum elevation
                requirements in A-zones is less common.       The potential for damage in
                A-zones is much less than in V-zone's if flood.waters exceed the 100-
                year regulatory standard.       Ocean City's current regulations require
                the. lowest floor to,be elevated to 10.'5 feet above mean low water (9.3
                feetNGVD). This required elevation exceeds the designated A-zone elevations
               .which range from 6.0 to 9.0 feet NGVD.



                Setbacks.

                Setbacks are a common regulatory method used by coastal states and commun-
                ities to protect their beaches, dunes, wetlands and sborefront development.
                Some setback regulations, such as those adopted by the State of Florida
                (FEMA, 1982), require a special. permit or variance in order for a structure
                to be located within the setback line, while others prohibit construction
                within the setback line. Setbacks may be intended to protect structures
                from flooding or from erosion, and may also be intended to preserve
                .natural features such as sand dunes and wetlands.       North Carolina has
                e'stablisbed setbacks for three,critical areas:     areas of rapid erosion;
                areas where inlets may form or inlets are known-to shift; and areas



                                                      97














            of estuarine shoreline   concern (McElyea, 1982).


            The setback distance     can be determined based on several factors, but
            two common criteria used in oceanfront areas are 'the landward extent
            of the FEMA designated V-zone (e.g. Panama City Beach, FL) and the landward
            edge of the primary dune (e.g. Wrightsville Beach, NC (Kus'ler, 1982)
            and Jekell Island, GA (Univ. of Georgia, 1983)).            In areas of severe
            erosion some communities (e.g. San Diego, CA (Kusler, 1982)) have adopted
            a setback distance sufficient to protect the structure for its expecte           d
            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. an assumed 30-year life based
            on the length of the average home mortgage in an area with 2.5 feet.
            of erosion per year would require a structure to have a 75 foot setback.


            Setbacks are provided in at least two ways. A special. local ordinance
            or a state legislative act or regulation may establish the setback throughout
            a jurisdiction based on a uniform fixed distance from a natural feature
            such as mean sea level, primary dune, or edge of wetlands, or establish
            a more variable line based on other criteria such as the landward extent
            of the V-zone.     In other cases, local zoning regulations may establish
            setbacks that vary depending upon the permitted land use.


            'The State-Ocean City Building Limit Line' is a State legislative act
            that provides for a setback of structures from the ocean in Ocean City.
            The primary purpose when this line was established was to prevent buildings
            from being  constructed on the beach with a resultant loss of recreational
            usit. of the beach. The Building Limit Line was not established specifically
            to protect  property from damage or to protect sand dunes from destruction.
            In fact,   t.he BLL is delineated so that it falls on the natural dune
            1 ine and  in many cases seaward of the natural dune line.           Ocean   City


                                                     98














               Zoning regulations permit the construction of buildings up to the edge
               of the Building Limit Line.


               -There are currently no uniform setback requirements from wetlands in
               Ocean City and Worcester County.      State regulations governing wetlands
               provide for' a case-by-case determination of whether construction will
               be permitted in wetlands.     Worcester County zoning regulations provid    e
               for some wetland areas to be set aside as conservation and open space
               areas, but establish no setback requirements in other vetland areas.
               Ocean City zoning regulations do not require a setback from wetlands.


               Dune Protection and Restoration.

               Setback requirements are often combined with programs and regulations
               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, WJ embarked on a successful
               dune restoration program after suffering damages in the same March 1962
               storm that affected Ocean City (Farrell, 1983). Many communities require
               that walkways be constructed over dunes to prevent their destruction
               by pedestr*ian traffic.


               Ocean City does have regulations (Sectin 46. Erosion and Sediment Control)
               intended to protect or restore dunes.     Rovever, these regulations permit
               the removal of an existing natural dune if an artificial dune and be       rm
               are developed seaward of new structures. This results in the dune being
               moved closer to mean high water    and subject to rapid destruction during
               storms. In addition, lack of enforcement of dune maintenance requirements
               has resulted in the gradual elimination of most protective dunes in
               Ocean City.   The net effect of the St.ate-Ocean City Building Limit Line
               and the Ocean City Erosion and Sediment Control regulations is to virtually
               assure that a protective dune line cannot be maintained in Ocean City.



                                                      99
















            Acouisition 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 (Kusler, 1982). . Other communities such as Scituate,
            MA. and Gulf Shores, AL have used federal fundsl in recent years 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 tha.t 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.


            in Ocean City, the State of Maryland has acquired over 50 separate small
            parcels under the provisions of the Beach Erosion Control District Act.
            Acquisition occurred when the property owners were denied permits for
            building because the location of the Building Limit Line rendered their
            lots too small to meet zoning requirements.        Additional lots may be
            acquired by the State under-this Act.     Ocean City has acquired numerous
            easements of beachfront property.       Although the areas where most of
            these easements were acquired were seaward of the Building Limit Line
            and could not be built on, public    easements ensure that the beach area

            will beaccessible for recreational use.



            Construction Standards.
            Many states have adopted   uniform building code requirements that apply


            IThese properties were acquired using the provisions       of Section 1,362
            of the Natinal Flood Insurance Act. Under this program,    FEMA may acquire
            eligible properties and transfer the property to a state or local government
            that agrees to maintain the property in an open space or recreational
            use. To be eligible for acquisition under this program,    several criteria
            must be met, including:   the property was damaged 50% or more of market.
            value in a single flood, or damaged 25% or more three times in five
            years; property must be covered by flood insurance; and the property
            owner must voluntarily sell the property    condemnation is not permitted.



                                                   100
















                 to all communities within their state.          In the eastern United States
                 the two most commonly adopted building codes are the Standard Building
                 Code developed by the Southern Building Code Congress, and the BOCA
                 Code developed by the Building Officials Code Administrators.                These
                 standard codes may be adopted in whole or in part, and portions may
                 be modified or supplemented to meet specific state standards.          In states
                 where a uniform state code has not been adopted, many communities have
                 also adopted the Standard or BOCA codes, with appropriated modifications..
                 These' building codes contain both specific and performance standards
                 covering most types of construction.       Both of the codes mentioned above
                 include standards for. construction in floodplains and coastal areas.
                 States and coastal communities rely on these codes and the certification
                 of' a professional engineer or architect to ensure that all buildings
                 in  coastal flood hazard areas are properly constructed to. withstand
                 the expected forces of wind, waves and floodwaters. For the most part,
                 these codes do not contain specific standards for construction in coastal
                 high  hazard areas or for floodproofing of buildings.             Instead, they
                 rely  on performance standards that are subject to varying interpretation
                 by, the -engineers and architects responsible for design and construction.
                 Unfortunately, few engineers and architects have been trained in the
                 proper techniques for construction and floodproofing in coastal flood
                 hazard areas .   Likewise, few building inspectors have received training
                 in construction and floodpro.ofing in coastal flood hazard areas, and
                 do not have the specialized knowledge to judge the adequacy of the design
                 proposed by an engineer or architect.


                 In addition to building codes, communities participating in the National
                 Flood Insurance Program must also establish minimum standards for elevation
                 (discussed earlier in this section) and floodproofing.               The minimum
                 standards for floodproofing recommended by FEKA are adopted by almost
                 all', communities.   As with the uniform codes, these regulations specify
                 performance rather than specific standards, and rely on proper design.


                                                          101














           and choice of construction materials by an architect or engineer.


           The loss of hundreds of buildings during coastal storms to the forces
           of wind, high water levels, wave impact, and erosion, or a combination
           of these forces are evidence of the inadequacy of most building codes,
           construction techniques, and code enforcement procedures in coastal
           high hazard areas.   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 floodwaters
           and waves, failure of bulkheads and seawalls, 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,
           Gulf Shores, AL, and Sanibel Island, FL, that have suffered major building
           losses during a coastal storm have enacted supplemental standards to
           .their building codes that provide specific requirements for foundation
           construction, depth of pilings, foundation bracing, and connections
           throughout the structure.     These specific standards apply mostly to
           one and two story structures and are largely based on research sponsored
           by FEMA into proper construction techniques in coastal areas. High-rise
           buildings are still generally regulated by performance standards, with
           certification by an  architect or engineer.   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 during
           1983 to include more specific floodproofing standards for both coastal.
           and non-coastal areas.    The Standard Building Code has not yet been

           revised.



           The State of Maryland has not adopted a uniformstate building code..
           Ocean City has adopted the Standard Building Code and the minimum FERA
           regulations regarding floodproofing. In addition,, Ocean City has exceeded


                                               102














                the minimum standards by the enactment of its Foundation Regulations
                in 7 Critical Areas.  In contrast, Worcester County has not adopted any
                building code. Worcester County does have the minimum FEMA requirements
                for floodproofing of buildings in A-zones and V-zones, and has created
                the Worcester County Shoreline Commission vith authority to establish
                construction standards and issue permits for construction along all
                shorelines in Worcester County, except the Atlantic Ocean.


                Warning and Evacuati2n.
                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 from their communities
                ,in the limited time available following issuance of a hurricane warning
                by the National Weather-Service.


                Florida, assisted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
                FEMA, and the Corps of Engineers, has led the nation in the developme       Iut
                of detailed, regional hurricane warning and evacuation plans. The first
                of these plans was prepared for Lee County, Florida in the late 1970's
                as a pilot project. Subsequently, more detailed and sophisticated plans
               'have been developed for the Tampa Bay region and Lower Southeast Florida.
                Florida is also developing its own hurricane warning system to supplement
                the information provided by the National Weather -Service so that it
                can provide Florida communities with additional warning of the probability
                .of a hurricane striking any given area.


                Additional regional warning and evacuation plans are und'erway in other
                communities on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.        These studies are being
                funded through the FEMA Hurricane Preparedness program, with contributions
                from the Corps of Engineers (study costs generally exceed $200,000).
                These warning and evacuation plans are based on detailed 'predictions


                                                       103












           of coastal innundation during hurricanes using the SLOSH model (tbis
           model provides much more detailed information than the standard FEKA
           Flood Insurance Rate Study and detailed storm history and topographic
           information must be developed for each area in which the model is applied).
           The plans develop detailed information on the number and special needs
           of people that will have to be evacuated from a given area, bow local
           .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 traf f ic that will be required.


           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
           its ability to safely evacuate the island within the warning time provided
           by the National Weather Service. Sanibel subsequently developed a detailed
           hazard mitigation, hurricane evacuation, and post-disaster recovery
           plan (Rogers, 1981).      Information concerning the hurricane hazard and
           evacuation procedures receive prominent attention. Each summer a detailed
           description of hurricane preparedness measures         and local evacuatio-a
           procedures, including maps of evacuation zones and maps, are published
           as a special supplement in a local newspaper.


           Ocean City has developed only a minimum flood warning and evacuation
           plan that appears inadequate given the vulnerable nature of Ocean City,
           limited egress from the barrier, and the very large number of people
           that may be in Ocean City during the hurricane, season.            Information
           concerning the hurricane hazard and warning and evacuation procedures
           have received limited public distribution.








                                                 104


















                                 CONCLUSIONS AMD RECOMMEM&TIONS





              STRUCTURAL Hn URKS



              The most effective erosion and flood control   plan for Ocean City on
              a long-term basis appears.to be the Corps of Engineers' "Hurrican4 Protection
              and Beach Restoration Plan" based on its level of protection, time of
              implementation, long-term ability to endure and ability to adapt to
              shoreline changes and study justification (benefit/cost ratio).


              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.


              Groins will have their best results if:
                - They are positioned properly with respect to mean low water;
                - They are built sequentially from South to North
                - They are properly spaced 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.


              No detailed benefit/cost analyses exist for any erosional and flood
              control plan other than the Corps plan; therefore, a benef it/cost comparison
              of the four proposed plans is not possible at the present time.


              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.


                                                 105














            An uodated benefit/cost. ratio of the four erosion and flood control
            plans should be completed using the same methodology for each. An accurate
            comparison should follow an updated appraisal and funding sources explored.
            to implement the most cost beneficial plan.


            Strategies for obtaining financial contributions from permanent residents,
            'developers, merchants and seasonal visitors who invest in the recreational
            amenities of Ocean City should be devised to compensate for additional
            costs of an erosion and flood control plan. Possible sources of funding
            include a transfer tax on sales of real property, a room tax on transient
            lodging, a general sales tax, and a property tax.






            YA   USE CONTROLS



            Land use controls in Ocean City should recognize that the delineation
            .of f lood hazard areas on a coastal barrier is imprecise because of uncertaini-
            ties in the methodologies employed, and that the flood hazard is likely
            to increase gradually over time and dramatically following a major storm
            due. to erosion.     Consequently, the presently delineated flood zones
            on the Flood   Insurance Rate Maps should be      considered as the current

            minimum definition of flood hazard areas.          Land use controls should
            be designed to protect people and property         from f lood damage over a
            long period of time         not just from the     hazard that exists today.
            Accordingly, several changes should be made       in the plans, programs and
            regulations that govern land use in Ocean City.


            Monitoring Storm and Beach Protection
            Beach width and height varies extensively along the shoreline of Ocean
            City (see Figure 6) and on an average less than 5-year storm protection
            .exists.   With the implementation of a groin plan (i.e. status quo),


                                                   106














                the cells or space between them will be filled to capacity with sand
                and provide 10-year protection.      'The beach will be wider and higher
                as a result of the replenishment effort, but the new beach must be main-
                tained.   To avoid costly engineering surveys, staffs graduated in feet
               ,can be placed along each groin cell enabling visual observation of beadb
                loss or gain.    Sand replenishment or redistribution can occur on the
                basis of observed change (e.g. between plus and minus three feet) over
                a long period of. time or directly af     ter a storm when erosion may be
                upwards of five feet. Sand that is overwashed into streets can be bulldozed
                back to the beach and used to establish dunes and rebuild the beach
                at specific elevations readily observed on the staff.          Redistribution
                of sand may also be required as sand accretes at one side of the groin

                and erodes at the other.



                The staffs will also provide a means of 'assessing the performance of
                groins and post-storm recovery of the beach. Comparison of beach changes
                in areas that have "new" groins versus those that don't may indicate
                their success or failure, may provide reasons to alter the construction
                plans (i.e. location of future groins) or justify the need for more
                or less groins over time.     The current schedule of groin construction
                means that, if fully implemented, final completion will occur in 2008.
                This represents 25 years of seasonal and storm related changes acting
                differentially along the eight mile shoreline.         Observation of these
                changes will help to guide the implementation of any groin or beach,
                replenishment plan.


                After a storm occurs, areas of obvious erosion can be observe4.           The
                immediate reaction is to bring sand (usually that which washed over
                into the streets) back to tbe.beach. Pushing sand up from lover portions
                of the beach has also been done.,        This immediate response does not
                allow time for the beach to recover as it may naturally do (Hayes and
                Bootbroyd, 1969 and Sonu, 1968).      Within' a period of days and perhaps


                                                      107














           weeks, sand will return to the beach and replenishment will occur cost
           free.    Suggested procedures for responding to the loss of beach and
           use of overwash sand following a storm are discussed more fully in the
           following chapter.


           Revision of the Comprehensive Plan qf Ocean CitX
           The Comprehensive Plan of Ocean City, Maryland      was adopted in 1969 and
           revised in 1978.      City officials have indicated that they intend to
           revise the plan again during 1984.       Currently, the plan contains only
           a minimum recognition of Ocean City's location on a coastal barrier
           exposed to serious erosion, flooding and storm winds.         The plan does
           not propose long-range planning that takes these natural hazards into

           account.



           When the Comprehensive Plan is revised, it should clearly state that.
           living, investing and visiting in Ocean City can have many rewards..
           However, many of the positive benefits of life in Ocean City are a direct,
           result of its location on a coastal barrier.       Coastal barriers prese   ut
           hazards to both people and property, and the benefits of Ocean City
           ,life are accompanied by certain risks.      For the visitor, the risk is
           extremely small -- the unlikely chance that a visit may be interrupted
           by the need to evacuate in advance of a major coastal storm.         For the
           resident and investor, the risk is greater.      All property in Ocean City
           is subject to damage from wind and floodwaters during major coastal
           storms.    The risk to oceanfront property is eveii greater because of
           the possibility of wave damage and severe erosion. Residents and investors
           must be prepared to bear the cost of proper construction to safely withstand
           wind, water and erosion; occasional disruption of normal        business and
           living activities because of the need to temporarily evacuate; the potential
           damage or loss of structures; and the potential loss of real property
           or the economic use. of real property as a resu.,it of long-term or sudden
           erosion.



                                                 108















                The Comprehensive Plan should include a statement of policy that recognizes
                the vulnerability of Ocean City to coastal hazards and the intent of
              .the City to permit development and redevelopment only in locations and
                .in a manner that provide adequate protection from a 100-year flood.
                Information should be included in the plan describing the current status
                of storm and beach protection measures (e.g. groin locations, dune stabil"
                ization efforts, etc.), and identifying the level of storm protection
                provided by these measures*


                The policy should further state that the flood hazard areas in Ocean
                City are subject to both gradual and sudden change as a result of long-
                term erosion forces and storm impacts. Consequently, in order to protect
                people and property, it may be necessary to periodically reevaluate
                the flood hazard areas and adjust them as necessary, particularly f olloving
                a major storm.  The p-lan should indicate that after any necessary adjustment
                of f lood hazard areas, the Comprehensive Plan, zoning regulations, f loodplain
              .regulations, erosion and sediment control regulations, the Building
                Limit Line, and other land use controls may have to be updated and revised
                to reflect the changes in delineation of hazard areas.           Such changes
                could have an adverse impact on some property values.


                Other provisions that should be included in the Comprehensive Plan include:
                an indication that various land use controls will b,e used to provide
                for appropriate setbacks from hazardous areas, particularly dunes and
                wetlands; zoning regulations will be used to provide appropriate placement
                of buildings on lots to allow for adequate passage of overwasb water;
                an identification of approximate amounts and general location of additional
                open space that should be acquired or easements obtained to provide
                for adequate parking, off-beach recreation areas, and beach recreation;
                intent to develop and maintain the principal roadways and other infra-
                structure so that they are functional during the early stages of a coastal
                storm when evacuation would 'be necessary; to ensure Ahat police, fire



                                                       109













            and other emergency facilities are located so that they can provide
            protection to all parts of the City during a flood emergency and that
            the emergency facilities are elevated or floodproofed to provide protection
            from greater than a 100-year storm.


            Ocean City Open Space Implementation Projzram.
            An Ocean City Open Space Implementation Program should be developed
            as originally intended in 1971 and required. by Section 36 of the Ocean
            City Code.    The open space program should include the identification
            of properties to be acquired in fee simple. and areas where public easements
            will be acquired.    The purpose of these acquisions will be to ensure,
            continued and improved public access to the beach, adequate @parking
            facilities throughout Ocean City, and creation of small non-beacb recreation
            areas.    Special consideration should be given to acquiring properties
            for parking and   off-beach recreation in those critical areas identified
            in this report as having the' highest potential for breaching during
            a major storm.    Each property to be acquired should be identified, the
            intended use of   the property specified, the acquisition cost estimated.,
            and development  costs, if any, estimated. A schedule for property acqui-
            sition should   be developed, and the loss in property tax revenue as
            a result of public acquisition should also be projected.


            The specific means by which these propert,ies will be acquired should
            be ideDtif ied.   Funding options include:    an annual appropriation from
            the general fund as part of the normal operating budget; bonding (if
            several properties are to be acquired in a single year) with bond funds
            being repaid through the general fund or one of the special funds listed
            below; establishment of a special fund dedicated to open space acquisition.
            A special open space fund could be funded by the establishment of special
            taxes or fees such as: general sales tax, property tax, property transfer
            tax or fee, and a room tax on transient lodging.




                                                  110
















               Ocean City Zoning Regulations.
               The Ocean City Zoning Regulations should be modified to include requirements
               that buildings constructed along the sborefront should be oriented on
               ,the lot in such a way that they provide the least obstruction to the
               movement of overwash waters  during a major storm. The regulations should
               ,also require that structures be setback at least 20 feet from the crest
               of the dune. This setback will permit the dunes to perform their natural
               function of absorbing wave energy and will permit gradual landward movement
               of the dunes in response, to coastal erosion and overwash processes.
               and, consequently, will reduce the frequency with which the Building
               Limit Line will have to be moved (an average increase of ten years,,
               assuming an average rate of erosion of 2.5 feet/year). Buildings should
               be constructed to take into account the potential landward movement
               ,of the sand dune without adversely affecting use of the structur         e.
               One method of increasing building setbacks without affecting density
               ,provisions is to locate parking on the ocean side of high-rise buildings
               rather than on the landward* side as is now generally the case.        Ocean
               City should also conduct a study to determine the maximum capacity of
               residential units under existing zoning regulations, and relate this
               capacity to the time required to evacuate people from the City. Depending
               upon the results, it may be advisable to reduce current density allowances..


               The zoning regulations should also establish a minimum setback from
               wetlands on the bay side of Ocean City. A setback of about twenty-five
               feet should generally be adequate to protect the wetlands from construction
               related activities and pedestrian access to the wetland side of the
               structure.   Although under natural conditions, land along the bay side
               should gradually extend into the bay as sediment is trapped by the wetland
               plants and overwasb sand is deposited on land and in' the bay, current
               .conditions limit this natural process and may even cause erosion in
               some locations.    Bayward movement of land is restricted or halted by
               the removal of overwash sand from properties and by the placement of














            bulkheads. Some bulkheads along Isle of Wight Bay have failed as strong
            currents in the Bay have migrated toward the shore.        Establishment of
            setback  regulations along the bays should help to protect structures
            from damage or.failure due to erosion.


            Ocean City Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations.
            Beach Erosion Control District-.     The Ocean City Erosion and Sediment
            Control Regulations should be revised to provide improved protection
            to  existing dunes.    The regulations should prohibit the construction
            of buildings within the Beach Erosion Control District (the area east
            of the dune crest).    They should also prohibit the destruction of,any
            existing natural dune. These regulations would then place more restrictive
            controls' on building along most parts of the beachfront than does the
            present State-Ocean City Building Limit Line, and the most restrictive
            regulation should apply in each case.


            Current requirements for property owner formation and maintenance of
            dunes should be retained and strictly enforced by the City.          However,
            the requirement that the dune be vegetat  ed to five feet above MLW should
            be relaxed to require vegetation to the toe of the dune or to an appropriate
            elevation specified by the Worcester Soil Conservation District. Attempting
            to   vegetate the dune to a point five feet above MLW 0.6 feet above
            MHW) appears impractical.      Dune protection should be strengthened by
            requiring limited access over the dunes by use of wooden walkways or
            other means approved by the Worcester Soil Conservation District. When
            .the elevation of the existing dune is less than 12 feet above MLW, the
            property owner, as a requirement of a building permit, should be required
            .to increase the height of the, dune to 16 feet. above MLW and maintain
            the dune according to plans approved by the Worcester Soil Conservation
            District.   The State of Maryland should carefully monitor the City's
            enforcement of the regulation under the authority of the State Sediment

            Control Law.




                                                  112

















                The Worcester Soil Conservation District should continue its current
                program of vorking with property owners to restore and maintain dunes
                in front of existing buildings. Participation in this restoration program
               .should be required by the City in accordance with the provisions of
                its Erosion and Sediment Control regulations.


                Bay Erosion Control District. The Bay Erosion Control District regulations
                should be strengthened to control the development of additional canals
                in Ocean City.    The development of canals perpendicular to. the barrier
                and extending near the coastal highway greatly increase the potential
                for breaching of the barrier during a major storm.              Construction . of
                new canals is now limited because of the State Wetlands Act. Nevertheless$
                it would still be poss   ible to construct canals in some areas that would
                have a minimum impact on wetlands. Such canals should not be.permitted
                if they increase the potential for barrier breaching.             The Worcester
                Soil Conservation District should be required to evaluate all proposed
                new canals for their impact on breach potential.        In general, new canals
                should be permitted only vhen they are constructed parallel to the barrier,
                and they should not be allowed to reduce the surface width of the barrier
                west of the coastal highway to less than 200 feet.             The Bay Eros ion
                Control District should also be revised to include a twenty-five foot

                setback from wetlands.



                State-Ocean-City Building Limit Line Authority.
                The existing Ocean City Building Limit Line ordinance has been superceded
                by the 1975 State legislation.       The State legislation that established
                the State/Ocean City Building Limit Line required DNR to establish the
                line so that it more or less coincided with the previous line established
                by Ocean City. Therefore, the Building Limit Line appears by legislation
                to be a fixed line. Certaintly, the local building community and officials
                have viewed the I ine as fixed       that it vould not be moved in the future.





                                                         113














           Nevertheless, a fixed building limit line on a coastal barrier subject
           to erosion will eventually prove inadequate to protect property from
           storm damage and to maintain a viable recreational beach.        Over time,
           without expensive means of stablization, the beach will erode.        Earlier
           chapters of this report have described how Ocean City can expect erosion,
           both gradually and in dramatic increments during storms. . 'According
           to the Corps of Engineers (COE, 1980), there should be a distance of
           about 300 feet, including a 16 foot high dune, between mean high water
           and the BLL in order to provide Ocean City with protection from a 100-year
           storm.    At present the distance between mean high water and the BLL
           averages only about 135 feet.    Protective dunes are largely absent from
           the beach, further increasing the potential for beach erosion and property
           damage.    Continuing to build to the limits of the existing Building
           Limit Line in the face of almost certain erosion will likely result
           in an increased rate of erosion, greater property damage, and a narrover.

           recreational beach.



           To protect property from damage and to maintain a viable recreational
           beach, the width of the beach must be increased and sand dunes of proper
           width and height' established and maintained.      As discussed earlier in
           this report, development of this wide beach through a beach nourishment
           project as recommended by the Corps of Engineers is unlikely to occur
           because of high costs and changes in federal priorities.          Continuing
           to place groins along the beach and fill the groin cells to capacity
           with sand will provide only about a 10-year storm protection. The only
           other alternative for increasing storm protection and maintaining a
           recreational beach is to allow the beach to widen naturally by moving
           the BLL further inland.



           Moving the BLL inland poses many problems.       Many developed lots would
           become nonconforming, and many undeveloped or    underdeveloped lots would
           be able to support'only smaller development      or no development at all



                                                 114















                under existing zoning regulations.     Movement  of the BLL   would also not
                result  in immediate development of a wide       beach:   existing buildings
                would remain.   Only new development or redevelopment would be prevented
                within  the area needed for the beach,       Questions of compensation for
                property owners denied building permits would also arise. Under existing
                State  legislation, the State may acquire property in cases where the
                Attorney General  determines that.  an unconstitutional taking of property
                results from the  imposition of  the BLL.


                Dispite the problems   that will  occur with movement   of  the BLL, we   feel
                that, in view of the    limited long-term potential    for  storm protection
                and beach preservation under, other options, the    BLL  should be gradually
                moved inland.    To accomplish this, both the Ocean City ordinance and,
                the State legislation should be revised to provide      for a Building Limit
                Line that can be moved periodically in accordance with clearly established
                procedures designed to protect property and the health and safety of
                Ocean City residents and tourists, and to ensure the continued existence
                of public beaches in Ocean City.      The following criteria are suggested
                for determining when the Building Limit Line should be moved., We recommend
                that the City Ordinance and State legislation. be revised in accordance

                with these criteria.



                        In order to provide adequate advance  notice to all  current property
                        owners that might be affected by      a change in    the location   of
                        the Building Limit Line, the BLL      should not be ebang
                                                                                   ed for   at

                        least five years from the time that City. and State legislation
                        is modified to permit relocation of the BLL, unless, a single

                        storm causes such severe erosion that it would be unsafe to allow
                        new construction orredevelopment to the existing BLL.
                2)      The BLL should be relocated only if, and in those locations where,
                        erosion has reduced f.the distance between mean high water and
                        the BLL to less than 15.0 feet.      This condition could be caused


                                                        115














                    by a single storm that    causes severe erosion or gradual erosion
                    over a period of years.
            3)      Movement of the line would not affect existing buildings that
                    were not damaged or were damaged only slightly. It would affect
                    new building and redevelopment. and repair of buildings damaged
                    more than 50% of   market value.
            4)      The BLL should.be   moved in minimum segments. Since streets perpen-
                    dicular to the beach are the easiest way to define areas in Ocean
                    City, it is suggested     that a determination to move the BLL be
                    made on, the basis of streets.      No segment of the    BLL less than

                    the distance between two streets should be redefined. This movement

                    would occur if measurements of the distance between the MHW and
                    the existug BLL were     reduced on average within that     stretch of
                    beach to less than 150   feet.,
            5)      When the BLL is    moved, it should be moved landward       far, enough
                    to provide  for a  distance of at least 200 feet between     mean high
                    water and the newly established BLL.


            Funding for acquisition of properties denied          a building permit as a
            result  of any movement of the BLL should continue      to come from'the State
            of Maryland. The   State receives financial benefits   from revenues generated
            in Ocean City and    returned to  the State treasury.     State residents also
            benefit from maintenance of a viable recreational beach and safe lodgings
            and other tourism attractions in Ocean City. Therefore, the State should
            be willing to invest in additional oceanfront acquisition in Ocean. City.
            Ocean City will incur long-term costs through reductions in, property
            taxes from land transferred to. public ownership and possibly through
            a total  reduction in property improvements and business investments..


            Not all properties denied building permits as a result of           relocation
            of the  BLL should be acquired by the State.. In     many, if notmost, cases
            the  property owner should be required to absorb    whatever financial losses


                                                    116














                may result. With appropriate changes in the Comprehensive Plan of Ocean
                City and the Ocean City and State of Maryland authorities establishing
                the Building Limit Line, property owners will have advance notice that
                buildable oceanfront property is subject to a reduction in size as a
                consequence of natural erosion and the need to limit buildings in hazardous
                areas to protect the safety of residents and visitors.       In cases where
                permanent structures. are denied based on the existence of a f lood hazard,
                courts have generally held that there is no unconstitutional taking
                of property.   This concept may have to be tested in Maryland courts
                for the Ocean'City situation.


                Worcester County Zoning and Subdivision Regulations.
                The Worcester County Zoning and Subdivision Control regulations should
                be amended to provide for a minimum twenty-five foot setback from tidal
                (and freshwater) wetlands, except where construction in wetlands is
                permitted by the State... Construction and other activities should be
                ,permitted within the setback zone only if there will be no adverse impact
                on the wetlands and if the use is necessary for access to the waterfront,
                @e.g. piers and docks.   The setback provision should reduce development
                directly on the bayfront and construction of bulkheads that alter the
                natural land/water interface.


                Worcester County should also review @s current zoning map for conformance
                with the Worcester County Comprehensive Plan with regard to zoning of
                land fronting on Isle of Wight and Assawoman Bays.        The Comprehensive
                Plan recommends that most of the bayfront property be zoned for "Conser-
                vation," with very limited development.       The existing zoning map has
                a much greater portion of the bayfront property zoned for various residential
                and, commercial uses than is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.
                To the extent possible (areas that are not already developed),, zoning
                of bayfront areas should be "Conservation" as recommended in the Compre-

                bensive Plan.




                                                      117
















           Worcester County Shoreline Construction.
           These regulations should be amended to include provisions for the maintenance
           of any permitted structures such as rip-rap, piers, and bulkheads.
           Maintenance of rip-rap and bulkheads is particularly important since
           erosion may result if the structures are allowed to deteriorate.          This
           is especially important in areas where canals are constructed.             The
           regulations should attempt to keep the use of rip-rap and bulkheading
           to a minimum, especially on the bay side of Ocean City.          Use of rip-
           rap and bulkheading will retard or prevent the normal process of gradual
           land build-up into the bay.




           CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS



           Construction standards should also recognize the uncertain and conservative
           nature of hazard area delineation on a barrier island and be modified

           accordingly.


           Ocean City Buildiniz Construction- Code and Foundation. Regulations in

           Critical Areas.
           The current building code and foundation regulations in critical areas
           for Ocean City should be supplemented and ammended, as appropriate,
           with the best available specific standards for construction in coastal
           flood hazard areas.     The best currently available information is found
           in the FEMA document Design and Construction Manual for Residential
           Buildims in Coastal -Hijzb Hazard Area3, published in 1981.         A sample
           ordinance that has been proposed for use in Sanibel, Florida to supplement
           thei .r local building code (Standard Building Code) is being provided
           to Ocean City separately from this report.       This sample ordinance could
           be used by Ocean City as a model for developing its own supplement to
           the the Standard Building Code to provide improved protection from hurricane
           hazards.   Because of the potential for breaching of Fenwick Island during


                                                  118














                a major storm, expecially due to wasbover of floodwaters from the bay
                to the ocean, structures built near the bay may be subject to forces
                of erosion and velocity waters similar to those expected in designated
                V-zones.  Consequently, it is suggested that all structures within 200
                feet of mean. high water on the bay side of Ocean City be required to
                meet foundaeion construction standards similar to those presently required
                in the oceanfront critical areas under the Foundation Regulations in
                Critical Areas.     In addition, all low-rise residential buildings in
                Ocean City sbould be required to meet specific standards for wind resistance
                as described in the FEMA Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA, 1981).
                These specific standards regarding foundations, types of materials,
                adequate connection of the foundation to other parts of the structure,
                and other construction techniques should be specified in a supplement
                to the existing Ocean City building code.        For high-rise structures,
                the performance standards currently in the building code should be retained.
                'Enforcement of the current and future revisions to the building code
                should be a high priority.     Construction proposals should be carefully
                reviewed for compliance with the building code, and frequent inspections.
                should be performed during construction to ensure that all approved
                building plans are strictly complied with, especially foundation requirements
                and other aspects of construction that, are not visible after work is
                completed.



                Oc ean-City Flood Damajee Controls.
                Ocean City should amend its Flood Damage Controls regulations to require,
                that buildings be elevated to at least      one foot above the base flood
                elevation as specified on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps.         In the
                case of nonresidential construction in A-zones, the option of f loodproof ing
                should also be required to extend to one foot above the base flood ele-
                vation.   These more stringent requirements will provide a margin of
                safety to account for errors in the flood insurance studies, damage
                from floating and wave-tossed debris, and changes in flood hazard over


                                                      119












            t ime   In the event       as suggested below      that Ocean City should
            revise its base flood elevations before needed revisions are officially
            approved by FEMA, the Flood Damage Controls regulations should be modified
            to reference the newly developed flood hazard maps rather than the FEMA
            FIRM's.  The regulations should also be amended to include provisions
            that severely limit the use of seawalls and bulkheads for oceanfront
            buildings in order to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent properties.
            Vertical bulkheads or seawalls should not be permitted on any property
           .unless it lies between adjacentproperties that are protected by vertical

            walls.



            Worcester County Building Code.
            Worcester County should adopt either the Standard Building Code or the
            BOCA Code as a uniform code for the County. A building inspector should
            be hired to issue permits and ensure that all construction is in conformance

            with the code.



            Worcester County Floodplain Management Regulations.
            As in Ocean City, these regulations should be modified to require that
            buildings be elevated (elevated or floodprofed for nonresidential construc-
            tion) to at least one foot above the base flood elevation.



            State of Maryland Erosion Control Law.
            The State should not grant additional interest-free loans for the construc-
            tion of seawalls and bulkheads to protect oceanfront buildings in Ocean
            City because of the potential for adverse impacts on adjacent properties.











                                                  120


















               WARNING AND EVACULTION PROCEDURES



               A more detailed and complete Emergency Operations Plan 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.        This evaluation
                    should be conducted in cooperation with Worcester County and tak          e
                    into account evacuation requirements of other parts of Worcester
                    County and nearby communities in Delaware.
                    Evaluates evacuation time compared to expected warning time to
                    be provided by the National Weather Service, and if evacuation
                    time exceeds warning time, identifies measures to improve the
                    capacity of-evacuation routes, limit development-or other appropriate

                    actions.
                    Provides guidance to owners/managers of motels and condominiums
                    for development of their own warning and evacuation procedures
                    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, handicapped, and families of emergency

                    workers.



               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.








                                                      121














           Just as Ocean City needs to prepare for the next major storm by undertaking
           the types of mitigation actions recommended in the preceeding chapters,
           it also needs to prepare for what will happen after a disastrous storm,
           occurs: to prepare for recovery, restoration and mitigation.


           Ocean City is fortunate not to have been affected by a major storm in
           over 20 years.    Inevitably though, other major storms will strike the
           City. The next storm may cause damages greater or lesser than the 1962
           Ash Wednesday storm.    Whatever the level of damages, the City will be
           faced with many hard decisions regarding recovery and reconstruction.
           Many of these decisions must be made even before emergency relief and
           rescue operations have ended, and will continue for several months.
           The burdens placed on local and State officials during this period vill

           be severe.



           Most communities are not well prepared to deal with a natural disaster.
           Although officials and citizens, usually aided by State and federal
           governments and charitable relief organizations, exert enormous efforts
           and cooperation in coping with the effects of the disaster, the toll
           in personal stress and both personal and community ecortomic loss is
           great.   Commonly, the pressures for immediate individual and community
           reIcovery are so great that communities rebuild to pre-storm design,
           making them nearly as vulnerable to a natural disaster as before. Little
           or no hazard mitigation action is taken.


           Currently, Ocean City is not prepared to provide the most effective
           response following a disaster. The City does have an Emergency Operations
           Plan, but it deals mainly with emergency evacuation, flood fighting,
           and life saving efforts. The plan does not address in any substantative.
           way what the City will need to do after these emergency measures are
           completed -- how the City will cope with recovery from the disaster
           and what it can do to reduce its future vulnerability to flood losses.



                                                 .122













                Although the disruption caused by a major disaster cannot be eliminated,
                it- can be reduced if Ocean City prepares itself now to deal with the
                aftermath of a disaster.      Ocean City can also seize the disaster as
                an opportunity to correct some of the previous land use and construction
                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.


                The specific type and extent of mitigation measures to be taken after
                a disaster will depend upon when in the future the storm occurrs, how
                devastating the storm is, and how many of the mitigation measures recommended
                earlier in this report have been implemented at that time.


                After a disaster strikes, some members of the community will wish to
                rebuild to essentially the pre-disaster conditions as quickly as possible,
                others will wish to rebuild in a fashion which they feel is more efficient,
                equitable and attractive, and others will press for implementation       I  of
                various hazard mitigation measures that may not have been feasible prior
                to the disaster.    Balancing these community desires will be difficult,
                and if the City is not prepared beforehand to deal with them, it may
                find that the recovery proceeds without much control.


                To better equip itself to make the necessary post-disaster decisions,
                Ocean City needs to do some planning before the disaster strikes.           In
                undertaking this planning, it is important to recognize the post-disaster
                situation within which the decisions will be made.      Some decisions that
                the City and State will need to make will be constrained by the disaster
                .assistance policies, procedures, and financial aid provided by the federal
                government.   Still other decisions will be constrained by the effects
                of the storm on the geomorphology of the barrier.




                                                       123






                          Ar I ER THE

                         STORMG















                             [email protected]
                               777,
                                                                                                                                <. .... ..

                                                                                                           N:













                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  �


                                                                                                                                                                                                                         G U                         1 j"6'1 N
                                                                                                                                                   REDEVELOPMEN













              Pre-disaster planning for post-disaster actions must be done by the
              involved State and City officials, with appropriate citizen involvement
              and technical assistance.     The remainer of this chapter identifies and
              discusses the types of pre-disaster planning that should occur.           This
              information should serve as guidance to the City and State in the development
              of policies and procedures tailored specifically to Ocean City's needs
              and which can be incorporated into appropriate City documents such as
              the Comprehensive Plan and Emergency Operations Plan.






































                                                     124

















                          RST"LISM=r OF      MCESSARY AMMORITIES AND PROCEDURES




                  'Obviously if  Ocean City is to be prepared to act effectively after
                a disaster, it must- prepare itself beforehand.        Most prominent among
                the items for preparation is development of a post-disaster recovery/mit-
                igation plan which is discussed in the next section.           But there are
                other things that should be done to alert the residents and property.
                owners of Ocean City of the types of actions that may be taken after
                a disaster and to establish the proper authority to act after a disaster.

                These are discussed below.





                REVISION OF THE COWR       SIVE PLAN-OF OCEAN CITY
                In Chapter 4, several revisions to the Comprehensive Plan of Ocean.City
                were recommended. In addition to those changes and additions, the Compre-
                nensive Plan should also indicate that a Post-Disaster Recovery /Mit igat ion
                Plan should be prepared and maintained.      This plan should be carefully
                coordinated with the Emergency Operations Plans for Ocean City and Worcester
                County.   The recovery /mit igat ion plan should reflect the general land
                use goals and policies contained. in the Comprehensive Plan of Ocean
                City.


                AUTHORITY  TO IMOSE A TEMPORARY   BUILDING ]MORATORIUM
                After a disaster, important opportunities for flood hazard mitigation
                are often lost because property owners immediately begin repairing or
                rebuilding their damaged structures in the same location and to the
                same level of protection as before the storm. Three factors often combine
                to..yield this result:
                (1) The community's permitting officials are overworked, and' they are
                not able to give each application the attention it needs to assure compliance
                with applicable requirements. Also, property owners may undertake repair
                or reconstruction without seeking a required permit, and the overworked



                                                       125














           officials are unable to identify and halt these unauthorized activities.

               The desire by community officials to reduce the impacts of the disaster
           often cause them to suspend enforcement of many regulatory requirements,
           even though some of those requirements may be especially appropriate
           in a post-disaster situation.

           (3) Officials and residents are unaware or uncertain as to just what
           changes they should make during repair or reconstruction to make their
           structures less vulnerable to the next major storm.


           Imposition of a temporary building moratorium can av     oid this situation
           and provide time to reassess the City's flood hazard vulnerability an        d
           identify hazard mitigation opportunities. Temporary building moratoriums
           have been used successfully in other communities after floods and other

           disasters.



           Currently, Ocean City does not have a clear authority to impose a temporary
           building moratorium.     Although such a moratorium could be imposed by
           the.Mayor and Council after a disaster occurred, it could be challanged,
           might be unwelcome, and might not be enacted in time to be completely
           effective. To avoid this uncertainty, the Mayor and City Council should
           act now to establish the clear legal authority to impose a temporary
           moratorium on all repairs, redevelopment and new development following
           a natural disaster.    The maximum duration of the moratorium should be
           .identified (e.g., sixmonths). Theautbority shouldalso include provisions
           for lifting the moratorium on "minor" repair and rehabilitation before
           it is lifted on "major" reconstruction and new d     evelopment.    Suggested
           procedures for the temporary moratorium are, discussed more fully in
           the following section.



           APPOINTHERT OF SPECIAL TEAM AND TASK FORCES
           Recovery from a 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



                                                 126














                of effectiveness of current hazard mitigation requirements, and identifi-
                cation 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 some efforts may require or benefit
                from the assistance of citizens with specialized expertise and the use
                of outside services. The following special teams and task forces should

                be established:

                 Initial Damage Assessment Team
                 .Damage Assessment Teams
                 Damage Survey Teams
                 Disaster Recovery Task Force
                 Property Acquisition Advisory Committee
                 Permitting Task Force
                 Property Owner Notification Committee


                The duties of these teams are described below and in the following section.
                Individuals should be assigned to the various groups a          nd briefed on
                their responsibilities prior to a disaster.          Written descriptions of
                their responsibilities should be prepared.         In some cases, table-top
                or field training exercises should be held periodically as part of prepar-
                edness exercises for the Emergecny Operations Plan.


                Disaster Recovery Task Force
                A Disaster Recovery Task Force should be appointed by the Mayor and
                City Council as' soon as possible.      This task force will be responsible
                for developing the Post Disaster Recovery /Mit igat ion Plan and. for assisting
                the Mayor, City Council and City Manager in supervising the actual recovery
                process following a disaster.        The task force should be composed of
                key. city officials with planning, permitting, and emergency responsibilities
                plus representatives from the public who have expertise in these fields.






                                                       127















            .Property Accuisition Advisory Committee
            This committee should be composed of City officials responsible for
            planning and development and several property owners from throughout
            the City.   The purpose of the committee is to inspect damaged areas
            after the disaster ( expe'cially   along the oceanfront, bayfront and any
            areas of total or partial breaching), evaluate the amount of erosion.
            that has occurred and the changes in flood anderosion hazards, to make
            recommendations to the City and State regarding relocation of the Building
            Limit Line, and to make recommendations to the City regarding acquisition
            of additional properties after the disaster.       Prior to a major storm,
            the committee could also be used to assist City staff and officials in
            developing and carrying out the Ocean City Open Space Implementation

            Program.



            Permitting Task Force
            After a disaster, the local Building Inspector City Engineer and other
            officials responsible for issuing building permi:s and inspecting construc-
            tion will be extremely overburdened with work. They will need assistance
            in order to process permit applications properly and in a minimum of
            time.  This task force should be headed by the City Engineer and the
            Building Inspector and inlcude members of the public with real estate
            development and construction expe rience. The task force should participate
            in inspecting damaged properties and processing the necessary paperwork.
            The task force should be used primarily to help expeditiously process
            permits for minor repairs to damaged buildings.         This assistance can
            give more time to the City Engineer and Building Inspectior to concentrate
            on buildings with major daimage.


            Property Owner Notification Committee
            Because of the large number of non-resident property owners in Ocean
            City, it will be especially important following a disaster to rapidly
            inform all property owners of the nature of damage that may have been



                                                   128














                suf f ered by their property and of any   special post-disaster conditions
                that may apply, such as a temporary building moratorium, special procedures
                for building permits, and the. need to remove debris from property or
                to correct unsafe or unsanitary conditions caused by the disaster.
                This committee should be composed of local officials such as the Town
                Clerk and Tax Assessor along with several members of the public. Their
                primary purposes will be to gather the information on each property
                and to notify the owners of the conditions mentioned above. The committee
                should be appointed so that they may establish all procedures prior
                to a disaster and proceed with implementation as quickly after the disaster
                as possible.



                IDENTIFICATION OF OUTSIDE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
                0utside services or products that may be needed during the recovery
                stage should be identified, to 'the extent possible.      Examples include:
                Surveying team for determining beach erosion; bulldozers, dump trucks
                and other heavy equipment for removing sand- and debris from public and
                private property; engineering, hydrological, and geological services
                to reassess the f lood hazard zones; structural engineering services
                to assist with evaluation of the adequacy of building code requirements
                and construction techniques. Even if the particular company or individual
                who will ultimately be requested to provide these services is not identified
                prior to the disaster, it is important to be aware that the services
                may be needed and to have knowledge of where the services may be obtained.
                Because these types of services may also be in demand from other comminities
                and individuals who have also been severely affected by the disaster,
                the most prudent course would be to have a written or verbal agreement
                with one or more of the providers of the       services that they would be
                available to Ocean City if needed.



                SOURCES OF FURDING FOR DISASTER RECOVERY AND MITIGATION
                After a disaster, Ocean City will be faced with extraordinary expenses


                                                      129














            at a time when normal revenues may be reduced.       Disaster aid from the
            federal and State governments and from private charitable organizations
            will cover a large part -- but not all -- of the costs of recovery.
            Ocean City should decide before a disaster how it will pay for the majority
            of these extraordinary expenses.       The State of Maryland should also
            decide what role it will play in assisting disaster recovery and mitigation.
            Several options that the State and City could pursue are discussed below.


            Funds for Restoration of Damaged Public Facilities.
            If a major disaster declaration is made by the President, Ocean City
            and other areas of Worcester County and Maryland that are included in
            the disaster declaration will be eligible to receive reimbursement from
            the President's Disaster Relief Fund, administered by FEMA, for all
            qualifying damages directly caused by the storm.         The remaining 25%
            of eligible costs, plus the costs of any necessary repair or replacement
            costs that are not directly related to the storm, will have to come
            from State and/or local sources.



            Currently, the State of Maryland does not have, an established policy
            regarding what portion of disaster assistance it will pay to help local
            governments.   Most commonly, state.s have been paying half (12.5%) and
            the local government has paid half (12.52) of eligible disaster costs
            not covered by the federal government. In at least one case (Connecticut
            in 1982), the state government paid the entire amount not paid by the
            federal government, leaving local jurisdictions with only administrative
            costs and expenses not eligible for reimbursement under Federal policies.
            We recommend that the State of Maryland adopt a policy of paying 12.5%
            Iof the disaster costs determined eligible, by the federal government.
            This would requi*re Ocean City and other Maryland local jurisdictions
            to pay the remaining 12.5% of eligible costs, plus additional expenses
            for administrative costs and ineligible expenses.




                                                 130














               In addition, we recommend that the State also provide local jurisdictions
               with loans to cover the 12.5 percent of disaster recov      .ery costs to be
               paid by local government.     Local governments will be the most directly
               and severely affected by     a disaster and their economic position may
               be significantly weakened by  damages to public property and income losses
               due to private property business losses.     The State will be in a better
              .position to provide the initial funds for recovery than will local govern-
               ments. The State can bond sufficient funds to initially cover the entire
               costs of the State and local share of disaster assistance. Local governments
               can then repay the State for their 12.5 percent share of the costs,
               plus sufficient interest to cover the interest on State bonds and State
               administrative costs of handling the funds.


               Not all costs of repairing and reconstructing public facilities will
               be, eligible for reimbursement by the federal government.          Any costs
               that result from deterioration or repair needs that existed before the
               storm will not be paid by FEMA. Unless, the State already-has a financial
               interest in the public facility, we recommend that these additional
               costs be borne by the local government.


               The federal government will onty pay      for an additional 15 percent of
               the costs to upgrade or improve public facilities if improvements are
               needed to provide for hazard mitigation.  Currently, a legislative amendment
               (Senat6 Bill 1525, Section 15) has been proposed that would permit 2.5%
               of all disaster relief funds to be used for hazard mitigation.          Until
               this or similar legislation is approved, Ocean City and the State of
               Maryland should be prepared to fund necessary hazard mitigation actions.
               We recommend that the State and Ocean City share the costs of hazard
               mitigation 50/50. This 50/50 share should be applied to all post-disaster
               mitigation projects where the federal government will provide a portion
               of the costs, e.g. FEMA disaster assistance (752) and SCS uon-exigency
               projects (80%). The State and Ocean City should be prepared to immediately


                                                     131













            issu e bonds to raise the necessary costs.       (Note that the need to know
            bow much to bond for makes it especially important to prepare accurate
            damage assessments).


            In the event that the Governor requests the President to declare a "major
            disaster", but no declaration or only an "emergency" declaration is
            given, we suggest that the costs of disaster recovery be shared equally
            by the State and local government.       If the Governor, as    advised by the
            Maryland Emergency Management and Civil Defense Agency (EMCDA), determines
            that the damage is severe enough to warrant a presidential declaration
            of a major disaster, then the State should be prepared to assist with
            .the cost of recovery even if the declaration is not forthcoming. . In
            this instance, the state EMCDA should determine eligible costs following
           .a procedure similar to those used by FEMA for major disasters.


            Funds for Acquisition of Open Space Land
            As discussed in Chapter 4, we recommend that the State of Maryland continue
            to acquire properties denied a building permit because of the location
            of the Building Limit Line, whenever the permit denial would result
            in an unconstitutional taking of the land.           After a major disaster,
            it is probable that extensive erosion will have occurred and that the
            BLL will be moved inland at some locations in Ocean City.            The State
            sbould participate with Ocean City      in determining the extent of erosion
            and quickly estimating the location's where the BLL will probably need
            to be moved. The State should then estimate the cost of acquiring additional
            properties as a result of moving the BLL. These costs should be included
            in the amount bonded to pay the State's share of disaster assistance
            costs.   Properties acquired as a result of movement of the BLL should
            be purchased at their post-disaster value.


            Ocean City should use its special fund for open space acquisition (see
            Chapter 4) to purchase additional open space land and open apace easements


                                                    132














              after the disaster.   in some cases, property denied a building permit
              as a result of movement of the BLL will not be acquired by the State
              because the clear existence of a flood or erosion hazard on the property
              will mean that there is no unconstitutional taking of property.        In
              these instances, the City should be prepared to either purchase the
              property in fee or to purchase a public easement to ensure    .that there
              is unrestricted public access.to the beach.


              Funding Economic Recovery for Individuals and Businesses.
              After a major disaster declaration, individuals and businesses will
              be eligible for SBA loans.   Individuals may also be eligible for grants
              up to $5,000 from FEMA and/or for temporary housing and other forms
              of federal financial assistance.. Often, this aid is inadequate to help
              many homeowners and businesses recover from the disaster.


              Ocean City should assist these individuals and businesses in at least
              two ways.   First, property taxes should be temporarily reduced by an
              amount equivalent to the percent of damage suffered to the property.
              Second, a fund should be established to provide low-interest loans to
              individuals and businesses to help them recover from the disaster.
              The funds for this low-iuterest loan program could be established either
              before or after the disaster, and could come from a special surcharge
              on the property tax, building permits or other local taxes and fees.
















                                                  133














                              POST-DISASTER RRCOVERY/MITIGATION PIAN





             A. Post-Disaster Recovery/Mitigation 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 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 capability of the local
            government during the disaster and for which outside assistance will
            be required.   Figure 13 lists the major activities that Ocean City will
            need to undertake following a disaster.      Each of these activities is

            discussed below.



            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 and actually be a part of     the Ocean City Emergency
            .Operations Plan.


              The discussion that follows should be   used by Ocean City as the basis
            for development of a detailed post-disaster recovery /mit igat ion plan.


                                                  134









                  Fiqure 13. Sequence of local activities in assessinq damaqes and permittinq 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
              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 Moratorium 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                                                      ?



          Source Before the Storm, Univ. of North Carolina, 1982














            While the material included below covers most of the things that the
            City should do, it is important that the decisions and activities that
            the City will undertake be thoroughly and carefully discussed by City
            officials.   They should be thoroughly familiar with and in agreement
            with the plan.




            EMERGENCY OR DIUSTER DECLARATION



            State of Emergency Declaration.
            Immediately after a storm has passed, the Mayor and City Council will
            have to decide how severe the damage is and whether they should declare
            a' state of emergency (or a continued state of emergency if an emergency
            was declared as the storm approached).      They will also need to decide
            if they will seek outside assistance.


            An emergency should be declared or continued if  the results of the initial
            damage assessment indicate that the public health or safety is threatened

            because:
             a     transportation on the major routes into and through Ocean City
                   is.disrupted;
             b)    public utilities are disrupted;
             c)    there is significant damage to   residential and business property;

                   and
             d)    there is concern about looting.


            The emergency should remain in effect until the Mayor and City Council
            determine that the above conditions have been improved so that there
            is no longer a serious threat to public health and safety.


            Temporary Moratorium.
            The declaration of an emergency or disaster in Ocean City should automat-



                                                  136














                ically result in the     imposition of a temporary building moratorium.
                The length of the building moratorium and the specific conditions under
                which it will be administered should not be determined until after damage
                assessments have been completed.



                DAM&GE ASSESSNEM



                Damage assessment will be the f irst step in the recovery and redevelopment
               .process.   Damage assessments 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.


                Initial Damaize Assessment
                In order to determine if an emergency should be declared, an Initial
                Damage Assessment Team should be dispatched to perform an initial damage
                assessment of Ocean City (the same applies in Worcester County).         This
                team will be responsible for conducting the initial damage assessment
                as soon as it is safe to move through Ocean City. This initial assessment
                is.Istrictly a windshield assessment and should be completed in a matter
                of hours. Depending upon the.post-disaster conditions, this "windshield"
                assessment may be made by automobile.or heavy-duty vehicle, boat, helicopter
                or some combinations of these means of transportation.


                ,the purpose of this assessment is to make a general determination of
                the  location, types and severity of damages suffered by Ocean City.
                The information gathered by this team will be used by the Mayor and
                City Council, to make decisions regarding the declaration or continuation
                of a local emergency, imposition of a temporary building moratorium,
                and requesting State and federal disaster aid. The team should include
                the City Manager, Building Inspector, Town Engineer, Fire Chief and
                Police Chief.     If possible,. representatives from the Maryland EMCDA



                                                     .137














            should accompany this initial damage assessment team on their inspection

            tour.






            Damage Assessment Teams

            The, second damage assessment will occur as soon as the damage assessment
            teams can be assembled and given their assignments.        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, sever, water, etc.); commercial establishments
            (retail stores, restaurants, hotels 'and motels, etc.); and residential
           'property (individual private dwellings, mobile homes, condominiums).
            The composition of each team may differ in order to provide the greatest
            expertise in making the damage assessments.         Teams may be organized-
            according to other categories than those listed above (e.g. type of
            construction), and Ocean City officials should determine which grouping
            and assignments are most appropriate given the expertise of available

            officials and volunteers.



            Each team should be supplied with forms and maps for recording the damages.
            These forms should provide for recording information in a format that
            is consistent with the information required by the Federal Emergency
            Management Agency for federal" disaster assistnace and by the Maryland
            EMCDA.   They should also provide for as.s1s.tance   Iinformation that Vill
            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.      Propert ies damaged more than 50% of market
            value will be required to comply with the Flood Damage Controls. and
            other sections of the Ocean City code relating to nonconforming uses.


            In addition to recording damages to property, the damage assessment
            teams should also determine the cause of damages.       The structure should



                                                   138













               be examined as -dell as the surrounding area, including debris that say
               be lef t on the property.     Damages should be classified according to
               whether it was caused by wind, direct impact of waves, overvasb (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.


               State, and possibly federal representatives, may assist in this damage
               assessment effort. This more detailed damage assessment should be completed
               within two to five days of the disaster.      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.


               Damage Survey Reports.
               If a presidential disaster declaration is made, the damage assessment
               teams.vill also be involved in still another round of damage assessments.
               FEMA will assign teams of federal and State employees to prepare Damage
               Survey Reports. These reports will verify the damage assessments submitted
               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 earlier
               damage assessments and provide information about the cause of damages
               that may no longer be evident because of debris removal or other reasons.









                                                     139












           RKONSTILUCTIOS PEWITTING


           Deploy Recovery Task Force.
           As soon as the Mayor and City Council determine that an emergency or
           disaster exists, the Recovery Task Force should begin functioning to
           assist in the overall supervision of the disaster recovery and mitigation.
           efforts.   One of the major responsibilities of this task force during
           the  post-disaster period will be to try and avoid conflicts between
           recovery actions and hazard mitigation needs.       Although this will not
           always be possible, the task force should provide a mitigation as well
           as recovery oversight perspective and call attention to recovery actions
           that may preclude hazard mitigation actions.


          ,Begin Repairs to Critical Utilities and Facilities.
           As soon as possible the City and public utilities should begin temporary
           and permanent repairs to all critical facilities. Repairs and reconstruction
           should be made in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan of Development
           and elevation and floodproofing requirements to reduce flood damages.
           All critical facilities that suffered substantial damage, such as public
           utilities, police, fire, medical, and municipal records should either
           be elevated or floodproofed to avoid damages during a 500-year storm
           rather than a 100-year storm.


           Clarify Temporary Building Moratorium and Establish Recovery Milestones.
           Another function of the Recovery Task, Force should be to advise the
           Mayor, City Council and City Manager in establishing the overall program
           for disaster recovery and mitigation. As soon as the damage assessments
           are completed, the conditions of the temporary building moratorium should
           be established and a schedule should be formulated for the entire recovery/
           mitigation effort.      Figure 13 provides a general description of the
           schedule of activities that should be established.



           Notify Property Owners of Damage and Repair Requirements.
           Damage information should also be supplied to all property owners along


                                                 140













               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. Notifi-
               cation of property owners will be especially important in Ocean City
               since many owners do. not occupy the property or live on the island.




               Lift Moratorium on Minor Repairs.
               Minor repairs can either be exempted from the temporary building moratorium
               or the moratorium on these repairs should be lifted within a few days.
               In general, any repairs that would not ordinarly require a building
               permit should be exempted from the moratorium.        Other minor repairs
               .that are needed to make the building safe for occupancy or use should
               be permitted as soon as procedures have been established for inspecting
               the buildings and issuing the permits.


               Evaluate Hazards and the Effectiveness of Miti-tation Policies.
               Based on information from the damage assessment, damage survey reports
               and additional investigations, City officials should evaluate the hazard
               .situation that exists following the disaster. Flooding, and particularly
               erosion, may have substantially changed hazard areas from what they
               were before the disaster. A survey of the oceanfront should be performed,
               to determine the distance between MHW and the Building Limit Line.
               Areas of overwash should be carefully examined for erosion and- increase
               in breaching potential.    Bayside areas should be examined for erosion
               and damage to bulkheads and canals.


               If the initial survey indicates that erosion of the beach and other
               portions of the barrier has changed the topography significantly, then
               a new flood hazard area study should be commissioned immediately. This
               new identification of flood hazard areas will be critical to decisions



                                                     141














            on issuing permits for reconstruction of buildings with damage greater
            than 50 percent of market value, for permitting new development and
            for relocating the Building Limit Line.


            There should also be a careful inspection of all buildings that sustained
            significant damage as well as many of those that sustained little or
            no damage.    These inspections should help to identify if the building
            codes and other building regulations -presently in force are adequate
            or should be changed.      Specific items that should be examined include:
            how f oundat ions held up to eros ion and scour; how much damage was suf f ered
            from high winds; the adequacy of connections within buildings; performance
            of f loodproof ing; how well different materials withstood the effects
            of the storm; the influence of building design and placement on lots
            on overvash and erosion between buildings.


            Lift Moratorium for Maior Repairs to Conforminiz Structures.
            Major repairs to structures that *were conforming prior to the disaster
            and will not be made nonconforming by changes to the BLL,        building code
            or other regulations can be lifted as soon as the procedures for inspection
            and permitting are in place and the permitting of minor repairs is proceeding
            smoothly.



            Revise Codes and Policies.

            Based on these evaluations, both the State and City should modify policies,
            regulations, codes, and other regulatory measures as needed to improve
            their effectiveness in reducing storm damages.         The Disaster Recov    ery
            Task Force sbould.play a major role in reviewing potential changes and
            recommendations for improvements in existing measures.


            initiate Negotiations for Relocations and Acguisitions.

            As a result of erosion, changes in the flood bazard, movement of the
            BLL, and changes in other measures to reduce the potential for future



                                                   142












                 flood losses, it may be advisable to acquire some properties. The Property
                 Acquisition Advisory Committee should evaluate all properties that may
                 pose a hazard for redevelopment and make recommendations as to whether
                 they should be acquired by the City.

                 Lift Moratorium on Major Repairg for Nonforming Properties.
                 After the major decisions on mitigation measures have been made, such
                 as relocation of the BLL, changes in the building code, and proposed
                 acquisition of properties have been made, decisions can be made on whether
                 to permit repair or reconstruction of those properties with major damage
                 that are now (or were before the disaster) nonconforming.


                 Lift Moratorium on New Development.
                 After procedures for all other aspects of the recovery have been established,
                 the moratorium on new development may be lifted.



                  BEACH AND DM RESTORATION



                  Immediately following a coastal stormp emergency debris removal (i.e.,
                  the sand which was moved from the beach across the barrier) will be
                  necIessary  to   restore   -mobility    within   the    city.    Removal    and
                  redistribution of sand will begin to occur on individual properties as
                  owners begin to restore "things to the way they used to be."             Unless
                  some control of this   emergency and recovery effort is planned, there may
                  be some Costly, unnecessary and environmentally 'harmful actions.            A
                  Post-Disaster   Recovery/Mitigation    Plan   needs   to   identify   what   is
                  emergency versus recovery debris removal, what actions will have short-
                  versus long-term results and which areas should receive more sand than
                  others.   If the plan is geared for the response to a major event (ie.,
                  100-year storm), most impacts will be addressed.         k storm of a higher
                  frequency (e.g., 10-year) and less impact (e.g., minor overwash) would
                  not require as much use of the plan.       Removal of sand from the Coastal


                                                         143














           Highway will be a major issue following a 100-year storm, but not even a
           consideration after a minor nor'easter.



           The following is a list of general criteria, -procedures and actions to
           take following a major storm.    They are listed in order of importance.
           The emphasis is placed on proper use of overwash sand, assessment of
           natural changes and attention to performance of shoreline protection
           structures (i.e., groins).  The primary objective is: use the impact of
           a disaster to achieve longer term beach and dune protection while
           abandoning efforts  that only provide interim beach protection.       Any
           reference to "groins", below, infers the newer groins built to proper
           engineering standards (post 1982).


           Emergency Respons    (within the first two weeks) After The Storm.
           Priority attention must be given to the placement of sand in areas that
           are critically vulnerable to post-storm changes (e.g., breaches where
           new inlets may form).    Overwash durin g subsequent high tides must be

           controlled.



                 1.  Make aerial reconnaissance to collect immediate photo
                     documentation and to identify critical areas.
                 2.  Fill any breaches-or overwash channels that cross the island
                     beginning in the center of the island and working in opposite

                     directions --eastward toward the ocean and westward toward the
                     bays. Use the nearest available sand, which may include some
                     other debris (e.g., matresses, concrete blocks, wood siding
                     etc.)

                 3. Fill any remaining gaps or particularly low areas along the

                     dune front with the nearest sand and other debris.



           After the physical integrity of the barrier has been restored, remove
           sand from public roads only to provide for the necessary access and
           mobility that will allow for other emergency and recovery actions.

                                              144














                        1. Clear sand and other debris from the Coastal Highway and
                            stock- pile along the shoulders.
                        2.  Clear sand and other debris from streets perpendicular to and
                            east of the Coastal Highway and move it toward the ocean. Sand
                            maybe placed on the beach at the street ends, but should be
                            cleaned of any other debris.
                        3.  Clear sand and other debris from any cross-streets east of the
                            Coastal Highway and stockpile along shoulders.
                        4.  Clear sand and other debris from streets perpendicular and
                            west of the Coastal Highway and stockpile along shoulders.


                 After mobility along public roads has been improved, redistribute clean
                 sand (i.e., all other debris removed) from shoulders of roads to the
                 beach so that erosion and flood control is improved.


                        1. Move clean sand from the street ends along the upper portions
                            of the beach.   No bulldozing of sand from lower portions of

                            the beach should occur.
                        2.  Move enough stockpiled sand from cross-street shoulders to the
                            nearest street end so that it may also be used along the upper
                            beach. Remove other debris before placing sand on beach.
                        3.  Hold other stockpiled sand in place or stockpile in more
                            appropriate location on the block. This sand may not be used

                            for a month or more.



                 This   emergency   response    insures   adequate   short-term protection       to
                 beachfront property while providing more time for implementation of
                 longer term recovery actions.


                 Recovery Actions (two to six weeks after the storm).
                 An inventory of the natural changes to       beach and dune areas and damages
                 to shoreline protection structures will provide a basis for prioritizing
                 action. as well as allowing post-storm       recovery of the beach to occur
                 naturally.

                                                         145













                  1. Visually observe, from ground level, beach elevations within
                     the groin cells and beach elevations in areas without groins.
                     Use the graduated staffs for observations and document changes
                     respectively.
                  2. Observe  and record any differences in beach position on either
                     side of the existing groins.
                  3. observe and record changes that occurred to dunes noting any
                     obvious damage that may have resulted from nearby groins,

                     seawalls or other structures.
                  4. Inspect and document the condition of publc shoreline
                     protection structures (i.e., groins, bulkheads and seawalls).
                     This will be done as part of a Damage Survey Report;these
                     structures may be eligible for disaster relief.
                  5. Inventory the bay shoreline for natural changes as a result of
                     overwash and possible erosion which might indicate barrier
                     narrowing. After the post-storm status of the beach and dune
                     protection has been documented, assess the changes that have
                     occurred and prioritize-the areas to receive action.


                  1. Restore beach areas located between groins (cells) so they meet
                     the capacity fill requirements,,and correct any downdrift
                     erosion problems with sand fill.
                  2. Restore beach areas without groins 'so that a consistent beach
                     height and width along the shoreline is established.
                  3. Reestablish any dunes existing prior to the storm if the beach
                     is wide enough to support them.
                  4. Establish dunes in areas where the beach has been widened

                     enough to support them.
                  5. Repair any shoreline protection structures that were damaged
                     and determined not to be the cause of any adverse impact to
                     adjacent beach or dune areas. The following priorities should
                     be established given possible economic limitations:



                                                 146














                        a. Groins built to engineering  standards;

                        b. Bulkheads or seawalls between North Division and

                           27th Streets; and,
                        c. Publicly owned bulkheds or seawalls north of 27th Street.
                     6. Remove, not repair, any damaged shoreline protection structures
                        determined to be the cause of adverse impact to adjacent beach
                        or dune areas .   Consider replacement of seawalls and bulkheads
                        that are used as foundations and incorporate flow-through
                        design features.
               After an assessment of damages and priority of actions has been
              @established, select a low-cost solution which will address the required
               action and may also mitigate any future damages.     The following list is
               neither in order of importance nor necessarily complete.
                     1. Utilize overwash sands from cross-streets;
                     2. Utilize sand from groin cells that are filled over capacity;
                     3. Locate and utilize other sand sources;
                     4. Construct sand fences and initiate dune vegetation;
                     5. Redesign, while repairing, damaged groins to changed beach
                        configuration;
                     6. Relocate position for future groins, but do not install any
                        less than two per area so that the cell can be filled to
                        capacity; and,
                     7. Abandon plans for future groins if present groins are found

                        to be ineffective.

               Long-Term Planning (beyond six weeks after the storm):         Documentation
               of the sum changes that occurred on the coastal barrier as a result of
               the storm event, emergency response and recovery action will provide a
               basis for updating hazard vulnerability, storm and beach protection
               plans and hazard mitigation opportunities.
                     1. Conduct a vertical aerial photo survey which meets the
                        standards applied in 1980 by Greenhorne and O'Mara, Inc.
                     2. Conduct a post-disaster planning study similar to this.



                                                    147














                3. Incorporate additional recommendations for scientific
                   research listed in Appendix D.
















































                                               148

















                                               LIST OF REFERENCES



                 Barrier Island Forum and Workshop, Provincetown, Massachusetts, 1980.
                        B. Mayo and L. B. Smith, eds. Boston office, U.JS. National Park
                        Service, 107p.
                 Barrier Islands and Beaches, 1976. Technical Proceedings to the Barrier
                        Islands Workshop, Annapolis, Maryland;. Conservation Foundation.
                 Dean,  Robert G. and M. Perlin, 1977.     Coastal engineering study of Ocean
                        City Inlet,, Maryland; in Proceedings to Coastal Sediments 1977,
                        ASCE., pp.520-542.
                 Dolan, Robert et al, 1980. Geographical analysis of Fenwick Island,
                        Maryland, a middle Atlantic coast barrier island; USGS
                        professional paper 1177-A, Washington, D.C.
                 Farrell, Stewart and John Sinton, 1983. Post-Storm Planning for Avalon,
                        N.J. Prepared for the New Jersey Department of Environmental
                        Protection, Division of Coastal Resources.
                 Federal Emergency Management Agency and office of Ocean and Coastal
                        Resource Management, U.S. Department of C, -erce, NOAA, 1983.
                        Preparing for Hurricanes and Coastal Flooding: A Handbook for
                        Local. Officials.   Prepared by Ralph M. Field Associals.
                 Federal Emergency Management Agency and U.S. Department of Housing and
                        Urban Development, 1981.     Design and Construction Manual for
                        Residential Buildings in Coastal High Hazard Areas.         Document
                          FIA-7/January 198lFisher, J. J., 1977.       Coastal erosion
                        revealed; Geotimes v.22, p.24-25.
                 Flood  Insurance Study, Worcester County, Maryland, 1982. Federal
                        Emergency Management Agency, Region III, Philadelphia,
                        Pennsylvania.
                 Goldsmith, Victor, 1974. W. D. Norris, R. J. Burns         J. W. Whitlock,
                        1974. Wave limate model of mid-atlantic shelf (Virginai Sea)
                        VIMS, SRAMSO No. 38, Gloucester, VA. 148p.
                 Hayes, M. 0. and Boothroyd,    J. C., 1969. Storms as modifying agents in.













                 the coastal environments; Field Trip Guidebook    Coastal Environ-
                 ments of Northestern Massachusetts and New Hampshire, Contribu-
                 tion No. 1 GRG, Geology Dept., of University of Mass., Amherst,
                 MA. p.245-265.
           Hayes, Miles 0., 1979. Barrier island morphology as a function of tida  1
                 and wave regime; in Barrier Islands,,S. Leatherman (ed.),
                 Academic Press, Inc., New York, p.1-28.
           Humphries, Stanley M. and Jeffrey R. Benoit, 1980.   Barrier beach pro-
                 tection in Massachusetts; in Proceedings of Coastal Zone 80
                 Hollywood, Florida, November 1980.
           Kerhin, Randy T. and H. P. Halka, 1981.   Beach changes associated with
                 bulldozing to the lower foreshore; Maryland Geol. Survey,
                 Baltimore, MD, Open File Report No. 7, 28p.
           Kusler, ion A., 1982. Innovation in Local Floodplain Management:
                 A Summary of Community Experience. Prepared for the U.S. Water
                 Resource Council. Published by the Natural Hazards Research and
                 Applications Information Center. Special Publication 4.
           Leatherman, Stephen P., 1979. Migration of Assateague Island, Maryland,
                 by inlet and overwash processes; Geology, v.7, p.104-107.
           @Leatherman, Stephen P., 1979. Barrier island handbook; University of
                 Maryland, College Park, MD. 109p.
           Leatherman, Stephen P., 1983. Shoreline mapping: A comparison of tech-
                 niques; Shore and Beach, v.51., p.28-33.
           McElyea, William; D., et al, 1982. Before the Storm: Managing Develop-
                 ment to Reduce Hurricane Damages. Prepared for the Office of
                 Coastal Management, Department of Natural Resources and
                 Community Development by the Ocean and-Coastal Policy Program
                 Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North
                 Carolina at Chapel Hill.
           National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1983. Tides and
                 currents along the east and atlantic coast of North Amearica.
           Rogers, Golden & Halpern, 1981. Hurricane Evacuation and Hazard













                       Mitigation Study.    Prepared for the City of Sanibel, Florida.
                 Slaughter, Turbit H., 1973. Regulatory aspects relative to coastal
                       management problems, Ocean City, Maryland    'a Atlantic coast Beach;
                       Shore and Beach, v.41.
                 Sonu, C. J., 1968. Collective movement of sediment in littoral
                       environment; in Procedings of the llth Conference on Coastal
                       Engineering, A.S.C.E., London, England, v.1, p.373-400.
                 Titus, James G. et al, 1983. Sea level rise overvi     .ew paper; U.S. Envi-
                       ronmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
                 Trident Engineering Associates, Inc., 1979. Interim beach maintenance
                       at Ocean City; prepared for the Energy and Coastal Administration,
                       Department of Natural Resources, State of Maryland, Annapolis, MD.
                 Truitt, R. V. 1968. High winds and high tides, Natural Resources
                    .. institute, Series No.77, Universilty of Maryland.
                 University of Georgia, Institute of Community and Area Development,
                       1983. Jekyll Island Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
                 U.S. Army Corps of Engioneers, Baltimore District, 1962. operation
                       five-high: disaster recovery operations from 6-8 March; 1962 storm
                       under Public Law 875, 81 Congress. Baltimore, MD.
                 U.S. Army 'Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1977.
                       Shore protection manual; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
                       Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C., 3 vols.
                 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, 1980. Atlantic coast
                       of Maryland and Assateaque Island, Virginia:.feasibility report
                       and final environmentl impact statement; Baltimore, MD.
































                                       APPENDIX A

                  1981 Photogrammetric Surveyof theBeach Control District
                                            and
         Approximate Location of the Oceanfront Flood Insurance Zones (1983 FIRM)










                                                                                                                                                                                                        71w,.    WT
                                                                                                                                                                                   V-ZONE
                                                                                                                                                                                     EL.13






                                                                                                                                                          MIS
                                                                                                                                                                                 V-ZONE
                                                                                                                                                                                    EL.11
                                                                                                                                                                4,o







                                                                                                                                                                                                                               at
                                                                                                                                                                               A  Z014E
                                                                                                                                                                               EL. 9                                                                        f
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 All
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               jm,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           4t                                               42M

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   STATE           OF      MARY-LAND
                                                                                                                                                                               SCALE I" FOO'
                                                                                                                                                          CONTOUR [email protected]           DATUW Mw L.* W.I.,
                                                                                                                                                          MARYLAND STATE PLANE GRID
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           DEPARTMENT OF                               NATURAL RESOURCE
                                                                                                                                                          moppmg 1,  C"liflo   ta .-I , ..aeed Noti.oal Map
                                                                                                                                                          Acc ... c Stad.ds
                                                                                                                                                          Dosht,d1sont.- OY W -.1 MKA,S,                                   TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION                      CAPITAL -PROGRAMS ADMtNISTRATIO

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           NE DIVISION                   SHORE EROSION CONTROL PROGRA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  SRI      COASTAL ZO
                                                                                                                                                          BERNARD   W, SOLOMON Ceffif,,iid Photcgra-000385A



                                                                                                                                                                     %
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       E-



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    4W
                                                                                   2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             WIPA,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           RUE



                                                                                                                                                                                                                           V-ZONE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             EL.11


                                                                                                                                                                                                                           14









                                                                                                                                                                                                        jr       1w




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  1g,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               -ZONE
                                                                                                                                N't
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              EL. 9

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Y

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               IJ34
                                                                                                    J?                                                                                                               36

                                                                                                                                                                iod    5a                 00'          2w                                           STATE          OF       MARYLAND
                                                                                                                                                                               SCALE 1' 100
                                                                                                                                                          CONTOUR INTERVAL             DATUM: M-i, L.. W.1i,,
                                                                                                                                                          [email protected] STATE PLANE GRID                                        DEPARTMENT                          OF       NATURAL RESOURCE
                                                                                                                                                          [email protected],,g is swtied   1. eei ol         N.110C.1  Map
                                                                                                                                                          Ai,cu-y    Swr,dz,
                                                                                                                                                          Dosh.d so.1-5 -y 101 -el [email protected]_                                  TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION                      CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATK
                                                                                                                                                                   @_Ai)                                            P1     COASTAL ZONE DIVISION                          SHORE EROSION CONTROL PROGRA
                                                                                                                                                          BERNARD W, SOLOMON Calllfiiid PhofoiiM;[email protected]
               [email protected] [email protected] 01m [email protected],p, [email protected] may [email protected] igot











                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     p",





                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        X
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        I I'll I "'@% --




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     V-ZONE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        EL.11
                                                                                                                                                                                    'c,                                    lot.,                                47              Z4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           MEN"*




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      7



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     A-
                                                                    4g                                 0*                                                                      -v"






                                                                                                                                                             4,
                                                         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                       4

                                                                                                                                                                                        w          20d                                         STATE OF                MARYLAND
                                                                                                                                                                          SCALE "@M'
                                                                                                                                                       CONTOUR INTERVAL            [email protected] Mean Lo* W&er
                                                                                                                                                       MARYLAND STATE PLANE         GRID                               DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE
                                                                                                                                                       Mopping iii certified to meei or exceed National Map
                                                                                                                                                       A".,acy Sta.d.,de
                                                                                                                                                       Opened pwa.ls o,oy   not ineitt N.M,4,5,                        TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION                      CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIO

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           S
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       COA TAL ZONE          DIVI SION               SHORE      EROSION CONTROL              PROGRAM
                                                                                                                                                       BERNARD W, SOLOMON CerWied                         R5 A.SRj
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             i @_7


                                                                                                                                                                                                                     V
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          _q

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           FWp"



                                                                                                                                                                                             E
                                                                                                      ""7""OT




           ad
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     V     ZONE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ELAI

                                                                                                                                                                             rio
                                                                                                                                                                              C,



                                                                                                          'lip                                                        r
                                                                                                                                 41                            xxomerx ,@,                                                   nn, m [email protected],o,
                                                                                                                                                                                                   t,                                                                        Ir
                                                                                                                                                                                                   ,  :@                                                                      r
                                                                                                                                                                                                   01                  A-ZONE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           E

                                                                                                                                        s

                                                                                                    4



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                STATE          OF MARYLAND
                                                                                                                                                                           SCALE       0
                                                                                                                                                       CPNTOMR INTER AL             DATUM. M- Ln Water
                                                                                                                                                       MARYLAND    STAT'E PLANE,     GRID                              DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE
                                                                                                                                                       mi,P-9 @ -,,Ce#     to aet   or ,,,ced Nw,aral Map
                                                                                                                                                                 st.nd.,A,
                                                                                                                                                       0,05had          -y -1 neel NMA's,                              TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION                      CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIO
                                                                                                                                                                                                   3-v*2-              COASTAL ZONE DIVISION                         SHORE EROSION CONTROL PROGRA
                                                                                                                                                       KRNARD q SOLOMON [email protected]'lrd
                     "al -I- 81h-A iW I---
















                                                                                                                                                                                                                              -ZONE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              EL.11
                                                                                                                                                                                                          [email protected]
                       OPT


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Tt
                                   low 110


                                                                                                                                                                        1*4

                                                                                                                       J
                                                                                                                                                     -7
                                                                                                                                                                                                           4                  'A,- 26NE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           @[email protected]  r-L. 10
                              Z6
                                                                                                                                                  "I

                                                                                                                                        wl
                           EL.
                          A      4k,                                                                                                    2w,
                                                                                                                                                        ZI 4     __7                   io- MM77


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       STATE           OF MARYLAND
                                                                                                                                                                                  SCA1,6 i @*Oi
                                                                                                                                                             CONTOUR INTERVAL              DATUM Mean I_o.Wrnl
                                                                                                                                                             MARYLANQ STATE PLANE          GRID                               DEPARTMENT                           OF NATURAL RESOURCE
                                                                                                                                                             Mapping is -rfit d   to meet or extiied NoLariol N.0
                                                                                                                                                             A-raty 5frmda;@d,i,
                                                                                                                                                             Onhed corti-s may not .-I NM.A,S.                                TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION                        CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              COASTAL ZONE DIVISION                           SHORE EROSION CONTROL PROGRA
                                                                                                                                                             BFRNART) W, SOLOMON Cedifien:I Photaqm;W;[email protected],51385A$Rj
                                                                                                                                               IT" 7

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  @y
                                                                                                                                                              U0,                                                                        @R
                                                                                                                    'T
               AOL



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     @2,                                                               [email protected]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               41


                                                                                     "Alk,
                                     iv,

                                                                                                           It






                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         44




                                                                                                                              T4

                                                                                                                                                                                                             A

                                                                                                                                                             [email protected]                           -
                                                                                                                                                                                        _7     7
                                                                                                                                                                 Mv
                                               -4.


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ?k


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       STATE OF MARYLAND
                                                                                                                                                                                  SCALE I'-,10d
                                                                                                                                                             CONTOUR INTERVAL              DATUM  Men. L.. W.I.,
                                                                                                                                                             MARYLAND STATE PLANE GRID                                        DEPARTMENT OF                                 NAtbRAL RESOURCE
                                                                                                                                                             Mopri,rg is certified to meet or e,ceed Notioant Map
                                                                                                                                                             A..,..y   Standards
                                                                                                                                                             O.Umd -10.15 may not meet N,M,A,S.                               TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION                        CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATJO
                                                                                                                                                                                  '41             (O.t.) 3-Z                  COASTAL ZONE DIVISION                           SHORE EROSION CONTROL PROGRA
                                                                                                                                                             /ERNARD
                                                                                                                                                                 [email protected] [email protected]                         AS,Pj
               [email protected]*0#4 SaMARA INC floe, psom;.0t,, ftld            3, 198,






                                                                                                                    @M*







                                                                                                                                                                                                                        V-ZONE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           F1





                                                                                             40
                                                                                                                                    fill
             0



                                                                                                                                                                                                                        'EL: 1











                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               STATE OF                MARYLAND

                                                                                                                                                        GP,I,T,') P INTERVAL        CATVM Me- Lm. Wale,
                                                                                                                                                        MARYI'AND STATE PLANF       GRIU
         t                                                                                                                                                                                                            DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL                                                   RESOURCE
                                                                                                                                                        Mappo,q @s ert'led to m- at exceca N,i-oi Ma,
                                                                                                                                                        [email protected]'y    [email protected]
                                                                                                                                                        Da'hlld [email protected]_ I-ly .I [email protected] NM AS                             TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION                       CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATI

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      COASTAL ZONE DIVISION                          SHORE EROSION            CONTROL PROGRA
             _j                                                                                                                                                       SO-OMON                               AS'pi
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                w
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  T
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 , J

                                                                                                                  f                          IVA
                                                                                                                                                      I01"I

                             --OW
                hL


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   V -ZONE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ELAI


            0




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    _ZQNf_
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           9
                                 jk_




                                                                                                                                                                                                                      w,                                                                        4r.                  4?
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           AV
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     J


                                                                                                                                                                                                                      68,

                                                                                                                                                                     X"    A           'ac,        zw                                          STATE          OF MARYLAND
                                                                                                                                                                           'C"Ll    -too,
                                                                                                                                                        CONTOUR INTERVAL            DATUM Mea, Low Wale,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Ir. "I,















                                                                                                                                                        MARYLAND [email protected]'rATE PLANE      GRID                              DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE
                                                                                                                                                        Mopp,mI I$ cettified to meet oe exceed Nat-al Mop
                                                                                                                                                        All-cy   5 tomd.0  I
                                                                                                                                                        Omlhod ocl..,@ -Y mol meet N.M.A.S                            TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION                       CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATI

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ZONE DIVISION                     SHORE EROSION CONTROL PROGRA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      COASTAL
                                                                                                                                                      [email protected]@11S.01.M.N @Ielffld
                                                                        ,)ej
                                                                                                                                                                    . . . . ......                                                                                                      . . .... ..
















                                                                                                            F





                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      E    A,





                                                                                       E
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                [email protected]









                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           A


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   V,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            x
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Na!


                                                                                                                                                                              51
                                                                                                                                                                                                      . ..... ... .... ......                                   STATE OF MARYLAND
                                                                                                                                                                                       SCALE I @@00'
                                                                                                                                                                  CONTOUR, NTERI/At.            DATJM, Meo, L- Ww,,
                                                                                                                                                                  MARYLAND SUATE PLANE          'RID                                 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE
                                                                                                                                                                  [email protected]`,q 9 car!4imd  to meet  Or eCRed Nalional Mop
                                                                                                                                                                  [email protected] Siod.,[email protected]
                                                                                                                                                                  DiRhed COO- Oy Ool ..1, 13MAS                                      TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION                          CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATI

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     COASTAL ZONE DIVISION                             SHORE EROSION CONTROL PROGRA
                                                                                                                                                                  3ERNAP0 W, SOLOMON [email protected] @[email protected] metriST385A,&P










                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          -EL.- i



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        pnl
                                       XF                      -e



                              i't


                                                                   It 7,                                                                   j4av1!Rw

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                STATE OF MARYLAND
                                                                                                                                                                                       SCALE I @100
                                                                                                                                                                  C014TOUR INTERVAL             DAIUM, Mecro L- Woler
                                                                                                                                                                  MARYLAND @TATE PLANE GRID                                          DEPARTMENT                             OF NATURAL,RESOURCE
                                                                                                                                                                  [email protected]@g [email protected] _
                                                                                                                                                                               _j'j,ed to 1.111 Or I-ed Nollonot Mop
                                                                                                                                                                             SiO'do'd,
                                                                                                                                                                  Dashed co-ors Moy of meet N,M,A 5                                  TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION                          CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATI
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     COASTAL ZONE DIVISION                             SHORE EROSION CONTROL PROGRA
                                                                                                                                                                  BERNARD W SOLOMON CWIfl,,d
                 `qE1ARFD8y4PEE*1W &OVAMA @11C 1- pwoa-r,             me, 3, 'gal




                                                                                 ------ . . . .... . ......



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Z




                                                                                                                                                          Iwo
                                                          71

                                                                                                                                                                                       Q
                                                                                                                                                77
                                                                                                                      m", lmyll                                                                                                                                                              -vp--
              w
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         v_�6NE
              w
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           EU-11






                                                               I Slim
                                                                                                                                                             0.0


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               so
                                                                                                                                   Aw
                                                                                                                  is

                                                                        oil                  JOS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             pol
                                                                                                                                                                                       [email protected]                                  30

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              STATE         OF MARYLAND
                                                                                                                                                                          SCALE I"mlOO'
                                                                                                                                                      CONTOUR [email protected]             OATUM:M-a L..WoTe,
                                                                                                                                                      MARYLAND STATE PLANE CRID                                      DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL                                                  RESOURCE
                                                                                                                                                      Mapping is certiti'd to meet or exceed Notional Map
                                                                                                                                                      Acr,wy   Standards,
                                                                                                                                                      Dosb.d Centel$ ancy not ni t4.M,A,S-                           TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION                      CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATI

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     COASTAL ZONE          DIVISION                SHORE      EROSION       CONTROL PROGRA
                                                                                                                                                      [email protected] W     [email protected] Certified Ph-1-910-crialill 365 A.SP

               1"IX                                                                                                                                            006
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            V-Z


                                                                                                                            low






                                                                                                                                                                                                                    7,
              all
              w                                                                                       in,                                                                                                                                                                                  v - ZONE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ELAI









                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             11 . . . . . . . . . . . .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Vp
                                                                                                                        A-ZONE
                                                 7,
                                                                                                                           EL.9









                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             STATE OF MARYLAND
                                                                                                                                                                          SCALE    [email protected] v 106
                                                                                                                                                      CONTOUR INTERVAL*            DATUM Mao. L.. Water
                                                                                                                                                      MARYLAND STATE PLANE         GPID                              DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE
                                                                                                                                                      Mapping is certified to meet or e.ceed Notional Map
                                                                                                                                                      A"..cy Standards
                                                                                                                                                      Dashed ocalts.'s aoY not atest NLM,A,$,                        TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION                      CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATI
                                                                                                                                                                                          ID-10 3 @-71-13z           COASTAL ZONE DIVISION                         SHORE EROSION CONTROL PROGRA
                                                                                                                                                                                    ad 'friagaintral,
                                                                                                                                                                                                   "s, 't
                                                                                                                                                      '@81�,AR, @,SOL .. @[email protected]                 385 A,&PI
                                             1,s. onar,nx,ty taxi,   I,,",









                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               IA




                                                                                                                                                                                                                            [email protected]                                                                         7,


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                V-20NE




                                                                                                                                                                                                                    rl
                                                                                                                                                                               ei.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            036-        7- 1            _4*@
                                                                                                                                                                                                      4f-                         B-ZON                              Wk


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 -4"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  V
                                                                                                                                                       pvt
                                                                                                                                                                    .........
                                                                  mm [email protected]
                                                                                           ,4tmu 20sm                      1

                                                                                                                                                                 5a      a           [email protected]        20o'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             STATE         OF MARYLAND
                                                                                                                                                                         SCALE Ctloo '
                                                                                                                                                     CONTOUR INTERVAL,           DATUM  Me.o Law Water
                                                                                                                                                     MARYLAND STATE PLANE        GR  ID
                                                                                                                                                     MG*19   is certified to meet of exceed ri Map                  DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE
                                                                                                                                                     Doah.d corroxiie troy rat -al N-M.A.S.                         TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION                     CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATI

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 SHORE EROSION CONTROL PROGRA


                                                                                   q4"AN





                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   V-ZONE
                                                                  7:7                                                                                                                                                                                                 EL.11
               4, X
            w


                                                         tav,%





                                    It'                                                                                                                                                                             4xx
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .4-
                             J,
                              -Al                                                                                                                                                                                                                           B-ZONE

                                                              v,
                                                                                                                                                                       d                                                        14


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Jet
                                                                                                                                                                      ei                           11





                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Fk
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               It



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            STATE          OF MARYLAND
                                                                                                                                                                         SCALE I"mDO'
                                                                                                                                                     CONTOUR INTERVAt.:          DATUM; Mean Low Water
                                                                                                                                                                                        '00"'  3-44-*4              COASTAL ZONE Dl`V`lSION
                                                                                                                                                     B R.ARD       SOL      f                        @G, A















































                                                                                                                                                     MARYLAND STATE PLANE GRID
                                                                                                                                                     Moppin fs certified to meet or exceed Notiandl map             DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE
                                                                                                                                                     Acc.facy Standard.,
                                                                                                                                                     [email protected] coolotoi oy -at romt KMA,S,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION                     CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    COASTAL ZONE DIVISION                        SHORE EROSION CONTROL PROGRA
                                                                                                                                                     BERNARD # SOLOMON Certified Phtogra-"-e-wetTd-BSA.SPl
                -fit t
              t OM009yolle alea             A* pforow" 440' 11041Y 16 109t










                                                                               J.


                                                                                   4                                                  Y

                                                                                                                                              @Y


                                                                                                                            i   Z
                                                                                                 J?                                                                                                                *W(p       [email protected]'!
                                                                                                           e       4
                                                                                                                                                                                             ZO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                'W1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   z
                                          A



                                             8
                                                                                                     Pr
                                                                                                                                                                                        V - ZONE
                                                                                                 pit I
                                                                                                                                                                                           EL.11








                                                                                                                                                                                       A - ZONE
                                                                                                                                                                                          EL. 9





                                                                                                                                                                  V

                                                                                                                                              a, r



                                           %



                                                                                                                                            B-ZO

                                                                                                                                                      t,



                                   M.                                                     [email protected]

                                                                                                                                                                                          40i ql7cg- y MW

                                                                                                                                                                                                    STATE       OF MARYLAND
                                                                                                                                           SCALE
                                                                                                                            [email protected] INTERVAL     DATUM  Meaa L.. Wale,
                                                                                                                            MARYLAND STATE PLANE GRto                          DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL                                     RESOURCE
                                                                                                                            mopping [email protected] -W ed to meet ar -eed Nnhonof map
                                                                                                                            [email protected],.Cy Sl-d.,[email protected]
                                                                                                                            Dah.d -t-S Ay act -1 N M,A 5                      TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION               CAPITAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIO
                                                                                                                                                         [email protected]@,ZZ -8Z         COASTAL ZONE DIVISION                 SHORE EROSION CONTROL PROGRA
                                                                                                                      f     -DERNARD- W, SOLOMON Cofihed Pp.?.q,.aaav,,! ASPl





































                                        APPENDIX B

                             Federal Role in Emergency Response
                                            and
                     Procedures for Obtaining Federal Disaster Assistance










                TM F==&1 ROLE IN W=GZNCY RESPOISSE AM PROCEDURES FOR
                          OBTAINING FEDERAL DISASTER AS818TANCE1




     Federal disaster assistance programs are' designed to supplement local, state,
     and private resources when these are insufficient to repair damages and to
     alleviate hardship in the wake of a major disaster. The key federal legislation
     dealing with disasters is the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-288), which
     authorizes a wide range of financial and direct assistance to state and local
     governments and private individuals.        While other legislation has created
     a. number of disaster assistance programs within a variety of federal agencies,
     the Disaster Relief Act and the regulations adopted to administer it set the
     guidelines and procedures by which federal aid is issued and vests the Federal
     EImergency Management Agency with primary responsibility for coordinating and
     providing disaster relief. FEMA follows standard set of procedures governiag
     flederal responsibilities, damage assessments, applications for assistance,
     the granting of assistance, and post-disaster hazard mitigation planning.



     M PaSSIDERTIAL DZCIARATION


     FEMAIs disaster response procedures. are set into moti      on by a    Presidential
     declaration of "emergency" or "major disaster,." as authorized by     P.L. 93-288.
     An "emergency" is any natural disaster which calls for emergency federal assistance
     to supplement stateand local efforts to avert the threat of -a disaster or
     to protect lives, public health, and property.        A "major disaster" is one
     that causes damages of a sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major
     federal assistance above and beyond emergency services.

     FEMA keeps close track of potential disasters, such as the development and
     path of a hurricane; it maintains close contact with the Governor's office
     and the Maryland Emergency Management and Civil Defense Agency, as 'Well as
     other federal agencies responsible fof disaster assistance, as the threat
     increases and disaster strikes. After an initial reconnaissance, local officials
     in a disaster-striken community should immediately report the nature and extent
     of damages to the Maryland Emergency Management and Civil Defense Agency (EMCDA) .
     EMCDA then advises the Governor on the seriousness of the situation; the Governor
     may declare a state of emergency, put the state's disaster assistance plan
     into operation, and direct state resources to where they are needed.         If it
     becomes apparent that the situation is of a severity or magnitude that exceeds
     state and local capabilities, the Governor can ask the President, via FERA,
     to declare an flemergen cy" or "major disaster."     Only the Governor (or Acting
     Governor) can make this request.





     IThis section is adapted, with only minor changes, from Before the Storm:
     Managing Development to Reduce Hurricane Damages. William D. McElyea, et. al.,
     Ocean and Coastal Policy Program, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University
     of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Sept. 1982.












          If the Governor asks for a Presidential declaration, state disaster officials
          will:

             1.    survey the affected areas, jointly with local officials and (if possible)
                   FEMA's regional disaster specialists, to determine the extent of damages;

             2.    estimate the types and extent of federal assistance needed;

             3.    consult with FEMA's Regional Director regarding eligibility requirements;
                   and

             4.    advise FEMA's Regional Director of the state's intent to request a
                   Presidential declaration.
          The Governor's request for a Presidential declaration  .will include a certif icaiion
          of reasonable state and local expenditures for disaster relief and an estimate
          of the federal assistance required for the state and each affected county.
          The Governor's request, addressed to the President, is submitted to FEMA's
          Regional Director, who evaluates the estimates of damage and assistance needs
          and makes a recommendation to the Director of FEMA. The Director then recommends
          a course of action to the President, who issues the declaration and sets in
          motion the machinery for issuing federal disaster assistance to eligible public
          agencies, individuals, and businesses.



          [email protected]'S POST-DISASYM PROMURES

          Once the President declares an "emergency"      or "major disaster," the Governor
          and FEMA's Regional Director sign a Federal-State Disaster Assistance Agreement
          which specifies where and how federal disaster relief will become available.
          FENA's Associate Director for Disaster Response and Recovery designates those
          counties and municipalities that are eligible for federal disaster assistance
          and appoints another federal official (usually FEMA's Regional Director) as
          the Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO). The FCO performs a number of functions:

             1.    determining the types of assistance most urgently needed;

             2.    coordinating all federal disaster relief efforts;

             3.    coordinating federal activities with those of state and local agencies
                   and private disaster relief organizations (such as the Red Cross and
                   the Salvation Army);

             4.    informing people in the community about the types of assistance available;

             5.    setting up and operating disaster field offices; and

             6.    taking other actions, consistent with his authority, to help            local
                   citizens and public agencies promptly obtain assistance for             which
                   they are eligible.

          The  FCO is usually supported by one or more deputies who are delegated to









     perform some of these functions.

     FENA sets up a temporary Disaster Field Office in the stricken area as a base
     for federal disaster relief operations.      The Disaster Field Office is usually
     located in conjunction with a similar state office operated by the State Coord-
     inating Officer (from the Maryland Emergency Management and Civil Defense
     Agency), who is the primary liaison between the FCO and state and local off ic ials .
     The location and telephone number of the Disaster Field Office is publicized
     widely to allow applicants to visit or call when problems arise. The Disaster
     Field Office is staffed by representatives of FEMA and all other federal agencies
     with disaster assistance respon 'sibilities in the area. These f ield representatives
     are responsible for providing prompt assistance to disaster victims and advising
     local and state agencies on eligibility requirements, surveying and reporting
     damages, and applying for federal assistance.         In addition to these agency
     [email protected], the FEMA Regional Director may dispatch Emergency Support
     Teams to provide specialized counseling, to help operate the Disaster Field
     Office, and to temporarily supplement local and state emergency response and
     damage assessment efforts.

     The types of federal disaster assistance fall into two general categories:
     individual assistance (for individuals, families, and businesses) and public
     assistance (for local and state agencies).           FEM& disseminates information
     about available aid programs via        local radio, television, newspapers, a-ad
     pamphlets.   FEMA will establish a,    Disaster Assistance Center in the area to
     help individual disaster victims more easily get information and guidance
     from the various federal agencies.        FEMA may dispach mobile teams to help
     persons in the area who lack easy access to the Disaste'r Assistance Center.
     At the center, disaster victims apply for assistance from the various federal
                   Uble.    In addition to operating the Disaster Assistance Center
     programs: avai
     (mainly for providing individual assistance), FEMA and EMCDA personnel bold
     an applicant, priefing for local and state officials to inform them of the
     public assistance available and the procedures and eligibility requirements
     involved. Items covered at the briefing include:

        1.    filing a Notice of Interest in receiving different types of federal
              disaster assistance;

        2.    preparing Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) to document damages and present
              repair costs;

        3.    filing a Project Application; and

        4.    addressing special considerations, such as environmental assessments
              and.opportunities for hazard mitigation.

     The Notice of Interest (see Figure B.1) is basically a checklist on which
     local and state officials identify the types of damage sustained by public
     facilities. It provides the basis by which FERA schedules damage surveys.

     Damage Survey Reports (see Figure B.2) document the extent of damages to different
     facilities, identify needed and eligible repairs, and assess in detail the
     costs of repairing or rebuilding them.        The DSRs are prepared by a Damage
     Assessment Team consisting of federal state, and local personnel, and are
     submitted to FEMA and the Maryland EMCDA.        The DSR is the basis for FEKA's









          approval of applications for public assistance.       The Damage Assessment Team
          depends on local 'officials' damage assessments to measure the severity and
          magnitude of damage; it is therefore very important for the local government
          to maintain accurate pro 'perty records and conduct its own damage survey before
          the Damage Assessment Team arrives (Rogers, Golden, and Ralpern,, 1981, p. 4-
          23). Photographs, maps, and drawings are often included in the DSR to provide
          more complete descriptions and documentation.

          FEMA classifies damages that are eligible for public assistance into seven
          categories of "permanent" work and two categories of "emergency" work (see
          Table B.1) .  A separate DSR is preps    red for each category of work and for
          each damage site; separate DSRs are required for different categories of work
          at the same site.


          A DSR does not constitute approval of repair work or a commitment of federal
          funds.   It simply provides the most accurate information available on the
          extent of damages and estimated repair costs, which FEMA uses to approve or
          deny specific line items requested in the Project Application.

          The Project Application (see Figure B.3) is the formal request for aid that
          a local government or state agency submits to FEMA's Regional Director through
          the Maryland EMCDA (or the Governor's Authorized Representative). The Project
          Application summarizes and combines the Damage Survey Reports for various
          repair projects for public facilities damaged in the community.        The Project
          Application also provides the formal record of FEMA's and Maryland EMCDAs
          review and approval of the different projects for which federal funds are
          committed.  The Project Application is signed by the applicant's authorized
          representative and is accompanied by a form designating this representative
          (see Figure B.Q. The Project Application is also accompanied by the.complete
          Damage Survey Report for each project listed. The application must be submitted
          to FEKA's Regional Director within 90 days of the Presidential declaration
          of a "major disaster"' the deadline is 30 days for an "emergency" declaration.
          Local officials should keep in mind that, under current FEMA policy, the federal
          government will only fund up to 75 percent. of the eligible cost of repairs
          to public.facilties.

          Once a Project Application is approved and FEKA makes different forms of public
          assistance available to the local government or state agency, FEMA maintains
          standards for project administration. These include project completion deadlines,
          progress reports,, and cost overruns.     In a community where an "emergency has
          been declared, federal assistance typically ends one month after the initial
          Presidential declaration. Where a "major disaster" has been declared, federal
          assistance for "emergency" work typically ends six months after the declaration
          and federal assistance for "permanent" work ends after 18 months.         Recipients
          of federal disaster aid can receive time extensions for a number of extenuating
          circumstances. Recipients must submit progress reports if there are any delays
          that would make a project run past the deadline or if the recipient faces
          cost overruns. FEMA or other federal and state agencies may conduct periodic
          inspections of selected projects to make sure that work is progressing in
          a timely fashion and according to the appropriate standards, policies, and
          procedures.









                   2.1: Categories of Public Assistance Available from FENA



             "Emergency" Work                     "Permanept" Work

             Debris Removal                       Road or Street Systems
             Emergency Protection                 Water Control Facilities
               (incl. Communications and          Public Buildings and
               public transportation)              Related-Equipment
                                                  Public Utilities
                                                  Facilities under Construction
                                                  Private Nonprofit Facilities
                                                  "Other"






     As work on a project ends, the recipient notifies the Governor's Authorized
     Representative, who arranges for federal or state personnel to make a final
     inspection of the work in each category.of funding (i.e. "emergency" or "perma-.
     nent"). The Final Inspection Report (see Figure B.5) documents the completion
     of work and is essential to the recipient's being reimbursed for the cost
     of repairs.   A project that does not exceed $10,000 usually does not require
     a final inspection.

     Once the Final Inspection Report is completed and approved, the recipient
     files a Request for Reimbursement (see Figure B.6), attaching a listing of
     complet ed line items and their costs.    This same form can be used to request
     advance payments as well as reimbursements.       It is the final formal claim
     for the reimbursement of costs for all repair and reconstruction projects
     eligible and approved under FEMA's disaster assistance program.

     Throughout the damage assessment/grant application/project administration/reim-
     bursement process, it is essential for the local government to maintain detailed
     records.   Records pertaining to damage assessment and repair costs should
     be well organized and contain accurate documentation.      Damage Survey Reports
     should be accompanied by photographs, sketches, and-property information (value,
     ownership, etc.); unsalvageable damaged equipment should even be retained
     for inspection by survey teams (FEMA, 1981, Documenting Disaster Damage, p. 5).
     Other records should be maintained to document repair costs that are contracted
     out or borne by the local government itself; this would include timesbeets,
     equipment use schedules, and invoices should local staff and financial resources
     be expended for any project.     These local expenditures may apply to the 25
     percent match required of local and state governments under FEMA's public
     assistance program.   (See FEKA's Document Disaster Damay-e, Report No. DR&R-7,
     for an excellent, brief discussion of record-keeping requirements and project
     application procedures).

     In addition to funding local repair and reconstruction projects, the federal
     government may deploy its own personnel and equipment to perform emergency
     work if local and state personnel and equipment are inadequate to do so.
     .To obtain this "direct" federal assistancle, the local government or state









         agency must submit a request to FEMA's RegionalDirector, Via the Governor's
         Authorized Representative, within ten days after the Presidential declaration.
         The request takes the form of a resolution by the local governing body (or
         body governing a state agency) ac'companied by, a statement of why the work
         cannot be conducted with local or state resources.     ' Local government budget
         constraints are not considered a sufficient cause for receiving direct federal
         assistance (FEKA, 1981, Handbook LOU Apiplicants, p. 5-1).       FEKA's Regional
         Director vill either approve or deny the request or, if the requested work
         falls under the mission of another federal agency,refer the request to that
         agency.

         At the same time that local governments and state agencies are applying for
         federal disaster assistance, FEKA's Interagency Regional Hazard Mitigation
         Team conducts its analysis of damages in the community, identifies opportunities
         for hazard mitigation, and issues its report recommending certain actions
         for federal, state, and local agencies. Also, under the requirements of Section
         406 of the Federal Disaster Relief Act, the state must evaluate all hazards
         in the state and areas affected by the current disaster, and prepare a Section
         406 Hazard Mitigation Plan, including specific recommendations for hazard
         mitigation measures.

         if there is no Presidential declaration, certain types of federal disaster
         assistance are still made available to the community.         The procedures for
         receiving such aid vary, as these programs are administered by separate federal
         agencies. FEKA plays less of a coordinating function when there is no Presidential
         declaratioon.

         Figure B.7 illustrates the timetable under which FEMA's disaster assistance
         procedures operate. It includes deadlines for damage.surveys, project applica-
         tions, and project completion.










                                                           Figure B.1: FEMA Notice of Interest Form


                                                                                                                                                  Form Approved
                                                                                                                                                  
                                                   FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY                                      FEMA DECLARATION NUMBER
                                                     DISASTER RESPONSE AND RECOVERY
                                                                                                                            DATE
                                                          NOTICE OF INTEREST
                                                IN APPLYING FOR FEDERAL DISASTER ASSITANCE                                  FILE NUMBER

                                   The purpose of this form is to list the damages to property facilities so that inspectors may be appropriately assigned for a
                                   formal survey.

                                                                       REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL DAMAGE SURVEY


                                     A. DEBRIS CLEARANCE                                               F. PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEMS
                                          On Public Roads & Streets including ROW                            Water               Storm Drainage
                                          Other Public Property                                              Sanitary Sewerage              Light/Power
                                          Private Property (Men undertaken by                                Others
                                                            local Government forces)

                                          Structure Demolition


                                       B. PROTECTIVE MEASURES                                             G. FACILITIES UNDER CONSTRUCTION
                                          Life and Safety             Health                                   Public Facilities*
                                          Property          Stream/Drainage Channels                           Private Non-Profit Facilities**

                                       C. ROAD SYSTEMS                                                    H. PRIVATE NON-PROFIT FACILITIES**

                                          Roads                       Streets                                   Educational                Medical
                                          Bridges                     Culverts                                  Emergency                  Custodial Care
                                          Traffic Control             Other                                     Utility

                                     D. WATER CONTROL FACILITIES                                            H.  OTHER (Not in above Categories)

                                          Dikes           Levees           Dams                                   Park Facilities

                                          Drainage Channels          Irigation Works                              Recreational Facilities

                                     E. PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT
                                        Public Buildings
                                        Supplies or inventory
                                        Vehicles or other equipment
                                        Transportation Systems
                                        Higher Education Facilities

						   *Indicate type of facility:
                                      **Provide name of the facility and of private non-profit owner. 
                                      NAME AND TITLE OF REPRESENTATIVE WHO WILL ACCOMPANY THE SURVEY TEAM.


                                      NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR  ELIGIBLE APPLICANT						COUNTY
																					2
					     1
                                      BUSINESS ADDRESS                                                                         


                                      BUSINESS TELEPHONE  (Area Code/Number)                              HOME TELEPHONE (Area Code/Number)
                                   3
                                   APPLICANTS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE                                   BUSINESS TELEPHONE (Area Code/Number)
                                   4																	
                                   FEMA FORM 


                                                Source: FEMA, 1981, Handbook for Applicants, p. E-1.








                                                      Figure B.2: FEMA Damage Survey Report Form


																							 FORM APPROVED
                                                                                                                                           OMB No. 3067-0027
                                                           FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY                                 3. DECLARATION NO.
                                                                  DAMAGE SURVEY REPORT                                            FEMA
                                                               DISASTER RESPONSE AND RECOVERY                                  4. INSPECTION DATE

                                                                                                                               5. WORK ACCOMPLISHED BY
                                      1. TO    REGION         FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
                                      2. APPLICANT (State Agency, County, City, etc.)             PA NO.                            CONTRACT
                                                                                                                                    FORCE ACCOUNT

                                      7. WORK CATEGORY ("x" Applicable Box)                       DSR NO.                      6. PERCENTAGE OF WORK
                                          EMERGENCY  A    B                                               10000l                  COMPLETED TO DATE
                                          PERMANENT  C    D   E   F   G   H    I                 
                                      8. DAMAGED FACILITIES (Location, identification and description)
                                                                                                                               8A. FACILITY IN OR AFFECTS
                                                                                                                                   FLOOD PLAIN OR WET LANDS
                                                                                                                                     YES        No

                                      9. DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGE







                                      10. SCOPE OF PROPOSED WORK









                                                                               11. ESTIMATED COST OF PROPOSED WORK
                                      QUANTITY    'UNIT                    MATERIAL AND OR DESCRIPTION                    UNIT PRICE         COST (dollars)
                                         (a)       (b)                                   (c)                                  (d)                (e)




















                                      12. EXISTING INSURANCE (Type)                         AMOUNT                     TOTAL            $

                                      13. RECOMMENDATION BY FEDERAL INSPECTOR (Signature, Agency, date)                                     ELIGIBLE      ATTACHMENTS
                                                                                                                                           YES     NO
                                      14. CONCURRENCE IN rEPORT BY STATE INSPECT0R (SIGNATUE,AGENCY,DATE)
                                                                                                                               YES NO
                                      I5 CONCURRENCE IN REPORT By L0CAL REPRESENTATIVE (SIGNATURE,AGENCY,DATE)                 YES NO                                                                                                      
                                      16 FEDERAL REVIEW (SIGNATURE,AGENCY,DATE)  FEMA REVIEW (INTIALS AND DATE)               


                                      FEMA 
                                                                                        COPY I FEMA REGION


                                                  Source: FEMA,               1981, Handbook             for Applicants,               p. F-1.









                 UM 3.1: Categorie3 of Public Assiatance Available from MUL



                   "Emergency" Work                    "Permanent" Work

                   Debris Removal                      Road or Street Systems
                   Emergency Protection                Water Control Facilities
                     (incl. Communications and         Public Buildings and
                     public transportation)              Related Equipment
                                                       Public Utilities
                                                       Facilities under Construction
                                                       Private Nonprofit Facilities
                                                       "Other"






         As work on a project ends, the recipient notifies the Governor's Authorized
         Representative, who arranges for federal or state personnel to make a final
         inspection of the workin each category of funding (i.e. "emergency" or "perma-
         nent"). The Final Inspection Report (see Figure B.5) documents the completion
         of work and is essential to the recipient'sbeing reimbursed for the cost of
         repairs. A project that does not exceed $10,000 usually does not require
         a final inspection.

         Once the Final Inspection Report is completed and approved, the recipient
         files a Request for Reimbursement (see Figure B.6), attaching a listing of
         completed liner items and their costs.     This same form can be.used to request
         advance payments as well as reimbursements.      It is the final formal claim
         for the reimbursement of costs for all repair and reconstruction projects
         eligible and approved under FEMA's disaster assistance program.

         Throughout the damage assessment/grant application /project administration/reim-
         bursement. process, it is essential for the local government to maintain detailed
         records.   Records pertaining to damage assessment and repair costs should
         be well organized and contain accurate documentation.    Damage Survey Reports
         should be accompanied by photographs, sketches, and property information(value,,
         ownership, etc.); unsalvageable damaged equipment should even be retained
         for inspection by survey teams (FEMA, 1981, Documenting Disaster Damage, p. 5).
         Other records should be maintained to document repair costs that are contracted
         out or borne by the local government itself; this would include timesbeets,
         equipmentuse schedules, and invoices should local staff andinancial resources
         be expended for any project.     These local expenditures may apply to the 25
         percent match required of local and state governments under FEMA's public
         assistance program.    (See FEMA's Document DisasterDamage, Report No. DR&R-7,
         for an excellent, brief discussion of record-keeping requirements and project
         application procedures).

         In addition to funding local repair and reconstruction projects, the federal
         government may deploy its own personnel and equipment to perform emergency
         work if local and state personnel and equipment are inadequate to do so.
         To obtain this "direct" federal assistance, the local government or state










               approval of applications for public assistance.          The Damage Assessment Team
               depends on local officials' damage assessments to       measure the severity and
               magnitude of damage; it is therefore very important for the local government
               to maintain accurate property records and conduct its own damage survey before
               theDamage Assessment Team arrives (Rogers, Golden, and Halpern, 1981, p. 4-
               23). ' Photographs, maps, and drawings are often included in the DSR to provide
               more complete descriptions and documentation.

               FEMA classifies damages that are eligible for public assistance i          Uto seven
               categories of "permanent" work and two categories of "emergency" work (see
               Table B.1). A separate DSR is prepared for each category of work and for
               each damage site; separate,DSRs are required for different categories of work
               at the same site.


               A DSR does not constitute approval of repair work or a commitment of federal
               funds. It simply provides the most accurate information available on the
               extent of damages and estimated repair costs, which FEMA uses to approve or
               deny specific line items requested in the Project Application.

               The Project Application (see Figure B.3) is the formal request for aid that
               a local government or state agency submits to FEMA's Regional Director through
               .the Maryland EMCDA (or the Governor's Authorized Representative). The Project
               Application summarizes and combines the Damage Survey Reports for various
               repair projects for public facilities damaged in the community. The Project
               Application also provides the formal record of FEMA's and Maryland EMCDAs
               review and approval of the different projects for which federal funds are
               committed. The Project Application is signed by the applicant's authorized
               representative and is accompanied by a form designating this representative
               (see Figure B.4). The Project Application is also accompanied by the complete
               Damage Survey Report for each project listed. The application must be submitted
               to FEMA's Regional Direc  'tor within 90 days of the Presidential declaration
               of a "major disaster"' the deadline is 30 days for an "emergency" declaration.
               Localofficials should keep in mind that, under current FEMA policy, the federal
               government will onlyfund up to 75 percent of the eligible cost of repairs
               to public facilties.

               Once a Project Application is approved and FEMA makes different forms ol' public
               assistance available to thelocal government or state agency, FEMA maintains
               standards for project administration.     These include project completion deadlines,
               progress reports, and cost overruns. In a community where an "emergency has
               been declared, federal assistance typically ends one month after the initial
               Presidential declaration. Where a "major disaster" has been declared, federal
               assistance for "emergency" work typically ends six months after the declaration
               and federal assistance for "permanent" work ends after 18 months.          Recipients
               of federal disaster aid can receive time extensions for a number of extenuating
               circumstances. Recipients must submit progress reports if there are any delays
               that would make a project run past the deadline or if the recipient, faces
               cost overruns. FEMA or other federal and state agencies may conduct periodic
               inspections ofselected projects to make sure that work is progressing in a
               timely fashion and according to the appropriate standards, policies, and pro-
               cedures.



Figure B.3: FEMA Project Application Form										form Approval							
																OMB NO 
	Federal Assistance    Appli		a PA			3 State				Fema
		(Part 1)	    cants					Applica	
Type    PREAPPLICATION	    Appli		   	            TION
OF				    cation		b SUP			IDENTI				DECLARATION DATE
ACTION  APPLICATION							FIER
	  NOTIFICATION OF IDENTY    OBLIGATION LOG NUMBER	FIPS NO
	  REPORT OF FEDERAL ACTION

4. LEGAL APPLICANT RECIPEINT								FEDERAL DEVELOPER IDENTIFICATION NO.
													Number 830300	
												b Disastes Assistance


7. TITLE AND DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT (PL 93-2881)

   Prefer to DSR attached at Parill to this application			A- State			H-Communites Action
												B-				I-
												C-				L-	
												D-				K-	
												E-City
												F-School District
												G-
												TYPE OF ASSISTANCE
						
												A-	  Gratns		            D-
												B-Supplemental grants			E-
												C-Loan



                      AREA OF PROJECT  ACT                            11. ESTIMATED NUB			TYPE OF APPLICATION
											        BER OF PERSONS			A-	C-	E-
												  BENEFITING			B-	D-	
				PROPOSED FUNDING						CONGRESSIONA DISTRICTS OF	TYPE OF CHANGE
				FEDERAL								APPLICATN			PROJECT	A-	
				APLICATION														B-			
				STATE														      C-
				LOCAL						PROJECT START	    	PROJECT	                  D-
				OTHER					    DATE YEAR MONTH DAY	DURATION				      E-
				TOTAL
										ESTIMATED DATE TO
										BE SUBMITTED TO
										FEDERAL AGENCY			EXISTING FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
20 FEDERAL AGENCY TO RECEIVE REQUEST(NAME CITY STATE ZIP CODE)			21. REMARKS ADDED
				FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
22            To the best of my knowledge and belief





23					TYPED NAME AND TITLE					b SIGNATURE			C DATE SIGNED
CERTIFIED 	
REPRE-																	YEAR MONTH DAY
SENTATIVE
24 AGENCY NAME
		FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)			25. APPLICA-  YEAR MONTH DAY
26 ORGANIZATION UNIT									27. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE	28. FEDERAL APLICATION
     RESPONSE AND RECOVERY									REGION				IDENTIFICATION
30 ADDRESS												FEDERAL GRANT
													IDENTIFICATION
31 ACTION TAKEN	32.    FUNDING										STARTING 
	AWARDED		FEDERAL						CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL	DATE   19
	REJECTED		APPLICATN						INFORMATION
	RETURNED FOR	STATE							(Name and telephone number)
	AMENDEMENT		LOCAL
				OTHER							ENDING		YEAR MONTH DAY
	DEFEARED		TOTAL							DATE			19
	
	WITHDRAWL												REMARK ADDED
									FEDERAL AGENCY   OFFICIAL
				






















0



0






                                                  Figure B.3: FEMA Project Application Form (continued)



                                               PART I (Continued)                FEMA Agreement No.       P.A.
                                                                                                                          NO.                     Sup. No.

                                        Project Summary(Based on Part 11 at this application)
                                                                                                             AMOUNT               AMOUNT              AMOUNT
                                                                                                          REQUESTED By         APPROVED By          APPROVED By
                                                                                                            APPLICANT              STATE                FEMA


                                               A. DEBRIS ClErancE
                                              B. PRotECTiva Measurcs
                                               C Flood Syatoma
                                               d. Water Control facilties
                                               E Public Buildings and Equipment
                                               F. Public utilities
                                               G Facilties Under Construction
                                               H. Perview Nonprofit  Facilites
                                               I Other Damages (Not icluded in above carragories

                                                                                        TOTAL


                                        4 Funding (Please check)
                                                                                                             APPLICANT              STATe                FEMA
                                                                                                              REquEST           APPROVAL             APPROVAL
                                                       Small Project Grant (in- lieu Contribution                                    
                                                       Flexible Funding Grant                                    
                                                          Advance of Funds                                       
                                                       Categorical Grant                                         
                                                           Advance     of Funds                                    


                                        41.   Approved by Governor's Authorized Representative


                                               Date Recived                Date Approved)
                                         41    Approved by FEMA

                                               date Received                  (Date Approved
                                        43 Remarks Reference application Part and Item Number as Appropriate. Attach additional sheets when necessary),






















                                                                                  PART II - PROGRAM NARRATIVE
                                                    Attach Damge  Survey reports (FEMA Form 90-052) to document fully and support this application
                                       Fema fOrm 90-4                                                                                    Pop 3 at6


0





                            Figure B.4: FEMA Applicant's Agent Designation Vora



                                                 designation OF ApPlicANT'S AGENT






                  BE IT ResoLVED bY                               OF
                                            Govering Body)                          (Public Entity)

                     THAT
                                 (Name of Incumbent)                            (Offical Position)
                                                                 OR
                                  (Name of incumbent)            Governor's Authorized Representative,
                  is hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of
                                                   , a public entity established under the laws of the State of
                  this application and to file it in the appropriate State office for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal f
                  existence under the Diaster Relief Act (Public Law 288, 93rd Congress) at otherwise available from the President's
                  Diaster Relief fund
                      THAT                                        a public entity established under the laws of the State
                  of                                 hereby authorizes its agent too provide to the State and to the Federal
                  Emergency Managment Agency (FEMA) for all matters pertaining to ouch Federal disaster assistance the assurances
                  and agreements printed on the    side hereof.

                  Passed and approved this                     day of               19_.


                                                          (Name and Title)


                                                          (Name and Title)


                                                          (Name and TWO





                                                        duly appointed and                                Of
                                                                                      (lyric)

                                                        do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a

                  resolution passed and approved by the                       Of
                                                      (Governing Body)               (Public Entity)


                     the                 day of              19.

                  Date:





                         

0




                                  ------ -------


                                                Figure B.5: FEMA Final Inspection  Report form


                                                                                                                                            
                                           FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGemeNT AGENCy                      DeclAraTIOn of number and  DATE
                                          DISASTER RESPONSE AND RECOVErY                                 Application No.            SuPPleMent n0.
                                                FINAL INSPECTION REPORT                                                      
                                                                                                Form Agency and/or Bureau and 1ocation
                                       
                                   TO: FEDErAL EMeRGENCy Management agency region




                                  1.APPLICAMT


                                  2. TYPE OF FUNDING
                                                       CATaGORICAL                  FLeXIbLe                 SMALL. PROJECT GRANT

                                                                                    INSPECTED WORK
                                                DATE         DATE        INSURANCE      APPROVED PA     REPORTEd       Contract    scope of WORK
                                  CAT. ITGM  COMPLETED INSPECTRD        SettLeMentT    COST EstIMATe        COST        forCE ACCT.      Report Changes)






















                                  4. INSPECTOR                                                                                         STATE  FEDERAL
                                                                                                                                      YES No yes No
                                   a. Did you personally inspect each item of completed work? ..................................
                                   b. Did you review and utilize applicable Damage Survey Reports? ...............................
                                   t. Did you review and utilize applicable FEMA Engirring Analysis? .......................
                                   d, Did you review ad utilize applicable Applicant's Documentation? ..............................
                                   e. Did you ever make any prior inspections of any of these work itemd .......................
                                                                                    CERTIFICATION

                                  The above items) in the project application for do category of work shown has ban inspected and certification is hereby made that the
                                  work his been completed as approved therein, except as noted above

                                  FEDERAL INSPECT0R (SIGnATURE AND TITLE) federal  Agency)                                      date)          FeMA REVieW


                                  STATE  INSPECTOR Signature and title sate agency                                       (DATE         INITALS


                                  LOCAL REPRTESENTATIVE (SIGNATURE AND TITLE                                                (DATE)         DATE



                                  HANDBOOK FOR APPLICANTS P. K-1                                                                                                                   


0





                                                    Figure.B.6: FEMA Request for ReiMbursemEnt ForM




                                                                                                          
                                                       REQUEST FOR ADVANCE
                                                                                                                                   
                                                         OR REIMBURSEMENT
                                                                                                  
                                         
                                             Source: FEMA, 1981, Handbook for Applicants, p. I-1











             'agency must submit a request to FEMA's RegionalDirector, via         the  Governor's
             Authorized Representative, within ten days after the Presidential declaration.
             The request takes the form of a resolution by the local governing body (or
             body governing a state agency) accompanied by a statement of why the work
             cannot be conducted with local or state resources. Local government budget
             constraints are not considered a sufficient cause for receiving direct federal
             assistance (FEMA., 1981, Handbook for Applicants, p. 5-1).           FEMA's Regional
             Director will either approve or deny the request or, if 'the         requested work
             falls under the mi.ssion of another 'federal agency,refer the        request to that
             agency.

             At the  same time that local governments ,and state agencies are        applying  for
             federal  disaster assistance, FEMA's Interagency Regional Hazard Mitigation
             Team conducts its analysis of damages in the community, identifies opportunities
             for hazard mitigation, and issues its report recommending certain actions
             for federal, state, and local agencies. Also, under the requirements of Section
             406 of the Federal Disaster Relief Act, the state must evaluate all hazards
             in the state and areas affected by thecurrent disaster,, a     nd p repare a Section
             406 Hazard Mitigation Plan, including specific recommendations for hazard
             mitigation measures.

             If there is no Presidential      declaration, certain types of federal disaster
             assistance are still made available to the community. -The procedures for
             receiving such aid vary, as these programs are administered by separate federal
             agencies. FEKA plays less of a coordinating, function when there is no Presidential
             declaratioon.

             Figure"B.7 illustrates the timetable under which FEMA's disaster assistance
             procedures operate. It includes deadlines for damage surveys, project applica-
             tions, and project completion.






                                   Figure 3.7-. Timing of Federal Disaster Assiatance Activities


           Activity                Days 0       15     30     45              90     105             180             540
                                                                           (3 moo)                 (6 moo)        (18 mos)


           Disaster Event          x

           Preliminary Damage
             Assessment


           Prea. Declaration            x

           Establishment of Field
             Offices & Applicant
             Briefings

           Damage Survey Reports

           Project Applications
             and Approvals*

           Project,Completion.&
             Final Inspection:
               "Emergency" work
               "Permanent" work

           Interagency Reg. Haz.
             Mitigation Team
               Recommendations
               Progress Report

           Section 406 Planning
             Survey
             Plan


           *Thirty-day deadline if only an "emergency" is declared,  not a "major disaster&"
           Adapted from: FEMA, 1981, Flood Hazard Mitigation:    Handbook of Common Procedures,  p. 1-5.








































                                     APPENDIX C

                                       Glossary


















                                             GLOSSARY



           BLL    - Building Limit Line,
           BOCA   - Building Officials Code Administration

           CoBRA  - Coastal Barrier Resources Act

           COE    - U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers

           CZHA   - Coastal Zone Management Act
           DNR    - Department of Natural Resources (State [email protected] Maryland)
           EPA    - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           FEKA   - Federal Emergency Management Agency
           FIRM   - Flood Insurance Rate Map
           FIS    - Flood Insurance Study
           MGS    - Maryland Geological Survey
           MHW    - mean high water

           MLW    - mean low water

           MSL    - Mean Sea  Level

           NFIP   - National  Flood Insurance Program

           NGVD   - National  Geodetic Vertical Datum

           NOAA   - National  Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration
           NOS    - National  Ocean Survey
           WRA    - Water Resources Administration (State of Maryland)







































                                      APPENDIX D


                                Additional Recommendations
                                          and
                                     Research Needs









                                  WORCESTER COUNTY RECOMMENDATIOVS


         1.   The County Commissioners shou-ld adopt a uniform building code to ensure
         that new construction and reconstruction is performed in accordance with currently
         accepted practices, including accepted practices for construction in flood
         prone areas and areas subject to high winds (hurricanes).        It is recommended
         that the County adopt either the Standard Building Code (as used in Ocean
         City) and in most areas south of Maryland, or the BOCA code which is,used
         in most eastern U.S. locations from Virginia and Maryland north.


         2.  The County Commissioners should adopt a stormwater management          ordinance
         as required by the State of Maryland.


         3. The current zoning map should be reviewed for conformance with the Worcester
         County Comprehensive Plan, especially with regard to zoning of land fronting
         on the various bays.     The Comprehensive Plan (1976) recommends that almost
         all of the bayfront property be zoned for "Conservation", with very limited
         development. The existing zoning map has a much greater portion of the bayfront
         property zoned for various residential and commercial uses than is recommended
         in the Comprehensive Plan. To the extent possible (areas that are not already
         developed), zoning of bayfront areas should be "Conservation" as recommended
         in the Comprehensive Plan.


         4. The County Commissioners should enact a setback from tidal (and freshwater)
         wetlands.    Construction  and other 'activities should be permitted within an
         established setback zone  only if there will be no adverse impact on the wetlands
         and if the use is necessary for access to the waterfront.        Such a provision
         should reduce the practice of development directly on the bayfront and construction
                                                                    y
         of bulkheads that alter the natural land/water interface.


         5. Worcester County should join with Ocean City in the   development of a detailed
         emergency preparedness plan, including evaluation of existing evacuation.routes,
         emergency evacuation procedures, and provision of emergency shelters for both
         area residents and transients.










                             WATERSHED MANAGEMENT STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS


           1.  An existing land use map should be prepared, based on the most recent
           available aerial photographs, with a windshield survey ground check. A suitable
           minimum area of land use category Ael ineatiou should be established, i.e. 5

           acres.



           2. Study area boundaries  should be identified and mapped, including an accurate
           delineation of watershed  boundaries on the north, west, and south extent of
           the study area (including drainage areas that extend into Delaware).


           3. Erosion and Flood control structures along the bays:
               a.   Inventory, map and describe bhe existing, major bulkheads, canals
                    and other structures, including approximate date of construction,
                    methods of construction.maintenance, current conditions.
               b..  Ev auate the existing condition of these structures, their ability
                    to withstand a major storm, their effectiveness in preventing erosion
                    and flooding, estimated future life, and recommended maintenance proce-

                    dures.



           4.  Review activities in the State of Delaware immediately adjacent to the
               study area boundaries and within watersheds draining to the study area
               that may impact the study areas, 'inlcuding structural and nonstructural
               measures affecting floodplain management.'


           5.  Emergency Preparedness
               a.   Transportation Routes
                      Identify sections of main transportation (evacuation) routes that
                    are likely to be flooded at different times during a major storm (within
                    limits possible without development of a SLOSH model).
                      Determine. the traffic carrying capacity of the existing evacuation

                    routes.
                      Identify roads or sections of roads that are inadequate to meet

                    evacuation needs
                      Identify alternatives for resolving identified problems with emergency
                    evacuation routes



















                                    SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH NEEDS



            Land use control changes that have been recommended in this planning
            study are directly related to changes that occur to the natu   ral and
            built environments as a result of coastal storms or longer term c   oastal
            processes. The nonstructural response to increased flood hazard
            vulnerability must-be based on the knowledge of these physical changes
            and that knowledge can only be gained through timely and adequate
            monitoring of these changes.    Over a five year period or after a storm
            event, the changes in nearshore slope, beach and dunes can be documented
            and used to justify changes in land use.


            Knowledge of additional geoloic and hydrographic conditions are
            important in predicting changes that may occur in the long-term future.
            Such conditions do not change readily enough to monitor and cannot be
            used to base changes in specific land use controls.     The following list
            is a set of recommendations for obtaining,continued    and new scientif ic
            data.  In general, the work is recommended to begin    in 19.85 and continue
            on a five-year basis.   Any new or original data should be colleted

            before 1985.



            1. Determine the position of 'the MHW contour -10 foot contour and -20
               foot contour in 1985 with respect to their position in 1965.     This
               information will provide an update of the changes in nearshore slope
               and whether further steepening has occurrd which pl  aces the barrier

               in a more vulnerable situation.



            2. Determine the change in position of Mean High Water with respect to
               the Building Limit Line (BLL) on a five-year basis or after a storm

               occurs.















             3. Establish a beach profile monitoring program and maintain an under-
                standing of volumetric changes on an annual basis.


             4. Determine flood hazard zones like that predicted in the 1983 Flood
                insurance Study on a five-year basis or after a storm occurs.


             5. Determine flood hazard zones along the bay shoreline of Ocean  City
                presuming that equal forces of a storm will be generated from  the,
                northwest after the storm center has passed northward.


             6 Determine the three-dimensional stra.tigraphy of the barrier. This
                would aid in the prediction of long-term shoreline dynamics and

                coastal flood hazards.



             7. Determine realistic sea  level risevalues  for the Ocean City/

                Worcester County area.

























       I




                              I



















                                     I







                                                @ @.-
                                     11 366 Ml 0076
                                     1



How much is flood insurance in Maryland?

Is Ocean City MD in a flood zone?

Does Maryland have flood insurance?

Do I need flood insurance in my area?