Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program

Home    BBNEP Info    Town Information    Pollution    Living Resources    Watershed Info    Enjoy Buzzards Bay    Technical Info    Special Topics

Home  >   Management Solutions  >   New Management Plan   >   Shifting Shorelines Action Plan

Draft Action Plan 20:
Planning For A Shifting Shoreline and Coastal Storms

About the new Buzzards Bay CCMP Action Plans
The Buzzards Bay NEP is now updating our 1992 landmark Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) to reflect the great progress achieved since that plan was finalized. It will include new goals, objectives, and recommendations to meet the environmental needs for Buzzards Bay and its surrounding watershed throughout the next decade. This new document will also meet the requirements for a Massachusetts Watershed Action Plan, which will enable new funding opportunities through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

On this page is a draft action plan from the updated Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. The text on this page is a public draft provided to invite comment and discussion of the subject by residents and stakeholders. It may contain goals and recommendations that have not yet been endorsed or approved by the Buzzards Bay Steering Committee. The views or information contained here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the US Environmental Protection Agency.

We want your feedback on this action plan. First, please read the entire action plan Planning For A Shifting Shoreline and Coastal Storms. Then at the bottom of this page click the "rate this action plan" button to provide comments on each goal, objective and recommendation contained in this Action Plan. Based on your feedback, we will update and revise all the action plans in the new CCMP.

Action Plan 20: Planning For A Shifting Shoreline and Coastal Storms

January 15, 2010 draft

Goals

Goal 20.1. Protect public health and safety from problems associated with coastal hazards including rising sea level, shifting shorelines, and damage from storms and storm surge.

Goal 20.2. Reduce the public financial burden caused by the destruction of or damage to coastal property.

Goal 20.3. Plan for shifting shorelines and the inland migration of buffering wetlands and shifting sand formations, and the species that utilize these habitats.

Objectives

Objective 1. To incorporate sea level rise, increased frequency and intensity of coastal flooding, and shoreline change phenomena into all relevant planning and management programs.

Objective 2. To develop a comprehensive strategy for handling existing structures in areas that will be affected by future shoreline changes and other coastal hazards.

Objective 3. To adopt regulatory and nonregulatory measures for guiding growth and development in areas that will be influenced by coastal flooding and new shorelines.

Objective 4. To restructure the flood and hazard insurance programs in threatened areas to decrease the financial burden on the public.

Objective 5. To adopt emergency response plans to reflect additional needs and constraints caused by reduced access and increased flooding potential of developed coastlines.

Recommendations

Recommendation 20.1. DEP shall amend its wetlands regulations for the resource area "Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage" (100 year floodplain) to include performance standards to create a seawall exclusion area 1 vertical foot above the upper salt marsh boundaries.

Explanation: This would allow salt marsh migration for at least the next 5o years.. Priority: Medium. Responsible agent(s): DEP. Commitments: None. Legislation required: None. Estimated costs: Negligible use of existing website management staff Potential funding: Implementation strategy: amend regulations Measuring success: adoption of new regulations. Schedule: Post draft in 6 months, finalize in 1 year. (undertaken with other changes in the regulations) Comments: None.

Recommendation 20.2. CZM will prepare a Coastal Hazards Characterization Atlas for Buzzards Bay to assist area planning boards, conservation commissions and other relevant local boards to create plans and regulations to better plan develop in coastal areas prone to storm damage and shifting shorelines.

Explanation: Municipalities need such reports to help justify changes in zoning and general bylaws, and to develop and update local land use plans. Priority: Medium. Responsible agent(s): CZM. Commitments: None. Legislation required: None. Estimated costs: cost of additional staff, $100k Potential funding: federal grant or state budget Implementation strategy: prepare atlas Measuring success: Complete atlas. Schedule: Draft in 1 year, finalize in year Comments: None.

Recommendation 20.3. CZM and USGS will develop a Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Map for each coastal municipality using a standardize methodology. This map series should include scenarios of sea level rise and storm surge.

Explanation: [needs text]. Priority: Medium. Responsible agent(s): CZM and USGS Commitments: None. Legislation required: None. Estimated costs: $300,000 onetime cost Potential funding: Implementation strategy: prepare document, amend with comments Measuring success: completion of document. Schedule: Post draft in 18 months, finalize in 2 years. Comments: None.

Recommendation 20.4. The Federal Emergency Management Agency will update and maintain Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Buzzards Bay and incorporate sitespecific assessment for priority areas.

Explanation: While it is true that FEMA has updated FIRMS for Bristol County in 2009, and will complete Barnstable County in 2010, they still have not incorporated LIDAR data and other relevant information into these maps. Priority: Medium. Responsible agent(s): FEMA Commitments: None. Legislation required: None. Estimated costs: $1,000,000 onetime cost Potential funding: federal government, FEMA budget Implementation strategy: prepare maps Measuring success: completion of maps. Schedule: complete in 3 years. Comments: None.

Recommendation 20.5. MassGIS, with support from CZM, should create and maintain an online portal to resources, websites, and data sharing systems that distribute coastal hazards information including data and tools.

Explanation: CZM and MassGIS has already established the OLIVER system, and this recommendation is under review to determine if this recommendation has been met.. Priority: Medium. Responsible agent(s): MassGIS, MCZM. Commitments: None. Legislation required: None. Estimated costs: Negligible use of existing website management staff Potential funding: NA. Implementation strategy: amend website Measuring success: finalization of portal. Schedule: Incorporate within Oliver within years Comments: None.

Recommendation 20.6. EEA should evaluate the distribution of coastal hazards and emergency management information to coastal municipalities to ensure that the public is kept informed with up to date and accurate hazard information and actions government officials are requesting the public to take.

Explanation: FEMA already publishes information on the number of claims filed and paid in each municipality, but maps of claim locations or recurring damage to public structures would help justify local measures to manage growth in hazard prone areas.. Priority: Low Responsible agent(s): EEA Commitments: None. Legislation required: None. Estimated costs: $80,000 onetime contractual service to undertake evaluation. Implementation strategy: hire contractor to complete report Measuring success: adoption of new regulations. Schedule: Complete after other coastal hazard reports and ocean plan are complete, about 2011 Comments: None.

Recommendation 20.7. EEA should revise and promote policies, regulations, and take actions to promote sand nourishment as the preferred alternative for eroding and shifting shorelines.

Explanation: Most federal and local dredging projects still have the largest fraction of dredged materials disposed at sea. Priority: Low Responsible agent(s): EEA, MEPA, CZM Commitments: None. Legislation required: None. Estimated costs: Nil, incorporate in planned future outreach materials Potential funding: Implementation strategy: adoption of policies Measuring success: difficult to measure. Schedule: 2011 Comments: Compliments CZM's beneficial use of dredge materials policies

Recommendation 20.8. EEA should develop a standardized BenefitCost Analysis model that fully compares the capital, societal, and natural resource benefits and costs of proposed shoreline protection projects and appropriate alternatives

Explanation: The hidden extra costs of government (and taxpayers) to provide services to development in hazardprone areas is not fully appreciated and needs to be explained.. Priority: Low Responsible agent(s): EEA. Commitments: None. Legislation required: None. Estimated costs: $80,000 for contractual services Potential funding: Capital accounts Implementation strategy: hire a contractor to complete report Measuring success: completion of a report Schedule: 2012 Comments: None.

Recommendation 20.9. After catastrophic storms, the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Conservation and Recreation should acquire storm prone properties from willing sellers in fee or through conservation restrictions and easements. This is accomplished by revising current criteria in agency policy (or state regulations) to promote coastal land acquisition, and utilizing federal incentive grant programs.

Explanation: FEMA has a program in place, but state agencies and municipalities must apply. Priority: Medium. Responsible agent(s): DWFLE, DCR. Commitments: None. Legislation required: None. Estimated costs Iintermittent expenditures after storm, and probably tens of millions just for Buzzards bay Potential funding: FEMA programs Implementation strategy: participate in applicable federal programs Measuring success: property acquired. Schedule: As needed after storms Comments: None.

Recommendation 20.10. The Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Office of Coastal Zone Management, along with other appropriate planning agencies, should continue to encourage coastal communities to develop, update, and implement coastal hazard mitigation plans.

Explanation: Few Massachusetts communities, and none in Buzzards Bay have these in place. Priority: Medium. Responsible agent(s): Municipalities. EEA can provide technical assitance, and possibly the legislature could help by funding. Commitments: None. Legislation required: None. Estimated costs: Negligible use of existing staff for the state; cost to towns up to $100,000 each Potential funding: Implementation strategy: could be accomplished by law as a requirement for communities Measuring success: town completion of hazard mitigation plans. Schedule: Policy or law by 2012, towns complete by 2015. Comments: None.

Recommendation 20.11. Municipal Planning Boards will adopt and implement strict development/redevelopment standards within FEMA A and V flood hazard zones and other areas subject to coastal flooding, erosion, and relative sea level rise.

Explanation: For example, the Marion subdivision regulations prevent new subdivisions in the flood zone. Broader zoning measures will require town meeting approval. Priority: Medium. Responsible agent(s): Planning boards, possible supporting legislation by Town Meeting. Commitments: None. Legislation required: None. Estimated costs: Negligible Potential funding: Implementation strategy: Measuring success: hard to measure. Schedule: Within three years. Comments: None.

Recommendation 20.12. Through municipal; zoning and local wetland bylaws, Buzzards Bay municipalities should establish coastal construction setbacks and regulate construction activities more stringently for areas predicted to be subject to sealevel rise, erosion, or flooding. In particular, these regulations should prohibit the construction of seawalls, revetments, and groins to allow wetland and natural sediment migration processes.

Explanation: Priorities should be set focusing first on the velocity zone and faster eroding coasts. Priority: Medium. Responsible agent(s): Municipal boards and town meeting Commitments: None. Legislation required: any necessary town bylaws. Estimated costs: Negligible to pass laws and regulations Potential funding: Implementation strategy: Passage of local laws and bylaws Measuring success: adoption of new laws or regulations Schedule: Within three years.. Comments: None.

Recommendation 20.13. Municipalities should acquire storm prone properties through Community Preservation Act funding.

Explanation: [needs text]. Priority: Medium. Responsible agent(s): Municipal CPC. Commitments: None. Legislation required: None. Estimated costs: potentially millions Potential funding: existing local CPA funds Implementation strategy: purchase in fee or conservation restrictions Measuring success: property acquisition. Schedule: gradual; depending on willing buyers Comments: Hazard prone properties tend to be very expensive waterfront properties, so local interest and capacity will be low.

Recommendation 20.14. The Board of Building Regulations and Standards should update the State Building Code requirements for coastal construction to include freeboard requirements and other measures, and also encourage collaboration between Building Inspectors and Conservation Commissions

Explanation: Municipalities are not allowed to create local building codes. These policies and requirements must be set at the state level. Priority: Medium. Responsible agent(s): BBRS. Commitments: Already committed to (freeboard). Legislation required: None. Estimated costs: negligible to adopt regulations Potential funding: Implementation strategy: issue draft regulations for comment then finalize Measuring success: adoption of new regulations. Schedule: gradual; already complete? Comments: None.

Recommendation 20.15. Municipalities should prepare and distribute outreach materials encouraging the voluntary adoption of freeboard for new and major reconstruction.

Explanation: Property owners may incorporate freeboard if they recognize the savings in insurance costs. Priority: High. Responsible agent(s): Municipal Building Departments. Commitments: to (freeboard). Legislation required: None. Estimated costs: less than $1000 per community Potential funding: Implementation strategy: brochure handed out at permit window, information on website. Measuring success: production of outreach materials; increased construction employing freeboard. Schedule: gradual; begin within 1 years Comments: None.

Recommendation 20.16. All municipalities should adopt and keep up to date their hazard mitigation plan, and participate in Community Rating System.

Explanation: CRS not only benefits communities by focusing their planning efforts, and minimizing public stormrelated expenses, but also can result in low insurance premiums for residents. Priority: High. Responsible agent(s): Municipal Hazard mitigation coordinator; some assistance from RPAs and MCZM Commitments: RPAs and CZM committed .to assist them but municipalities must provide staffing and funds for plan development and annual CRS reporting requirement. Legislation required: None. Estimated costs: costs of plan development, cost of staff (parttime of existing position?) to track and implement CRS activities Potential funding: state, RPA, FEMA Implementation strategy: RPAs and CZM assist the towns to first adopt a hazard mitigation plan. Measuring success: adoption of new regulations. Schedule: over the next 5 years, all communities should adopt CRS. Comments: None.

Recommendation 20.17. CZM should help implement a program of regional sand management through adoption of state policies, regulations, and activities that promote nourishment as the preferred alternative for coastal hazard protection and requiring beneficial uses of dredged materials, with limited waiver ability from the requirement.

Explanation: Municipalities should consider beneficial uses of dredge materials, even beyond their political boundaries. Priority: High. Responsible agent(s): MCZM with cooperation from ACOE. Commitments: Legislation required: Estimated costs: Potential funding: Implementation strategy: Measuring success: Schedule Comments: Develop a process using existing or newly enacted policies and/or regulations, which (1) improves coordination between the USACE, state agencies, and municipalities, (2) identifies costshare funds, and (3) achieves permit requirements in a timely manner, so as to ensure that all dredged material suitable for beach nourishment will be placed on adjacent or nearby eroding public beaches.

Recommendation 20.18. CZM and DEP should develop a guidance document or revise the Wetland Protection Act regulations to incorporate best management practices or performance standards for Land subject to coastal storm flowage.

Explanation: The state's WPA regulation have long lacked clear performance standards for LSCSF. Priority: Responsible agent(s): Mass DEP with CZM participation Legislation required: Estimated costs: Potential funding: Implementation strategy: Measuring success: Schedule: Comments:

Recommendation 20.19. CZM shall conduct a regional sand management study that identifies (1) critically eroding public beaches where access is open to the public, (2) areas most vulnerable to coastal hazards, and (3) potential regional nourishment methodology and costs.

Explanation: CZM will need to update and finalize existing draft document entitled Assessing Potential Environmental Impacts of Offshore Sand and Gravel Mining for the Purposes of Beach Nourishment to include contemporary state of knowledge regarding the potential short and longterm physical and biological impacts associated with offshore sediment removal Priority: Low Responsible agent(s): CZM Legislation required Estimated costs: Potential funding: NOAA Coastal Zone Enhancement (Section 309) Grant Implementation strategy: Measuring success: Schedule:

To fully understand the basis of these goals and recommendations, please read the complete Planning for a Shifting Shoreline Action Plan (1/14/2010 draft, pdf file).

Feedback Form

---