Loading...
A Plan for Flood Plain Management 7/1979 CT and MillA PLAN FOR FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT The Mill and Connecticut River Flood Plains - Northampton; Ma. June, 1979 Prepared By: The.Community Resources Group Cambridge, Mass. assisted by: Horne -Ward Associates and The Institute of Public Administration. For New .England Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waltham, Massachusetts ri INTRODUCTION PART I - NORTHAMPTON OVERVIEW Chapter 1: Background and Trends Chapter 2. Local Land Use Issues PART II - ANALYSIS OF MANAGEPWNT ISSUES Chapter 3: Chapter 4: Chapter 5: PART III - Chapter 6: Chapter 7: Chapter 8: APPENDIX Introduction to- Piood_.Plain Management Techniques Northampton Policies and Programs Local Attitudes on Flood Plain Management FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Costs and Benefits: Description Costs and Benefits: Findings Alternative Management Strategies A. Existing Land Use Maps TABLE OF CONTENTS B. Planning and Management Lccation Map C. Local Attitudes Survey Instrument D. Local Agencies Survey Thstrumer_t E. A History of Flooding in.?Northampton Page Number 2 -1 3 -1 4 -1 5 -1 INTRODUCTION This report, analyzing the Mill River and Connecticut River flood plains in Northampton, Massachusetts, is a component of the Connecticut River Basin Flood Plain Management Study, authorized by Congress in the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. The Act of 1965, gave direction to the study of the Connecticut River basin by authorizing the development of a comprehensive management plan. Additional authorization and guidance for this study is given in Section 73 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 which emphasized the consideration of nonstructural alternatives to prevent or reduce flood damages. The main objectives of this report are: (1) To supplement existing information which would enable the New England Division of the Army Corps of Engineers (NEDCE) to further define flood plain associated issues in Northampton. This would, by extension, assist the NEDCE in refining their role in basin -wide flood plain management. (2) To analyze and develop relevant information, including the costs and benefits associated with nonstructural flood plain manage- ment techniques, which would facilitate local decision - making in the flood plain planning process. (3) To recommend alternative flood plain management strategies for Northampton which address both local and regional objectives. Most of the analysis for this report was developed in the spring and summer of 1978. Organization of the Report This report has been divided into three major parts. Part I, Northampton Overview, is a general description of the town of Northampton, and is sub- divided into two chapters. Chapter 1, "Background and Trends," presents the context of this study by giving a description of town and regional characteristics, and an historical sketch of significant floods. Chapter 2, "Flood Plain Land Use Issues," presents the nature of the problem in Northampton's flood plain; it is a discussion of specific instances where flood plain management techniques need to be applied. A set of existing flood plain land use maps is included in Chapter 2, to illustrate the areas of concern. U. Part II, Analysis of Management Issues, contains three chapters. Chapter 3,• "Flood Plain Management Techniques," introduces the range of nonstructural techniques under consideration for application in Northampton. Chapter 4, "Northampton Policies and Programs," describes existing flood plain management techniques in Northampton. Chapter 5, "Local Attitudes on Flood Plain Management," examines the perceptions of Northampton residents, business people, and local officials and administrators. Part III, Findings and Recommendations, begins with Chapter 6, in ' which the costs and benefits associated with flood plain management • -- techniques are - described.- -In- Chapter 3, these costs and benefits are analyzed, resulting in a set of .recommendations and implications for flood plain management in Northampton. In Chapter 8, "Alternative Land Use Strategies," two • sets of land use plans are 'presented: one set is concerned only with reduction of flood damage; the other set considers a more comprehensive combination of planning objectives. A summary of the major findings and recommendations of this study is presented in Chapter 9; PART I - NORTHAMPTON OVERVIEW CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND TRENDS The use of land in a community is influenced by a variety of factors. Typically, growth is determined by geographic location, physical and topographic features, existing settlment patterns, and demographic /economic factors. This chapter, which is divided into two sections, discusses issues of community development in Northampton. The first section is a descriptive overview of Northampton community characteristics. The second section analyzes local trends and problems associated with growth. Location The City of Northampton is located in Hampshire County in west - central Massachusetts and is about 90 miles to the west of Boston. The city limits define a land area of almost 35 square miles. The Connecticut River flood plain covers a large percentage of the city's eastern section while the western section lies in the foot hills of the Berkshire Mountains. Land elevations range from 100 feet (above m.s.1.) in the Connecticut River flood plain to 800 feet in the city's hillier sections to the west. The two major rivers in Northampton, the subjects of this study, are the Connecticut River and the Mill River. Soils in the east and. southeast sections of the city are deep alluvial soils highly suitable for agricultural uses. Shallow soils and steep slopes in the northwest and west sections of the city constrain agricultural practices. In general, with the exception of the flood plain areas, the areas suitable for agriculture are also highly suitable for residential uses. Population In 1970, Northampton had a total population of 29,664 and a resident population of 24,145. The city has experienced a small amount of population growth (2 %) since that time; the 1975 census showed 30,146 inhabitants. The proportion of Northampton residents in the 0 -25 year -old age group has decreased relative to those in. the 25 years and older age group due to increasing out - migration of the younger age groups and a reduction of the birth rater This pattern is consistent with the regional population trend. A significant portion of Northampton's total population is its institutional population of 5,519 (1970) . Smith College, Smith College Campus School, Smith's Vocational School, the Clarke School for Deaf, Northampton State Hospital, the VA Hospital, Cooley Dickinson Hospital and the Hampshire County Sanatarium are the major institutions which house this population - nearly 20% of the total population.` 1 - According to local officials, expansion of the institutional sector, particularly the educational community, is likely in the future and could result in increases in the resident, as well as the institutional population. Housing In 1970, Northampton had 5,674 residential structures and a total of 8,940 dwelling units. Nearly 76% of all residential structures and over 48% of all dwelling units were single - family. 1,766 units were in 883 two - family structures and 2,847 dwelling units were contained in multi - family (3 units or more)structures. In 1970, only 1.8% of all units were vacant and available for occupancy. Of the occupied units, 57% were owner - occupied and 43% were rented. A large percentage, over 70% of all structures,were built before 1940. 17% of all structures have been evaluated .as being in less - than- standard condition; that is, having moderate to critical defects. An investigation into the number of building permits issues in and before 1970 indicated that new housing construction has fluctuated a great deal but an overall upward trent exists. Most new construction is of single - family homes. Economy Northampton is primarily a residential and service industry city. In 1974, 576 firms reported to the Massachusetts Division of Employ- ment Security and were covered by State - Federal Unemployment Compen- sation Program. These firms employed 9,789 persons and had an annual payroll of almost $73.5 million. Service industry was the largest employment type with nearly 35% of the average number of employees and 34% of the total annual payroll in Northampton. Service industry employment has increased 365% from 1968 to 1974. Second in importance was wholesale and retail trade and third was manufacturing. This ranking indicates an important change from historical economic data (see Table 1 ) . Historically, and as recently as 1968, manufacturing was the major employer in Northampton. In 1968, manufacturing accounted for 45.7% of the employment positions in town; in 1974 that percentage was reduced to 23.7 %; and total employment dropped 37 %. These figures reflect the fact that the long -term historical presence of factories has been significantly diminished throughout Northampton and particularly along the Mill River. The dramatic increase in service industry employment has been attributed to increased hospital staffing and office activity at the institutional (i.e., college) level. 1 -2 T J •Table 1 Changes in Covered Employment 1968 -1974 Percent Number of Employees Change Economic Sector 1968 Ranking 1974 Ranking 1968 - 1974 Agriculture & Mining 37 • 7 48 7 +30 Construction 422 5 • .313 6 -26 Manufacturing 3650 1 2316 3 - 37. Transportation, , Communication,Utilities 543 4 396 4 -27 Wholesale & Retail Trade 2332 2 2989 2 +28 Finance, Insurance & . Real Estate 269 6 324 5 ' +20 Services 732 3 3403 1 +365 TOTAL 7,985 9,789 +23 1 -3 Land Use Analysis In order to design an appropriate land management system for the flood plain it is important to first understand Northampton's land use dynamics and the types of growth demands it may expect in the near future. Existing Conditions In general, urban development in Northampton including housing, commercial and industrial uses, lies in the area between the Mill River and Interstate 91, extending north to Florence and south to the Manhan Meadows. Recent trends have tended to in -fill the existing land use pattern in this area rather than developing scattered urban pockets. Scattered rural housing and open space lie to the north of Florence and to the west of the Mill River, while agriculture is the primary land use in Manhan Meadows to the east of Interstate 91. The following table from Northampton's 1970 Comprehensive Plan summarizes land uses as follows: Use Percent of Percent Acres developed of total Developed land Single- family 1,680 27.0 7.36 Two - family 170 2.7 0.74 Multifamily 90 1.4 0.39 Apartments 10 0.2 0.04 Other Residential 110 1.8 0.48 Commercial 220 3.5 0.96 Wholesale, Warehouse, and Storage 80 1.3 0.35 Manufacturing 160 2.6 0.70 Nonmanufacturing Industrial 420 6.8 1.84 Roads .1,160 18.7 5.08 Extractive 230 3.7 1.01 Public and Quasi - public Buildings 570 9.2 2.50 Public and Quasi- public Open Space 1,310 21.1 5.74 Subtotal - Developed 6,210 100.0 27.20 Undeveloped land Agriculturc 5,590 24.48 Water 634 2.78 Vacant 10,400 45.55 Subtotal - Undeveloped 16,624 72.80 Total 22,834 100.00 Source: Measurements from the existing land use map. 1-4 Agriculture Since Northampton has had no update of this 1970 land use study, we must rely on these figures as the basis for this discussion. Given Northampton's moderate growth rate over the past eight years, we would expect only minor changes in these land use figures. According to the above table, in 1970 over 700 of the land within Northampton's corporate limits was still undeveloped, the majority of • which is, unimproved vacant property. Approximately one third of the undeveloped land is improved agricultural property. Of the reported 5,590 acres of agricultural land in Northampton approximately 2,000 acres are found within the Connecticut River flood plain. The remaining 3,500 acres are generally located west of the Mill River but are in scattered parcels as opposed to the contiguous parcels in the Connecticut River flood plain. Presently three main factors give stability to agricultural property in Northampton: 1. Farming in Northampton's fertile soils is still a profitable operation. 2. The lack of public iwprovements such as paved roads, sewers, and water in agricultural areas limits the attractiveness for development. 3. Because of its relative isolation from the city's present urban development, agricultural property has little, if any, development pressure. Commercial Commercial interests within Northampton are concentrated in four major areas: 1. Central Business District - the major commercial area including all the business on Main Street from State Street to the Boston and Maine railroad tracks; and on King /Pleasant Street from the New York, New Haven railroad tracks to Allen Street. Although the CBD has recently received an increase in competition from commercial areas elsewhere in Northampton and from adjacent communities, Northampton's -CBD still represents the retail focus in the community. 2. Green Street - a small group of speciality stores catering to the Smith College market. 3. Florence - the largest neighborhood shopping area which supplements the CBD with limited service and retail establishments. Due to its smaller size and proximity to the CBD, the Florence shopping area offers no real competition, but_is being oriented toward convenience shopping. 4. King Street - North King Street - located directly north of the CBD has recently developed into a strip commercial area with several small shopping centers. A major commercially zoned spine follows Route 5 north from the CBD to the King Street - North King Street business area. The added commercial growth pressure in this area likely to result from the new industrial park location, and the current development in- filling trend along Route 5, could transform this strip into a major commercial growth area. The Florence business district will probably grow at a rate similar to the neighborhood it serves. Green Street commerce with its mixture of women's apparel, book and stationery stores, has probably reached a saturation point since its market is fairly well defined and constant. Industrial As noted in the preceding section, industrial development in Northampton was in large part responsible for the city's growth in the early 1800's. By 1850 there were as many as 74 mills along the Mill River. This industry formed the basis for numerous support facilities, from housing to retail goods. Today, industry still plays an important role in Northampton's economy, although it is no longer the city's dominant force. Current in- dustrial growth has concentrated in the following major locations. Northampton Industrial Park - an area recently developed by the Redevelopment Authority is intended to attract new industry to Northampton. This industrial park is located north of the CBD between Interstate 91 and Route 5. The majority of property is already sold and several buildings have been erected. Florence - a single industrial concern, Pro Brush, forms the. backbone of this large complex along the Mill River. Recent expansion suggests that the firm has no immediate plans for relocating. Although additional property exists for industrial expansion in this area, the lack of rail service may make the industrial park site or the Easthampton Road area more attractive for certain users, Easthampton Road - while little industrial development currently exists in this area, the city has indicated its desire that Easthampton Road become the site for future industrial growth. Although rail access passes through this district, highway access to Interstate 91 is not direct. This factor may limit the development potential for Easthampton Road until the more attractive sites in the industiral park are no longer available. 1 -6 r In addition to the previous major industrial locations, Leeds is the site of several industrial operations. Little industrial growth is expected to occur in the area due to the lack of rail and highway access. Other industrial locations do exist in Northampton but they are scattered and probably do not represent significant future trends. The Redevelopment Authority will continue to promote the industrial park as the primary growth area. At ,this point, the Redevelopment Authority has no specific plans for an additional industrial park site. This seems to indicate a fairly conservative attitude about industrial development potential in Northampton. Residential. As the land use table indicates, over 8.5% of all land and 33% of all developed land is in some type of residential use. Much of the undeveloped land, 45.5% of the total land area, is currently zoned for some type of residential use, allowing greater locational flexi- bility for residential units than for other structures. Constraints on construction, generally, are terrain and soil quality. At present, the greatest concentrations of residential development are• (1) the villages of Florence and Leeds; (2) the area surrounding Prospect and Elm Streets near Smith College; (3) along Smith Street in the southeast quadrant of the city; and (4) in the southwest quadrant in a suburban area bounded by Ryan Road, Florence Road and Burt.'s Pit Road. The most likely area for future housing development, other than in scattered pockets, appears to be the southwest quadrant, particularly the triangle formed by the three roads mentioned above. Facts which . support this forecast are: the existing market demand for suburban housing: relatively easy access to the urban core provided by Ryan and Burt's Pit Roads; and the general suitability of soil and terrain -for large scale development in this area. The demand for multi -unit housing in the neighborhoods surrounding Smith College and other educational institutions may induce in -fill development in these areas. At this time, there is little concentrated housing development in the flood plain and little demand for residential development there. Institutional Institutions - government buildings, colleges, schools and hospitals - occupy 9.2% of the developed land area and 2.5% of total land area. A few institutions - Smith College, Northampton State Hospital and a junior college are within one half mile of each other, adjacent to the Mill River in southeast - central Northampton. The Veteran's Administration Hospital, Cooley Dickinson Hospital and Smith College have recently expanded. Major institutional relocation into or out of Northampton has not occurred recently. Potential, new institutional sites are (1) in the southwest quadrant where residential development is also possible and (2) the Laurel Park area where suitable land is available close to existing educa- tional institutions. Recreation and Open Space The City of Northampton has a total of 14 playgrounds for tots to 12- year -olds, 10 playfields, with structured facilities, and 7 small and large parks. Private institutions contribute additional significant recreation and open space to the community. Total public and quasi - public open space is 5.7% of the community's total land area, or approximately 1,265 acres. A detailed inventory of existing facilities, an assessment of needs and potentials based on that inventory, and a ten -year action plan were developed by the Northampton Recreation Commission in 1974. In summary, the major recommendations for action related to the use of land were: (1) 7 new playgrounds should be developed at separate sites (2) 5 new playgrounds should be developed at schools or larger recreation areas (3) new playfields should be developed at 4 existing schools, 4 new schools and 2 other sites (4) tennis courts should be constructed at 5 locations and an ice rink should be constructed, preferably in the downtown area (5) 7 new mini -parks should be established in built -up areas (6) recreation areas should be developed at Leeds Reservoir and on Burt's Pit Road (7) several other nature parks should be established, as well as a Mill River Open Space system and Connecticut River Conservation Area. 1- a Of high priority among these recommendations.are the Mill River Open Space System,(as the name suggests, it is a planned green way along the Mill River) and the Connecticut River Conservation Area. Other recommended priority facilities and open space areas are planned to be built in the near future; most of the public facilities were. planned to be along the spine defined by North and South Main Streets and Elm Street - generally in the most densely settled areas of Northampton. 4 CHAPTER 2 LOCAL LAND USE ISSUES Over the next several decades, the City of Northampton, due to its proximity to the Connecticut and Mill Rivers, will be forced to make some important decisions concerning future growth demands with- in flood prone areas. In contrast to some other cities along the Connecticut River such as Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT, Northampton currently has little development within its two major floodplains. However, as Northampton continues to grow, large tracts of undeveloped flood plain land may become attractive building sites. In anticipa- tion of this trend, Northampton has already taken some relatively de- cisive actions. The city seems committed to keeping as much flood plain land as possible in agricultural or open space use. For the most part this objective has met little resistance. The majority of land in the Connecticut River flood plain was recently rezoned into a special conservancy zone(SC). This zone allows only agricultural uses by right and, with special provisions, only a few structural uses. Since the Mill River flood plain is now developed, it required a different type of zoning controJ. The city created a Watershed Protection District (WPD) overlay which maintains the existing zone but adds a set of floodproofing requirements for future site develop- ment. For those areas in the Connecticut River flood plain that are already developed, the WPD provided a mechanism for controlling future growth. Both the WPD and the SC zone have not only provided the City with a reasonable means for protecting the flood plain from future intensive development but also a means for floodproofing what little development does occur. Protecting the existing buildings that lie in the flood plain has yet to be addressed by the city administration. There are several major issues concerning existing uses which will now be discussed. Island Road Residential Area The City's primary concern is the welfare of the residents, given the high flooding potential of this area. In addition, in the event of a major flood, evacuation would be hampered since Route 5, (the only access road) floods before the residential area. 2 -1 LJ Damon Road Residential Area Even though this residential area is above the 100 year flood stage, property owners are illegally dumping fill into the flood plain at the rear of this property. River Bank Road - Residential Area According to the Corps of Engineers flood plain work maps, several residences along River Bank Road lie in the 100 year Connecticut River flood plain. - Main Street - Residential Area (Leeds) A group of houses along the Mill River lie in an area that is potentially prone to stream bank overtopping. . Tri -City Container Corporation The City finds itself in a difficult position on this issue,. Tri -City Container is located in a highly flood prone area, with adjacent land for expansion. The City has placed this adjacent property in the WPD overlay which would require substantial cost increases for Tri -City to develop its property. A conflict also exists because some city officials feel that major operations, such as Tri -City, that are located in highly flood prone areas should be persuaded to relocate elsewhere in Northampton.' At the same time, city officials are afraid thattoo much pressure, both regulatory and social, will only drive: these business interests out of Northampton. The City would be greatly impacted by such a move. Pro Brush Pro Brush is located on the Mill River; one of its buildings sits close to the water. The City is particularly concerned about the potential for damage to this structure from ice jams. Again the City is worried about applying too many regulations that might effectively limit industrial expansion, thus pushing industry.out of town. Since Pro Brush employs approximately 650 people, reloca- tion out of Northampton would have a significant effect on Northampton's economy. Three County Fair The City is facing the problem of how to apply WPD regulations to the fairgounds expansion plans. The officials representing the Fair feel that "dry floodproofing" auxiliary fairgrounds buildings is unnecessary and too costly. This WPD floodproofing regulation, if upheld, makes expansion of the fairgounds unattractive to Fair officials. Although the Fair is a short term event each year its presence does play an important role in the community's economy. 2 -2. La Fleur Airport The airport situation is similar to the fairgrounds in that airport owners see no reason to "dry floodproofing hangar space. Thus, airport expansion plans might result in a confrontation over elevating /floodproofing criteria in the zoning ordinance. Hilton Vacant Property The City has placed flood plain regulations on a 90 acre vacant parcel that is owned by the Colonial Hilton Inn. The Hilton property had been purchased for its future development potential and owners are pressuring the city to lift the regulatory restriction. Pyramid Property - Meadow Street Several city officials feel that this Meadow Street property along the Mill River might present serious flood plain management problems in the near future. This large parcel is owned by a real estate concern that is known locally for its major development projects. With the addition of the new sewer trunk line along the Mill River, this property may be prime for development in the near future. Currently the property is farmed, and that is the way the city would like to see it stay. EXISTING FLOOD PLAIN LAND USE The existing land uses occuring in the Connecticut and Mill River flood plains are shown on the maps (scale: 1" =500 ° ) found in Appendix A. These 21 maps were developed using 1974 air photos and field checked for recent changes. The land use categories are divided into two major groups, structural and non - structural land uses. This distinction was made to aid in damage potential evaluations. Structural land uses, (junkyards, in- stitutional, structural land -based recreation, structural water -based recreation, residential, commercial, utility, process industry, industry, and airport) in general, are uses that are not consistent with con- servative flood plain management practices. These structural uses appear in red on the land use maps. Non - structural land uses (wetlands, open space, agriculture meadow, agriculture cropland, non - structural land based recreation, and non- structural water -based recreation) are, by definition, free of structures and are generally compatible with flooding. These areas are shown in green. We recognize that structural and non- structural categories are somewhat misleading because they generalize land use impacts that have characteristics of both categories. However, we found the sep- aration helpful in highlighting highly damage prone uses from those that are more compatible with the flood plain. In the case of recreation we also made distinctions between land -based and water based recreation. The reason for this distinction is particularly important in the case of structural land uses. The Ox Bow Marina is a good example: the land use map will indicate that a structural (damage prone) land use is located in a highly flood prone area, but the fact that the structural use is water based means that its function requires that it be located close to the water. In this case, proper floodproofing and other protective measures are necessary. If, on the other hand, this land use had been a structural land based recreation its proximity to the water would not be essential. In this case, relocation could be a possible flood plain management- technique. PART II - ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT ISSUES _ J Li CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION TO FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES This chapter takes a close look at the following non - structural management techniques delineated in Section 73 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, P.L. 93 -251: flood warning and evacuation, flood insurance, floodproofing flood plain zoning, acquistion and relocation, and purchase of easements and development rights. Although some of these techniques are currently being applied in Northampton, the purpose of this chapter is to introduce methods of flood plain management through a general description of the various techniques. In the chapter to follow, Chapter 4, we will examine the substance of'the specific management techniques as they are practiced in Northampton. _. Under Section 73, Congress has authorized Federal cost - sharing programs for non - structural flood plain management measures. Dis- cussions of what some of these costs are likely to be will be covered in Chapter 5. But for now, we need to discuss the overriding concepts of the non- structural approach. In The River's Reach, the New England River Basins Commission makes the distinction between strategies which "modify susceptibility to flood- ing" rather than "modify flooding." The former strategy, the non- struc- tural approach, emphasizes the development of plans which will reduce existing and future flood damage potential; Section 73 clearly`states that these plans should be generated at the local level. Non - structural flood plain management methods are not new, but the reason they are of great importance today is that wise and prudent flood plain planning concepts were not applied in the past. Basically, we are faced with both structural and non - structural methods as solutions to problems resulting from flood plain development that never should have occurred. Structural methods, most notably dams, dikes, flood walls and channel alterations, can yield great benefits when properly applied, but structural methods tend to be expensive and frequently have significant environmental and regional land use impacts. Non- structural methods, by comparison, tend to be modest in scale and cost, and are specifically shaped to meet local needs. Usually, they entail few environmental impacts. 3 -1 The following discussion outlines the major elements of the six non - structural measures under review. They are described here to acquaint the reader with the general methods and objectives appro- priate to each non - structural technique. FLOOD WARNING AND EVACUATION A comprehensive flood warning and evacuation program can signi- ficantly reduce or possibly eliminate loss of life and /or damage to portable property in the flood plain. This program, also called flood episode management, can substantially reduce the social and economic losses associated with flooding. A flood warning "system" consists of two essential parts: 1) Flood water monitoring and forecasting; and 2) Flood stage communica- tion techniques. The National Weather Service maintains the principal forecasting service in the Connecticut River Basin - it. monitors river levels and transmits the information to threatened areas. In the past several years, the National Weather Service has.pro- posed a program of improvements to its monitoring capabilities which, if implemented, could increase the capacity to predict flood damage and transmit warnings to communities. These improvements have not been implemented, to our knowledge, but the weather service continues to provide warnings for Connecticut River communities which generally ex -- ceed their capacity to respond. The Connecticut River Forecast Center in Bloomfield, Connecticut issues forecasts predicting the occurrence of floods, flood stages, and flood crests on the Connecticut. It transmits these forecasts to the State Police and others who monitor the frequency of the State Police radio network. National Weather Service spokesmen have said that they are able to give 12 - -24 hours notice of flood stage on the Connecticut River at Northampton. The lead time depends on the nature of the storm and the distance it occurs from Northampton. The useful- ness of these forecasts depends on the ability of flood prone cities, towns, or counties to respond quickly and comprehensively. Given a warning, there should be a plan telling both civilians and officials of a community how to react. This plan is termed a Flood 3 -2 J r i J Episode Management Plan. The reduction of flood damages and losses depends on the existence of this local plan and its swift and fail - safe execution during time of crisis. The City of Northampton is currently preparing a Natural Disaster Plan, according to Mr. Paul Knight, the city's Civil Defense Director. The Plan contains a series of phased actions triggered by changes in the height of a flood's waters: 1) When river water reaches a height of 112 feet m.s.l. (an event which occurs very often), the city closes the outfall from its sanitary sewer system. 2) At 115 feet m.s.l. (approximately the 15 year flood), police warn residents of the Oxbow, by going from house to house. Route 5 is still open as an evacuation route. 3) When the river reaches 120 feet m.s.l. (approximately the 50 year flood level), evacuations are required, using boats as necessary. The city takes control of the public bus fleet for use in evacuations, and the Red Cross and hospitals assist with ambulances. This, by no means, fully describes the contents of the city's plan, which also includes a Recovery Phase involving the Department of Public Works, the Fire Department and the Buildings Department. The plan is the result of work by the city's Emergency Coordinating Board, which in- cludes the Mayor, the Civil Defense Director, the City Engineer, Police and Fire Chiefs. We were not able to inspect the plan, but its existence, as well as the existence of a Board of department heads to coordinate its implementation, distinguishes Northampton from most Connecticut Valley communities, who have neither a plan nor a Board to prepare one. With flood prone land in both the Connecticut and Mill River basins, Northampton needs a dual focus in its flood warning system. Connecticut River flooding in Northampton has its origins 100 -200 miles away in Vermont and New Hampshire. The city must depend on the National Weather Service River Forecasting Center for flood forecasts. The equipment and personnel required to monitor and forecast Connecticut River flooding can economically . serve the entire valley as well as Northampton itself. The Mill River, however, floods more quickly than does the Connecticut, ,and the River Forecasting Center makes no attempt to monitor and forecast this river specifically. The Mill River does not flood as quickly as some Connecticut River tributaries (such as the White, the Whetstone and the Passumpsic rivers in Vermont), but it can flood in twelve hours, and per- haps less than six hours. The River Forecasting Center issues flash flood warnings which include the Mill River but, again, plans must be available to take full advantage of this warning in Northampton. 3 -3 PURCHASE AND RELOCATION The process of public purchase and relocation of residential and commercial structures can be both effective and controversial. It is a technique that has not been used in Northampton to date. The reason for this reluctance, in all probability, is that the costs associated with a program of purchase and relocation are high. This is especially true when the relocation is compulsory (i.e., not initiated by the resident). In a program of this sort, costs occur immediately but dimi- nish slowly and steadily over time. Most planners agree that the bene- fits to residents which result from relocation out of the flood plain are also high, though they occur over a long period of time. The question of when permanent relocation should be applied is not easily answered. Obviously, this strategy makes absolute sense when loss of life or personal injury is of some likelihood due to flooding. Structures on highly flood prone sites are strong candidates for reloca- tion when flood losses are high and /or recurrent. Many believe that relocation is appropriate for a structure which, when subject to high flood water velocities, is likely to wash off its foundation with some chance of incurring damages to people and property downstream. In any case, the social impacts of relocation are of serious con- sideration to the decision - maker. Relocation programs have not only broken long - established patterns of life for individual homes and busi- nesses, but whole neighborhoods have been disrupted or dismantled. For these reasons, relocation programs should be administered with great sensitivity and care from planning through implementation. Clearly, how- ever, when human life is imminently at stake, mandatory condemnation and relocation should be applied with dispatch. (The costs and benefits associated with purchase and relocation are discussed in detail in Chapter 6.) FLOODPROOFING Floodproofing consists of a variety of structural modifications to buildings, sites or contents, to keep flood waters out or to reduce the damage caused by their presence. It is a technique that has not been ap- plied in Northampton to any great extent, but the variety of possible modifications make floodproofing an appealing and potentially valuable means of reducing flood damage. Unfortunately, a combination of factors, some peculiar to Northampton, limits the feasibility of this technique. For future discussion in this report, it is important to note that there are four major types of floodproofing techniques. 1) The first is the technique of using temporary or permanent closures for windows, doors and other openings whose elevation is below the height of the 100 year flood. An 3 -4 associated technique is the use of a gate valve on sanitary sewer lines. These closures seal the structure against the entry of flood waters. The usefulness of this technique depends on the characteristics of the structure. The ability of a structure to exclude water does not depend solely on the presence of watertight closures. Structures with siding such as wood or aluminum are less watertight than those with brick or concrete walls. Similarly, structures on concrete footings, without basements, are highly susceptible to flooding through their wooden floors, but structures on concrete slab foundations are less prone to damage from rising flood waters. While the choice of construction materials affects watertightness, the pressure of flood waters on exterior walls often leads to structural damage no matter which materials are used. "When water is prevented from entering a structure the walls be- come subject to lateral hydrostatic forces which may cause failure by bending or shear, and the floors to uplift forces which may cause buck ' ding or floatation. In addition, dynamic forces may be present if the flow velocity is great. "' .A watertight structure thus may suffer more damage than one which admits flood waters, equalizing pressures on both sides of wall and floors. It is difficult to predict which flood prone homes can withstand these forces. However, it is possible to generalize about the character- istics of a structure that tend to help it withstand stress. Clearly,' good workmanship creates a stronger structure. Newer structures are generally stronger than older ones of the same type and material, since the materials are likely to be in better condition. 2) The technique of raising existing structures reduces many of the risks associated with sealing a structure. Raising principally involves the construction of piers and elevating a structure above the level of the 100 year flood. While contractors possess the means to raise almost any structure, the costs of raising are lowest when the structure is small and light enough to raise in one piece, and when the structure is accessible below. the first floor for the placement of jacks and beams. A small wood frame house with a crawl space beneath the first floor is an ideal candidate for raising. Elevating new structures is an altogether different process. Two techniques are available to prospective flood plain residents. One technique involves building the structure on concrete or steel piers or columns. The other technique calls for adequate fill to allow elevation of the first floor above the level of the 100 year flood. 3 -5 3) Rather than altering the structure, owners should consider rearranging and protecting the contents of their homes or businesses. An effective flood warning system would provide owners with sufficient warning to move all portable contents out of the reach of flood waters. An important complement to this technique is the relocation of expensive durable goods or infrastructure. Owners should consider the merits of relocating furnaces, water heaters, washers, dryers, etc. 4) As an alternative to structural modification of their building, owners can protect both structure and contents by constructing walls or levees around their property or along its flood prone edge to the height of the 100 year flood. In Northampton, some Mill River homes could be protected by a wall or levee on one side (the river side) of their site. Connecticut River homes require protection on all sides since the flood plain is very broad and development is scattered through- out it. Although this report is oriented toward analyzing non - structural techniques, it is important to understand the role of existing flood control structures as components in a comprehensive approach to flood plain management. This description of the dike system in Northampton is included here because, technically, dikes are floodproofing structures. The following discussion is taken from, Water Resources Development by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977; Massachusetts: "The protective works at Northampton close off the valley of the Mill River, within the city limits, and divert the river through a canal to the Connecticut River via Oxbow Lake South of the city. Construction of the project was started in 1939 and completed in June 1941. A dike with a maximum height of 23 feet and about 5,000 feet long in the eastern portion of town extends along the Connecticut River from high ground at Pomeroy Terrace across the bed of the Mill River to high ground west of U.S. Route 5. There is a pumping station located at the dike across the Mill River -to remove stormwater from behind the dike when the river is at high stages. Where the line of dike crosses U.S. Route 5 and the Boston and Maine Railroad, there are stop -log structures. These eastern section works protect against flood stages in the Connecticut River. In the western section, two lengths of dike with a maximum height of 25 feet, totaling about 1,900 feet in length, and a floodwall about 450 feet long extend along the east bank of the Mill River from high ground near Paradise Pond, across the Mill River, and tie into high ground at Herbert Avenue. This section of dike serves as a dam and diverts the Mill River into a 10,500 -foot long diversion channel, which carries the river to discharge at Oxbow Lake. This section also includes a drop structure and bridge, stop -log structures, and street relocations. The project protects Northampton from flood flows from the Mill River and, in conjunction with upstream reservoirs, from flood flows on the Connecticut River." 3 -6 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers program that cor.atructed the dikes, the -Flood Control and Diversion Project, also rediverted the Mill River back to its pre -1720 channel. FLOOD PLAIN ZONING Zoning is a powerful means of preventing increases in potential damages due to flooding. Combined with other techniques, it forms the basis of Northampton officials' current approach to flood plain manage- ment. Zoning involves the division of land into districts in which uses, densities of use, and the height and means of constructing buildings are regulated by means of a published ordinance and corresponding maps. On the basis of social, environmental and economic costs and benefits associated with its use, a carefully drafted and administered flood plain zoning ordinance is clearly a source of net benefits to the public today and, especially, in the future. Unfortunately, some individuals within the community may suffer adversely today for future public benefits. Conventional interpretation of federal and state constitutional clauses prevents individuals from too great a loss due to zoning or re zoning of their land, though there is no legal or constitutional barrier to individuals from reaping substantial benefits due to the contents of a particular ordinance. Courts also have. ruled that zoning ordinances must be reasonable. They must be related to public goals such as improved health, safety or welfare, and they must afford equal treatment to simi- larly situated individuals. . .Northampton is the county seat of Hampshire County, and on the northern edge of the Springfield- Holyoke- Chicopee, Massachusetts Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. Its future development depends partly on the steady growth and continued decentralization of the Springfield region, but it depends more clearly on Hampshire County's growth, including the growth of the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, ten miles away. Rapid growth in the Amherst area slowed in recent years because of a moratorium imposed until the completion of a new waste treatment plant. However, one sign of continued confidence in the county's growth is the construction of a major retail mall, with over 1,000,000 square feet of commercial space on land halfway between Amherst and Northampton. This mall will absorb the region's likely growth. in retail space curtailing any commercial growth that might have occured in Northampton, and may reduce demand for existing space. Thus we see little pressure for retail uses on undeveloped land in Northampton, flood prone or otherwise, over the next five to ten years.. Residentially, Northampton is home to a range of middle income families. Because of the relatively high taxes in Northampton and the appeal of rural properties elsewhere in Hampshire County, higher priced homes in Northampton sell relatively slowly. Since flood plain zoning regulations have.the effect of increasing the prices of new homes (in the floodplain), and since demand for more costly homes in Northampton is relatively low, there will be limited pressure for the more costly residential develop- ment on Northampton. flood plain land. The city has ample undeveloped land suitable for homes, which is not subject to floods. Northampton contains several dozen industrial employers. Five firms employ over 100 people. The city's Redevelopment Agency has de- veloped an industrial park, not in the flood plain, with several dozen sites. Not all sites are sold yet. While land in the flood plain has both highway and rail access, so do several tracts north of the center of the city, including the industrial park. Northampton is competing with other municipalities, both to the north and south in the Connecticut valley, for a share of any industrial growth which will occur. Flood plain land does not appear to be the city's best or only competitive site for future industry. Thus it appears that Northampton flood plain land is not prone to extensive commercial, residential or industrial development pressure for the next five or ten years. Zoning designed to restrict development in the flood plain will not result in substantial economic loss to the city or to flood plain land owners. A well written and carefully administered ordinance will generate benefits by producing more carefully planned development city wide, limiting sprawling and unnecessary flood plain development attracted there by relatively low land prices, and preclud- ing potential flood damage to this development and losses to its owners and occupants. In addition flood plain land will remain open for flood storage, benefiting both Northampton and adjacent communities. Northampton, of course, has already reached these conclusions. The city has a reputation as a community favoring planned growth. It has adopted a number of ordinances affecting land use and development in the flood plain, complying with the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The most important regulation in its set of flood plain ordinances is that governing the Special Conservancy District. This zoning district entirely covers the 100 -year flood plain of the Connecticut River, with the following important exceptions: o land around the fairgrounds, west of I -91 and east of Bridge Street, including land in Ventures Field, north and east of the dike. This area is zoned Urban Residential A, allowing. single family homes on 1/2 acre lots, research facilities, municipal facilities, agricul- ture and several other uses by special permit. e land around the Hilton Hotel, zoned Highway Business o land in the Oxbow, zoned for residential use along Island Road and Ferry Street, and General Industrial around the Tenneco Corp. plant These properties constitute the existing developed areas of the flood plain. In addition, they include several large undeveloped tracts. The amount of land involved is substantial, totalling several hundred acres of undeveloped tracts. 3 -8 Since their zoning implies a substantial possibility of future flood . hazards, the city subjected them to the provisions of another or- dinance, described below. The zoning, in effect legitimizes existing land uses. Virtually all the land in the SC zones agricultural, and agriculture and re- lated activites are the only land'uses permitted as -of- right. The zoning allows other uses by .Special Permit. These uses include single family homes on one acre of .land, various municipal facilities, and outdoor commercial recreation uses. Applications for special permits are lengthy. They must include location plans, and detailed site plans. The plans must show how any structure will be elevated so that the lowest floor is above the level of the 100 -year flood, but the ordinance does not restrict the means by which this should occur. Utilities must be designed to withstand flood damage. Refuse disposal must be adequately planned to prevent health problems resulting from floods. The Connecticut Paver flood plain lands which are not included in the SC zone allow uses other than agriculture, but structures or improvements in these zones are subject to the requreiments of Northamp- ton's Watershed Protection District. This overlay district covers the three areas just mentioned in the Connecticut River plain. 'Rules of this overlay district also govern the entire flood plain cif the Mill River, an in same places land just beyond the flood plain-- but within 100 feet of that river's banks. Together with the SC zone, the Watershed Protection District pro- vides complete flood plain zoning coverage. Its rules supplement, rather than replace, the rules governing activity in the underlying zones. The effect of these rules is to establish even stricter controls over flood plain development than the SC district imposes. In addition to the floodproofing language used in the text of the district, the Watershed Protection District requires that no dumping or filling of over 50 cubic yards of earth occur without a Special Permit. No structure with water or sewers may be erected without a similar Permit, and the public water source is required for any lot to be developed. Leaching fields, if any, must be built 75 feet or more above "mean high water" (sic). Further, the application must show generally that the structure, its accessories and utilities will not endanger health and safety, obstruct or divert flood flow, substantially reduce flood storage capacity, or increase runoff velocity. In effect, all development in the Watershed Protection District requires a special permit,, and the terms and conditions of approval substantially reduce the potential for flood damage or losses. The Northampton Conservation Commission has adopted a policy that there shall be no reduction in ficod storage capacity on any of the flood plain lands under its jurisdiction. As one of the agencies responsible for granting Special Permits in the Watershed Protection District, the Com- mission is enforcing this policy for the Mill River and several portions of the Connecticut River flood plain, including those zoned for business, industry, and single family homes, cited above. In addition, the Com- mission is required to review any special permit applications in the SC district. The Commission is zealous in its protection of the floodplain, but its opinions are advisory only. The city's Zoning Board of Appeals is the board responsible for issuing all Special Permits. In the first major test of the new ordinances, involving a permit to the fairgrounds for several seasonal structures, the Commission adapted a moderate position which did not recommend strict enforcement of the regulations in the W.P. District. As of July, 1978, the Z.B.A. has not issued its decision. FLOOD INSURANCE Flood insurance protects purchasers against losses to the dwellings or businesses they own and to their contents. Flood insurance is an op- tion for all owners of existing buildings in Northampton, yet it is com- pulsory for all buyers of existing or new buildings in the HUD- designated 100 year flood plain (for federally insured mortgages), and a condition of approval for uninsured, conventional mortgages. The regulatory map for the National Flood Insurance Program in Northampton is the HUD - prepared Floyd Insurance Rate Map with Floodways. The National Flood Insurers Association offers insurance to owners of residential, commercial, industrial and other properties, in coopera- tion with. the Federal Flood Insurance Administration, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Association consists of several dozen companies, each offering flood insurance to a state or sub -state region. The companies offer insurance as part of the National Flood Insurance Program. The program includes more than just insurance. It also involves the regulations of land use and building code standards in flood prone areas. These regulations have affected Northampton, leading to the imple- mentation of flood plain zoning ordinances and building code modifications. A flood insurance policy does not reduce damage, in contrast to each of the other policies we discuss in this report. In exchange for paying premiums an owner indemnifies him or herself against a range of financial losses associated with floods. The principal benefits afforded by flood insurance are both economic and social. They include reduced risks of catastrophic financial losses, and increased security which results from the lower risk. Flood insurance does make an important contribution to a comprehen- sive flood plain management strategy. The social benefits it generates, coupled with the economic ones, have already made it attractive to Northampton's flood plain residents. As of July, 1978, owners had insured 3 -10 36 residential properties (and their contents) in the flood plain, in . the amount of $779,000. Thus, over half the flood plain'residents have purchased policies, whose average coverage is $21,600. In addition 3 non - residential properties are insured in the amount of $665,000 bringing the total coverage for structures and contents to $1,444,000. The city of Northampton joined the "regular" flood insurance program in 1974. At the time the Federal Insurance Administration published a map and a rate schedule for the.city showing the insurance rates thence- forth in effect. No homes have been constructed in Northampton's flood plain. since 1974, nor have any been substantially improved. No businesses have opened or expanded there.? The 66 homes in the flood plain 4 small business and 11 large ones all predate 1974. All these structures qualify for insurance at reduced rates. These rates apply as long as the structures remain substantially in their pre - sent form. After any substantial renovation or reconstruction the owners must pay actuarial rates. The structure, after such alterations, also must conform to strict building code requirements which insure that it is floodproofed to the height of the 100 year flood. PURCHASE OF LAND, EASEMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS We group the purchase of land in fee simple, the purchase of ease- ments, and the purchase of development rights together for purposes of dis- cussion. Each type of purchase is the appropriate solution for a different set of circumstances, and results in different types of benefits, both to the seller and to the buyer (i.e., the public -at- large). In each case, the primary reason for considering purchase is to reduce potential flood damages which can result from land being developed. These reductions in damages constitute, for the purposes of this study, the essen- tial benefit which must accrue to the public before purchase in any fashion can be justified. There are many ways to protect flood plain land short of outright pur- chase, but buying the fee simple provides the municipality with a wide range of land management options. For example, Northampton could purchase an im- portant tract_of flood plain land and then. sell it back to the original owner or to a new owner subject to restrictions. Land can be purchased and then leased, perhaps for agricultural purposes; or the municipality can make installment payments to the owner over many years while the owner con - tinues.to use the land for mutually agreed upon purposes. In certain instances, fee simple acquisition is an inappropriate and expensive strategy. For the purpose of preventing development on flood plain land, it may be advisable, for example, to purchase the development rights only, without transfer of title. In this instance, the cost to Northampton would be the difference between the value of the land at its current use, presumably agriculture, and the potential value of the land for development. Once the development rights are purchased, de- velopment would be precluded and the land would continue to be worked at its current use. Easements, also, are a less - than -fee simple means of preventing additional development in the flood plain. An easement, like a "development right," is a right in land which can be conveyed indepen- dent of title to the land itself. An easement is particularly effective in precluding development on a portion of a tract of land. The owner is not asked to waive the development rights on all his property, merely on the section of it that falls within the flood plain. Typically, streambank easements include provisions for public access, yielding an additional benefit to the public. A management technique that should be discussed here is soliciting and accepting gifts of land. In many instances, landowners have held land parcels for some time that have little or no development potential. Frequently, these parcels have been passed from owner to owner as part of estates or corporations. Over the years, these lands have proved to be a tax liability to the owners. Thus, giving this land to the munici- pality creates two benefits for the former owner: 1) Taxes no longer need to be paid on the property; and 2) The former owner can deduct the value of the land from his or her income tax as a charitable deduction. The gift of an easement to the municipality also affords income tax benefits to the owner by permitting a charitable deduction of the value of that portion of his or her property. The owner may also receive a reduction in local property taxes if the land had been assessed at a use which is valued higher than the use prescribed by the easement. It is often difficult for public officials to decide which technique, purchase of fee simple, easement or development rights ought to be applied as the means of protection of flood plain land. An informed decision can be made only after careful examination of the public benefits likely to be accrued. Often, for example, there may be relatively little difference between the selling price and the easement fee for some types of flood plain land, particularly if the land has low development or agricultural potential. Obviously, buying the land outright permits a wider range of potential uses to the public, but these benefits are usually realized only after an addi- tional outlay of public funds for improvements and services. Purchase pro- grams of any type require careful circumspection to ensure that public cost does not outweigh the benefits of achieving local objectives, We identify this as a key concern because of .the severe fiscal constraints local governments are forcea to operate under. L L FOOTNOTES 1 I Johnson, William K., Physical and Economic Feasibility of Non- structural Flood Plain Management Measures. Hydrologic Engineering Center and the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, March, 1978. 2 The Three County Fair has applied for a.building permit for new barns and sheds. No action has been taken as of July, 1978. 3 -13 CHAPTER 4 NORTHAMPTON POLICIES AND PROGRAMS We have grouped existing land uses within the flood plain into six categories: 1) Agricultural; 2) Residential; 3) Commercial/ Industrial; 4) Recreation /Conservation; 5) Institutional; and 6) Public Services. According to our analysis, each of these land uses requires a unique combination of policies and programs that, taken as a whole, will constitute a comprehensive flood plain management plan. The following discussion will describe how existing management techniques attempt to influence flood plain land uses in Northampton. Implicit in our analysis is the understanding that local planners cannot afford to treat land use types as entirely separable issues. Realistically, there is an ongoing interchange among land uses, both . in terms of competition for land and for support from services and amenities. Also, we realize that the existing land use pattern is not frozen in perpetuity, and that community development is a dynamic process in which changes in land use are to be expected. But in order to clarify issues of flood plain management which have particular significance to individual land uses, we have chosen to divide the discussion into the six discrete land uses mentioned above. In this chapter, each land use category will be discussed separately to illustrate how existing policies and programs in Northampton are managing flood plain development. For the purpose of facilitating discussion, a summary table, in the form of a matrix, is provided at the end of this chapter. LAND USE: AGRICULTURAL Flood Warning and Evacuation: The major benefit from flood episode management, with sufficient warning, is that the farmer can remove mobile farm machinery to higher ground. In the Connecticut River flood plain during past flooding, farmers moved their tractors to the dry ground along Bridge Street. Obviously, flood warning does not precede actual flooding with adequate time to permit alternative crop management or harvesting. Purchase and Relocation: There is currently no program of purchase and relocation in Northampton. Floodproofing: Re- arranging farm equipment and supplies is probably the most prevalent form of floodproofing practiced on Northampton farms. The degree to which re- arranging is actually practiced:is ,not specifically known at this: time We would assume, .however, that given sufficient warning, farmers would move valuable barn and outbuilding contents to dry locations. Thus, the effectiveness of a rearrangement plan is contingent on the effectiveness of a flood warning system. Wet- floodproofingr that is, the ability of a structure to accept flood waters by design, is, in effect, Practiced on most farms. In this case, materials are stored with anticipation of •rearrangement; often the only materials that are stored in the lowest reaches of the barn are equipment and supplies which can withstand flooding without significant damage. Flood Plain Zoning: As ?mentioned earlier in this report, agriculture has considerable public support in Northampton - especially as a flood plain land use. Local planners have essentially legitimized this sentiment by zoning part of the Connecticut River flood plain where virtually all of that land is in agricultural use as the Special Conservance Zone (SC). The only permitted uses in the SC Zone are agriculture and related activities. Single - family residences are allowable by Special Permit only. Agriculture on the Mill River is not similarly supported by local by -laws. Most of these relatively small agricultural parcels (125 acres or fewer) are currently zoned URA or URB, with residential use permitted as- of- right. National Flood Insurance Program: This program affords little protection for farm operations except to insure the farm house since there is only one farm /residence in the flood plain, the program has very little meaning in this regard. Other farm buildings, machinery, equipment and crops are not insurable through the program. Purchase of Land, Easements and Development Rights: This technique has not been applied in Northampton, to date, for the purchase of agricultural land or its development rights. LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL Flood Warning and Evacuation: When flooding reaches the 15 year stage, police warn residents of low -lying areas that evacuation may be required. When the river reaches the 50 year flood stage evacu- ation is required, using boats if necessary.. _ Purchase and Relocation: Currently, there is no program of purchase and relocation of residential buildings in Northampton. 4 -2 Floodproofing: Currently, there is no publicly- assisted or administered residential floodproofing in Northampton. However, extensive residential sections have been protected by dikes erected in 1939 -41 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control and Diversion Project - most of these residences are in the vicinity of Pleasant Street. Flood Plain Zoning: Much of the Connecticut River flood plain has been zoned SC which allows residential development by Special Permit only - permissable residential density is one unit per acre. The permit requires the applicant to prove that the structure will be elevated to at least the height of the 100 year flood. Other Special Permit performance criteria are flood hazard - related, controlling the use of fill, drainage characteristics, and methods of sewage disposal. Flood plain lands outside the SC Zone, and in both the Connecticut River and Mill River flood plains, are within the Watershed Protection District (WPD). Some of these lands are permit residential development. However, within the WPD (which functions as an overlay district), a Special Permit is required. Once again, flood hazard criteria must be met, compelling residential structures to be elevated above the level of the 100 year flood. In short, any residential development within the Connecticut River or Mill River flood plains must be elevated above 100 year flood waters and must meet criteria pertaining to the use of fill and disposal of sewage wastes. National Flood Insurance Program: The HUD- administered insurance program affects residential development in Northampton in two ways: 1) HUD requires that all housing that receives a federally - connected mortgage be insured through.the program; and 2) HUD requires (as do existing local zoning regulations) that new housing must be elevated above the height of the 100 year flood. The insurance rate is determined by the location of the building within delineated flood hazard zones - based on flood frequency and velocity. Condominium units can be insured separately. Both structures and contents of all residences can be insured through the program. Existing homes are eligible for insurance regardless of the flood protection employed, or lack of it. As of July, 1978, owners had insured 36 of 66 residential properties (and their contents) in the flood plain, in the amount of $779,000. Thus, over half the flood plain residents have pur- chased policies, with an average coverage of $21,600. n LAND USE: COMMERCIAL /INDUSTRIAL Flood Warning and Evacuation: We are not aware of specific plans for the warning and evacuation of commercial /industrial properties. Purchase and Relocation: Currently, there is no program of purchase and relocation of commercial /industrial buildings in Northampton. Floodproofing: Most commercial /industrial structures are constructed to withstand greater stresses than residential buildings. Typically, larger commercial /industrial buildings can withstand six feet or more of water. In the Mill River flood plain, the Vistron Corporation has protected its Pro Brush plant with a flood wall, gate valves on all storm drains, and sump pumps in the lower floor. Immovable objects have been covered with a plastic -Re- arranging is practiced by at least a few industrial concerns: all material can be evacuated from the Tri -City Container Plant within 24 hours of a warning, and all material on the lower floor at the Pro Brush plant has been coded for ease of removal. A number of commercial and light industrial structures are protected by the dike in the vicinity of Pleasant Street. Flood. Plain Zoning: Lands within the 100 year flood plain that are zoned to permit commerce or industry are also within the Watershed Protection District. The WPD compels new commercial /industrial development to elevate the structure above the level of the 100 year flood. National Flood Insurance Program: Three commercial /industrial properties are currently insured in the amount of $665,000. Any new construction receiving a mortgage from a federally- connected bank would have to be insured through the program. Purchase of Land, Easements and Development Rights: Although there ,is. no land purchase program in the flood plain, the Northampton Redevelopment Authority has established an industrial park which could attract new industrial buildings away from flood plain locations. LAND USE: RECREATION /CONSERVATION Flood Warning and Evacuation: Since many of these areas are located on or near flooding rivers, people must guard against being inundated or trapped by flood waters. Recreation and conservation areas are extensive in Northampton, making it difficult to warn people of imminent flood danger. The hope is that people will exercise good judgment and stay away from flooding rivers - this applies to people in boats as well as on shore. Tent campers have been trapped by flood waters, making evacuation by boat necessary. Purchase and Relocation: Currently, there is no program of purchase and relocation of conservation /recreation structures in the flood plain. Floodproofing: Most conservation /recreation structures in Northamp- ton are wet - floodproofed - they are permitted to accept flood water with little or no destruction. The Oxbow Marina, on the other hand, is effectively floodproofed by being elevated above the height of the 100 year flood. Outdoor municipal recreation facilities and equipment are not floodproofed, but losses due to flooding are apt to be minimal. Flood Plain Zoning: Outdoor commercial recreation is permitted in the SC,R -R and SR zones by special permit from the Board of Appeals. Municipal recreation /conservation facilities are permitted in all zones, but in the SC Zone a special exception by the City Council is required. Within the SC Zone and within the Watershed Protection District a special permit is necessary to prove recreation structures are elevated above the height of the 100 year flood. National Flood Insurance Program: Although recreation structures (excluding piers and wharves) can be insured through the program, no recreation structures are currently insured in Northampton. New recreation structures must be insured through the FIA program if they are financed by federally-connected banks. Purchase of Land, Easements and Development Rights: Currently, there is no program of land purchase for the purpose of flood plain management. However, land already purchased for conservation such as the Acadia Wildlife Preserve, are valuable for conservation purposes due to, in part, their flood plain characteristics. LAND USE: INSTITUTIONAL Flood Warning and Evacuation: Specific plans pertaining to insti- tutional uses have not been made available to us. Purchase and Relocation: Currently, there is no program of purchase and relocation of institutional structures in Northampton. Floodproofing: Specific institutional floodproofing measures are not known at this time. Flood Plain Zoning: All institutional land uses have been precluded from the SC Zone. Churches, religious schools and public schools are allowed in all other zones, but other institutional uses require special authorization by the Board of Appeals. Within the Watershed Protection District, institutional uses require a Special Permit based on the need to elevate above the height of the 100 year flood plain. 4 -5 'National Flood Insurance Program: Although public and private institutions can purchase flood insurance, none have participated in the program. However, any institutional development in the future which is financed through federally- connected banks is required to purchase insurance. Purchase of Land, Easements and Development Rights: To our knowledge, there have been no institutional purchases of flood plain land in recent years. LAND USE: PUBLIC SERVICES Flood Warning and Evacuation: As a result of monitoring the height of the Connecticut River, the outfall of the municipal sanitary sewer is closed when the river reaches a height of 112 feet. Other measures relevant to municipal services are not known at this time. Purchase and Relocation: Currently, there is no purchase and relocation program in Northampton. Floodproofing: Existing municipal sewer and water lines have not been floodproofed to protect against flood water infiltration. Plans for the proposed sewer line extensions include watertight manholes and covers. There are several gate Valves on both storm . water and .sewer lines in the flood plain, including a gate valve at the sewage plant outfall. Some roads east of I -91 in the Connecticut River flood plain require gravel and grading after floods. The Massachusetts Depart- ment of Public Works is currently studying the feasibility of widening and raising Route 5 in the southern section of town. This action would greatly improve evacuation during flooding and improve (especially for Oxbow residents) evacuation procedures during major flooding. This stretch of Route 5 floods, on an average of one year in eight. There is some local. concern that the Mill River dike near West Street may have the potential of leaking flood waters into the old Mill River channel. A failure of this sort could have signifi- cant impacts on properties adjacent to the old channel. Flood Plain Zoning: Public services are permitted in all zones. However, a special exception from the City Council would be required prior to construction in the SC zone. All structures have to be elevated above the height of the 100 year flood floodproofed if raising is appropriate. National Flood Insurance Program: No public services are currently insured through the program. Purchase of Land, Easements and Development Rights: Currently, there is no program of flood plain land purchase for public services. Extensive flood plain properties had been purchased in 1939 for the Northampton Flood Control and Diversion Project. .CHAPTER 5 LOCAL ATTITUDES ON FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT The purpose of this chapter is to present the attitudes of Northampton's citizens and local officials toward issues of flooding and flood plain management. Since the process of adopting and imple- menting flood plain management measures requires considerable cooper- ation among residents, businesses and agencies, it is crucial that we understand local values and objectives pertaining to the use of land. Thus, a series of intereviews and surveys were designed and conducted to generate this information. One of the primary reasons for conducting these surveys is that they reveal the level of local understanding of flood - related issues. This information is a significant finding in itself, because it illu- strates the need for public education on complex management issues, and indicates the importance of public participation in the decision - making process. This is especially true in the context of flood plain mal'agement; flooding can be a traumatic event, and many of the manage- ment techniques under discussion have great potential impacts on the lives of flood plain residents. The degree to which human lives are affected by these measures should be appreciated by all involved in the planning process. A survey concerned with impacts on flood plain residents and small businesses was conducted by a firm of natural resource consultants and planners, Carlozzi, Sinton and Vilkitis of Amherst, under separate con- tract to the New England Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but with key questions in that survey having been drafted by CRG for the purpose of this study. Results from this survey are presented first in this chapter, followed by a discussion of perceptions of flood related issues by certain Northampton industries and larger commercial operations, from a report prepared by Carlozzi, et al., based on their findings. The last section of this chapter is a presentation of interviews conducted by CRG, in which local officials, on an informal basis, were asked to outline their perceptions of a variety of flood plain issues. In order to supplement this information, CRG sought to obtain the col- lective thinking of agency constituents by circulating a questionnaire which asked a number of questions concerning management roles, respon- sibilities and objectives. Unfortunately, at the time of this survey, busy summer scheduling prevented appreciable questionnaire response by these agencies. However, in the interviews mentioned above, CRG was able to derive much valuable information about local responses to flooding. 5-1 IMPACTS ON FLOOD PLAIN RESIDENTS AND SMALL BUSINESSES: SURVEY RESULTS CRGGdrafted this part of the Carlozzi, Sinton and Vilkitis survey conducted in Northampton. The interviewers asked 18 questions, in per - son, to a total of 53 flood plain residents. (Eighteen others refused to answer the question - and_ive- cou-1 -d -not be- contacted) . The questions have been included in the appendix to this report. Format of the Questionnaire We asked a similar question about the "economic" effects of each policy, again illustrating such effects by example, to help the respon- dent understand the difference in type. In Table 1 we offer lists of possible "effects," both "social and emotional" and "economic." We used these lists in preparing the text of the interview questions. Evaluating the Data To evaluate the information from the questionnaire we tallied each "positive" response and each "negative" one on a single sheet. By ag- g2egating the "positive," "negative" and "neutral" responses we could see which policies were most preferable or beneficial to the respondents. The policies which are most beneficial., by the residents' own perceptions, are those which have the highest ratio of "positive" to "negative" effects. ATTITUDES OF FLOOD PLAIN RESIDENTS: INTERVIEW FINDINGS The flood_plain residents, as a group, perceived a clear hierarchy of preferred solutions. The residents perceived two of the nine poli- cies almost overwhelmingly as beneficial. These were flood warning and . evacuation programs, and programs of federally -aided disaster. relief. Both social /emotional and economic effects were overwhelmingly positive. We asked two questions on each of nine policy subjects. The nine LJ I ' policies were those chosen by the Corps for use in the Carlozzi study. They include all the policies in our report and several others (dikes, dams and disaster relief) which the Corps did not include in our scope of work. We wanted to know how the resident /owner perceived the effects of each. policy on him/herself. To do so, we made an arbitrary dichotomy. First, we asked about "effects" (i.e., impacts) which were "social and emotional" in nature. In the case of each policy, we suggested possible impacts of this type. Then we asked, "On balance, when you think of the social and emotional effects of on you, do you think of them as mostly positive or mostly negative ?" We allowed the respondent to choose among four answers, "positive," "negative;" "neutral," or "don't know . " Social/Emotional * increased security & confidence * increased recrea- tion opportunity * reduction of tur- moil & misery * preservation of character of environs Illustrative Effects of Floodplain Management Policies Posi Live Economic * damage reduction to home TABLE 2 • enhanced property values * public subsidy or compensation Social /Emotional * • fear of failure, overtopping, etc. * inconvenience * disruption to style of life * adverse visual effects * loss of usable home space • destruction of character of environs Negative Economic * losses in property value F lost opportu- nity for future gain * adverse effects on livelihood * out -of-- pocket costs Three policies were substantially beneficial, but less so than the two just named. Dams, dikes, and flood insurance generated roughly equal numbers of positive effects. The residents perceived a larger number of costs associated with flood insurance than with the two structural solutions, while a number of respondents were neutral about both structural techniques. In general, flood plain zoning also appeared beneficial. Three policies appear to generate more costs than benefits for Northampton's flood plain residents as a whole. These are the purchase of casements or development rights. floodproofing and the purchase of flood plain homes and property. Floodproofing and "outright purchase" of property appeared the least beneficial. Generally, perceptions about the social /emotional and the economic impacts of policies coincided, but there were interesting exceptions. For example, respondents perceived the economic effects of dams to be more clearly beneficial than the social /emotional effects. They perceived "outright purchase" of property as the least attrac- tive policy, both emotionally and economically. The social /emotional costs appeared higher to them than the economic ones associated with such purchases. We display the results of the questionnaire for all flood plain resi- dents in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 presents these results pictorially. It suggests the magni- tude of the benefits and costs at a glance. Table 4 summarizes the results numerically. The numbers in each column are the number of respondents who perceived the effect of a given policy as positive, negative, or neutral. DAMS DIKES T 7 L U FLOOD ZONING FLOOD PROOFING INSURANCE PURCHASE & RELOCATION PURCHASE OF RIGHTS /EASEMENTS WARNING & EVACUATION DISASTER RELIEF PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF FLOODPLAIN POLICIES -ALL FLOODPLAIN RESIDENTS- (5 3 Respondents) POSITIVE EFFECTS ("BENEFITS") Social /Emotional. Economic 0 0 d 0 0 TABLE 3 -- LEGEND -- High Medium /High Medium Low /Medium Low 5 -5 NEGATIVE EFFECTS ( "COSTS ") Social /Emotional Economic m 0 U) W H u H A 6: • cn H Z Z < Q g 14 H .. H !•e CO In 0 z LI, 4 � H 0 N -� cn O a 0 W fO >n Ur. 0 W W H W W - W W • 1 z 1 H H W W \ G U H = '-1 O g:4 O 1 4J W Ra t W N N N N Cr) • N CT Cr) % Cr) Cr) N M ul r--1 CSl tri co N r { e-1 N N r-! Cr) N H r 1 H �p H r-1 N N En A N ▪ Cr) N H • Cr) s-i r Cr) N ▪ H cn r N CO Cr) ( t N in N r• - • Cr) ▪ N r-1 O N O O N Cr) - N N Cr) N CA H Z ;Li ELI ca 0 0 L F=]H W W H f4+ - En Z E-4 ELI ELI 6 U M H H W xa - En )--1 w a 1=4 3 w AA _j ij J -J As an aid to understanding the meaning of the numbers, we have --1 expressed the perceived effects of each policy as a ratio, found in the lefthand column. This number shows the ratio of positive to negative effects of any given policy, as perceived by flood plain residents. In other words, it shows the ratio of perceived beneficial effects to adverse effects. Just as in a traditional benefit /cost ratio, values greater than 7 1.0 suggest that beneficial effects exceed adverse ones. For values less than 1.0, the opposite is true. • For this ratio to express accurately the magnitudes of costs and benefits of flood plain policies, several assumptions must be true. (1) The effects perceived by each and every resident must have equal magnitude. In other words, one "positive" or. "negative" effect must be just as large as another. (2) The social /emotional effects and the economic effects must also be of equal magnitude. One social /emotional effect must be as large as one economic effect. While the accuracy of the magnitudes being equal can be questioned, we believe these ratios of positive to negative effects do usefully express the magnitudes of "benefits" and "costs," despite the crudeness of the measurements. More precisely, we believe these ratios are useful for two purposes. (1) The ratios show the perceived effects of policies relative to other policies on the list. (2) The ratios show whether, on balance, the policies generate more positive or negative effects. In other words, the ratios can be used to show how Northampton's flood plain residents(those 53 who answered the question, out of a total of 66) ranked the effects of policies on them. Secondly, the ratios show whether the effects, on balance, are _positive (greater than 1.0) or_ negative (less than 1.0). How People's Perceptions Vary We mentioned that the composite evaluation we have constructed in Table 4 consists of 53 individual responses. But residents' perceptions of flood plain policies vary from place to place in the flood plain. This is apparent when we sum up the responses of people in different locations in the flood plain. 5-- Fourteen of the 53 respondents live in the 20 year fl oo c.plain. As a group, they perceive every policy for flood damage reduction more favorably than does the group of 53 flood • plain residents.asa whole. Tables 5 and 6 summarize their evaluation. This group of people, living with a greater risk of flooding and probably firsthand experience as well, see extensive social and economic benefits in four policies. They are disaster relief, warning and evacuation, flood insurance andfiod plain zoning. In all four cases they see few negative effects of any kind. Insurance and zoning replace dams and dikes as policies generating mostly positive effects. They also viewed the effects of one other policy favorably, on balance, which was the purchase of easements and development rights. Only two policies were, on balance, negative in effect. These were floodproofing and property purchase. It should be noted that while the purchase of homes generated mostly negative social and emotional impacts on these residents, the perceived economic effects were evenly split, half concluding that purchase would be beneficial and half adverse. In the case of floodproofing the opposite occurred. Residents perceived the economic effects to be near even, We suggest some reasons for these responses later in this discussion. The proximity of these residents to flood waters is responsible for much of the difference in their responses. At the same time we must note how 11 of the 14 respondents live on just two streets, Ferry Avenue and Island Road. These two streets form the residential neighborhood known as the Oxbow. The responses of residents on these two streets deserves a separate examination. The Oxbow is the most closely knit and the most flood prone neighborhood in Northampton. Most of the 29 homes lie within the 40 year f lood plain. Half are within the 20 year plain. A review of their responses to the survey shows that they perceive seven of the nine policies primarily as beneficial, and two others generating benefits and costs in roughly equal proportions. No policy was principally adverse in its effects. The responses of Oxbow residents correspond closely to those of the 14 respondents in the 20 year plain. They viewed the nine policies in the same way, with the exception of dikes. They view this structural policy less favorably than the other group, and far less favorably than residents more distant from the river, for whom a dike would not be a daily presence. A policy of purchase of easements and development rights apparently would be more beneficial. It ranks sixth out of nine DAMS DIKES FLOOD ZONING i t FLOOD- PROOFING INSURANCE PURCHASE & RELOCATION PURCHASE OF RIGHTS /EASEMENTS WARNING & EVACUATION • DISASTER RELIEF PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF FLOOD PLAIN.,POLICIES - RESIDENTS .OF THE 20 YEAR-FLOOD PLAIN- (14 Respondents) POSITIVE EFFECTS • NEGATIVE EFFECTS ( "BENEFITS ") ( "COSTS ") Social /Emotional Economic Social /Emotional Economic TABLE 5 -- LEGEND -- High Medium /High O Medium e Low /Medium Low OQ O D d 0 0 0 0 0 Q H N O O N N E7 O O O U U V v cd • O •ri 4 - ) p4 O cA W 0 0 0 O O O O O N ul --I' Ol r-i (Y) N N- H CO s I O 1-. '0 0 Cr) N r-1 T-1 c-1 1--1 r N -i N r-- t-3 cst M r-i Cr) • O r'i - N to H z CD 0 z H Gt `2f'., 0 O 0 0 c P c ! I � Pa W a El co a 0 1-1 z W 0 H A A W Gt H Pi P'-+ pt 5-10 N 0 • r-t N r--1 CO rr 4 Cr) H policies, while dikes rank seventh, above purchase and relocation, and floodproofing. We summarize their responses in Tables7 and 8. The favorable light in which Oxbow residents view flood plain management policies results in part from their visible displeasure with the recently constructed Oxbow Marina. The marina is situated at the end of Island Road. Everyone visiting it must travel this road, so residents resent the loss of privacy and safety which the marina's patrons have caused to the otherwise isolated street. We suspect that the benefits perceived as a result of certain policies result from residents' hope that these policies could curtail, or eliminate the marina's operation. This hope might explain some of the social and emotional benefits associated with the policies of flood zoning, purchase and relocation, and purchase of easements or development rights. The large number of benefits, both social/emotional and economic, which they attribute to virtually every policy shows that these Oxbow residents are more sensitive to the importance flood damage reduction than are other flood plain. residents in less damage prone sites. By comparison, the 21 respondents (out of 27) who live in the one other district neighborhood on the flood plain view flood management alternatives far less favorably. These residents live in the vicinity of the Northampton Fairgrounds, on Old Ferry Road, Fair Street and Cross Path Road. Only one house of the 27 is in the 20 year flood plain, and this one is some distance from the others. Most are outside. the 50 year plain. These residents suffered damages less frequently. Many homes have remained dry for the last forty years, a term longer than the presence of many existing residents. Residents in the fairgrounds area see things differently than those nearer the river. They, too, unanimously perceive disaster relief and warning and evacuation as beneficial policies. They perceive dikes the same way, and,dams nearly as beneficial. But no other policy . appears primarily beneficial. Insurance does generate benefits in their minds, but the costs, on balance, exceed these benefits. Other policies (zoning, floodproofing, purchase and relocation, and purchase of easements and rights) apparently offer little. -We summarize their perceptions in Tables 9 and 10. The fairgrounds area residents typify those residents in the outer portions of the large flood plain of the Connecticut River. While they rank flood management policies in an order similar to that of the more flood prone areas, they find, as a group, that positive effects don't exceed the negative ones nearly as often. They view the policies, on balance, as affecting them more adversely than do the residents in DAMS DIKES FLOOD ZONING FLOOD- PROOFING INSURANCE PURCHASE & RELOCATION PURCHASE OF RIGHTS /EASEMENTS WARNING & EVACUATION DISASTER . RELIEF PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF FLOOD PLAIN POLICIES -OXBOW AREA (FERRY ST., ISLAND RD.) - (21 Respondents) POSITIVE EFFECTS ("BENEFITS") Social/Emotional Economic cp TABLE 7. -- LEGEND -- (:)High Medium/High CI)Medium Low/Medium (:)Low NEGATIVE EFFECTS ("COSTS") Social/Emotional Economic n Cr) 0 0 w t W CO cn r O >. U { H : cct ri 0 U' 0 O r1 ON NO 1 O W -r4 tl ri Z U 1 O cn M cs CO M O o' +-1 0\ rl t- O H 1 U cn z H co e•-• *-i o r-. . i cn CV O ri ON .- • ri VI H z W W �2S O O 0 Q W H W W 1 - 4 cn z� Hw U H H 0 v� f tl R JO -‹ H W I., W � 3W A N. DAMS DIKES FLOOD ZONING FLOOD- PROOFING INSURANCE PURCHASE & RELOCATION PURCHASE OF RIGHTS /EASEMENTS WARNING & EVACUATION DISASTER RELIEF PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF FLOOD PLAIN POLICIES -FAIRGROUNDS AREA (OLD FERRY RD., FAIR ST., CROSSPATH RD.)- (21 Respondents) •POSITIVE EFFECTS ("BENEFITS") Social/Emotional Economic TABLE 9 -- LEGEND -- High Medium/High e Medium e Low/Medium 0 L° 14 NEGATIVE EFFECTS ("COSTS") Social/Emotional Economic fl 0 a H En w� q rz+ . a). H 7. O p v A O E=1 W z W rx4 En I-1 H p r 1 � H C,' H O M -r1 3J Q 5 W CO N N 5-15 d N r-1 NSi H N c-1 H H r I ri N N b cE N 0 0 ri a0 CO N i� H M • M 'O 0 0 • 0 CO H Z H Ga ca Z 0 421 Z O 0 T=1 1:1` C�H W O A Q '7 V-44 CI) H H W cll P A 1 G H P4 Ill 3 1=1 P M M u1 other, more flood prone areas. hat effects People's Perceptions? It was not possible to ask the residents the reasons behind their assesments, so we must speculate, as we have above, on the actual types of effects contemplated by the residents themselves. It is important for us to note the facts and issues which can affect their responses. First, it is likely that the time frame in which positive or nega- tive impacts occur partly determines the responses to our questions. If benefits or costs only appear many years in the future, people discount them quite heavily in their own calculations, perhaps more than does any traditional discount rate. This tendency leads to the selection of poli- cies which have the most favorable ratio of benefits to costs in the short term. This term can be quite short -- perhaps measured in one or two or three years, rather than five, ten or twenty. Secondly, the perceived effects of these policies depend on the formulas used to share their costs. The perceptions of the economic effect of a policy will certainly change if a homeowner pays only 20% of the dollar cost, rather than 100%. Any policy whose costs fall heavily on flood plain residents will be highly sensitive to the amount paid by not only these residents but by their local government as well. When costs of a policy fall on the state or federal government, by comparison, the per capita costs become tiny, and the perceived economic impact may change not only in amount but also in sign, from negative to positive. Since the social /emotional impacts tend to correlate with the economic ones, these may change in the same manner. Third, any imprecision in the meaning or components of a policy leaves room for individual interpretations which can alter perceptions of a policy's effects. The height and location of a dike, the details of an agreement to relocate a house or its occupants, the nature of the structural changes required to floodproof a building, just to give a few examples, all determine the way flood plain residents perceive the impacts of the policy in question. The constraints of time and resources prevented any lengthy discussion between interviewer and resident of these policies. Without any opportunity to obtain clarifications, the residents had to make his or her own assumptions about many crucial details. Which responses did these three problems affect? Almost every policy potentially involves cost sharing, but for those in which the resident bears most the cost, cost sharing is crucial. These include floodproofing and some structural works such as dikes. In both cases there is room for different understandings. Differing perceptions of the nature of any program of property purchase and relocation can also I 7 Li 1 influence the perceived effects. We explore these implications in Chapter 6. The very words used in the questionnaire -- "outright purchase" carry inappropriate connotations and thus improperly biases resi- dents' responses. Similarly, the perceptions of floodproofing can vary, since there are many types of structural changes, each with a different price tag. We discuss these options in Chapter 7 For a number of policies, initial cost to the resident will likely exceed benefits. These policies include any which require in- dividual or municipal action, such as insurance,.floodproofing, purchase of easements, warning and evacuation systems, and others. The fiscal impact of several of these policies can be distributed over time by borrowing and making monthly or annual payments over -20 or more years. Such an approach will cause the magnitude of costs to better correspond with benefits. Thus, for reasons which cannot be control.led.in a brief ques- tionnaire; we must interpret cautiously the responses to the survey, questions. In addition, we could predict the enthusiasm shown for several of the policies, since they offered benefits at little expense to the residents. • A program of disaster relief, in which state and federal authorities provide extensive aid at low cost to the resident, is clearly beneficial. However, it does not address crucial issues of growth management and flood damage reduction. Ironically, its existence as an isolated program can encourage careless use of the flood plain. Similarly dams, built out of sight of Northampton, afford city residents a measure of flood protection without the burden of the eco- nomic, social and environmental, costs often associated with such structures. Dams and disaster relief are clearly "good buys" to a Northamptonflood plain resident_ and the residents know it. ATTITUDES OF FLOOD PLAIN BUSINESSES: INTERVIEW FINDINGS The following is a section from the report, "Attitudes Toward Flood Management in Northampton, Massachusetts; A Case Study," prepared by Carlozzi, Sinton and Vilkitis. "In order to gain insight into the attitudes of Northampton flood plain businesses toward flood hazard and the regulations concerning that hazard, interviews were conducted with personnel from seven firms: Berkshire Electric Cable Co. Vistron Corp. (Pro Brush Division) Northampton Manufacturing Corp. LaFleur Airport Oxbow Marina Packaging Corporation of America (Tri -City Container Plant) Colonial Hilton Inn Managers and owners were asked a series of questions covering the following topics: 1) Flood experience at the plant or facility, including the nature of any damage suffered (property damage, personal injury, loss of income, having to close the facility), helpfulness of existing flood warning and /or evacuation programs, and assistance received under disaster relief programs. 2) Precautions taken to mitigate possible future flood losses (i.e., floodproofing of structures or acquiring flood insurance). 3) Effects of flood plain zoning, building code regulations, or other flood insurance requirements, on the business and its long run well - being. 4) Consequences of future serious flood damage with respect to the possibility of relocating elsewhere within or beyond the Northampton area. The substance of these interviews is summarized below. Berkshire Electric Cable Co. The person interviewed at Berkshire Electric Cable was Mr. Garson Fields, Finance Chairman of the firm. He pointed out that there had not been any flood damage at that location in the past 100 years. The firm does not anticipate a flood hazard, and therefore, no preventative measures have been taken or are planned. Mr. Fields was not concerned about flood danger, and expressed the belief that government should not be involved in any forces} regulation of businesses in flood hazard areas. rI• r Li I Vistron Corp. The person interviewed at Vistron was Mr. Charles Gaudry, Manager of Services and Personnel. He mentioned that there had been some minor damage to inventory in 1958; however, the inventory had then been placed on high pallets, eliminating the problem. He indicated that problems did not arise from flooding of the river, but from surface water runoff. To prevent any such problems, the firm had installed large pumps in the basement. He characterized the situation as a "minor inconvenience. ". The firm does not carry flood insurance and does not believe that there is any real threat of flood damage from the river. Vistron's most recent building was built on the property in 1969 and the firm has considered expanding its facilities by constructing four 90,000'square -foot buildings which would be important to the local economy. Mr. Gaudry pointed out, however, that the possibility of being prohibited from building after undertaking the expense of study and design work had led to uncertainty on the part of the owners. Mr. Gaudry felt that this situation might cause Vistron to relocate; given other considerations of taxes, etc., the firm could possibly consider a move out of Massachusetts. He was not supportive of any government restrictions. Northampton Manufacturing Corp. Mr. John Wilder, the Vice- President of Engineering, was interviewed at Northampton Manufacturing Corp. He indicated that the firm had never experienced any real flooding'damage and only some minor in- conveniences in 1958. He does not forsee any real hazard; consequently, there have been no preventative measures taken at the company. Mr. Wilder's attitude toward regulation is negative. He believes that the government should make information available to businesses and be of assistance, but that firms should have the right to assess their own risks and act accordingly without restriction.. LaFleur Airport Mr. Laurent LaFleur, until recently the owner and manager of the airport, told interviewers that since it began operations in 1938, the airport has been closed for only one day due to flooding. He believes that there is sufficient flood protection.from the dams that have been constructed and sees no real threat from floods. He carries no flood insurance. Mr. LaFleur wanted to rebuild an airplar2 hangar which collapsed last winter due to snow buildup and he was disturbed that the City had been making this difficult. He does not favor governmental restrictions on activities in the flood plain.. The Daily Hampshire Gazette in its June 8, 1978, edition reported the sale of the airport, including its five hangars, office and utility buildings, to a group of four Connecticut businessmen who are also aviation enthusiasts. Mr. Welton Maynard, who is to be responsible for day -to -day operation of the facility, was reported to have stated that the group does not plan any immediate changes. They are considering installing a restaurant, increasing aircraft sales, and perhaps trying to reactivate the airport's seaplane license. Expansion of the field to accommodate larger aircraft is not anticipated. (At present some 60 small planes are based there.) Any changes and improvements would be done gradually. Oxbow Marina. The people contacted at the Marina indicated that this new facility had been constructed at its present location due to heavy flooding at the old location across the Oxbow. Flooding at the old site was an annual event which caused a great deal of inconvenience. The new structure is elevated above the level of Route 5 and the level of much of Northampton. The owners believe that it is very safe from flood hazard. There are a few days each spring when Island Road, the only access road, becomes impassable, but this is not seen as a significant problem. The owners are aware of the regulations and restrictions in the flood plain, but believe that they are a minor factor for the firm. Packaging Corporation of America (Tri -City Container Plant) During the interview with Mr. Eli Kwartler, the Plant Manager, he indicated that there had never been any damage due to flooding in the 15 -year history of operations of the plant. Although the plant has no special construction or flood hazard protection, the owners do carry $100,000 in flood insurance. This amount, however, is small relative to the value of the inventory of paper products which could be lost, and would not begin to cover the value of machinery in the plant. Mr. Kwartler was uninformed about flood plain restrictions and regulations. He was not concerned about future construction restric- tions due to the recent expansion of the plant to what is considered an optimal production size. Colonial Hilton Inn The manager of the Colonial Hilton, Mr. George Paige, said that the Inn had never experienced any damage or loss of business due to flooding since its opening in 1969. The facility was constructed on 5 -20 -- P L r U an elevated site which is not subject to flooding. In addition, the Inn was built on a slab and , therefore,. had no problem with water in basement areas. The owners do not expect flood damage and do not carry.flood insurance. Mr.. Paige was concerned about the zoning of the area and the restrictions placed on new construction. The Inn owns another 90 acres adjacent to the I -91 interchange and has had a number of firms interested in purchasing it for commercial development. The existing zoning, however, would prevent commercial development., resulting in a lower value on the land and preventing the firm from realizing a good return on the investment. He objects to the restrictions. General Conclusions First; most firms did not forsee any real threat from a flood. Many managers or owners pointed to a long history of doing business at their present locations without any loss of property or days of operation. As a result, most of the firms interviewed do not carry flood insurance; if they do, it is a small amount relative to the value of the property. Second, most business representatives were not very familiar with regulations concerning the flood plain. If they were aware of regula- tions, it was a result of a negative experience. In general, business people interviewed were against government regulation per se and restrictions on their activities in the flood plain in particular. They expressed opposition to government interference with their right to assess and take risks, believing that the government's assessment of risks is overly pessimistic. Finally, some of the businesses had taken precautions during con- struction of their facilities to protect against water damage from a flood. The precautions usually took the form of filling land to a higher elevation than the surrounding area and highways. In some cases equipment was available to minimize damage. ATTITUDES OF CITY OFFICIALS: INTERVIEW FINDINGS In order to assess roles and responsibilities related to flood plain management in Northampton, The Community Resources Group conducted interviews with a number of local officials and administrators. These interviews included discussions with representatives of the Planning Board, Planning Department,. Conservation Commission, Northampton Department of Public Works, Recreation Department, Look Park,-and the Northampton Redevelopment Authority. CRG focused the interviews on functional issues - the operations behind the policies. An attempt was made to gain a realistic picture of 5 -21. who makes decisions and how things get done in Northampton. Although these issues regarding functional responsibilities are complex and of- ten ambiguous, CRG learned much through the interviews which was help- ful in making management recommendations. It should be made clear, however, that because adopted flood plain management policy is severely limited in Northampton, the interviews were conducted in an informal manner in which local officials aired their personal views in lieu of discussing such adopted policy. Planning Board Representative CRG interviewed one member of the planning board who gave his view of the role of the Planning Board with regard to flood plain management. It is important to note that no adopted comprehensive management policy exists, so the views and implied policies that follow represent only the views of that one board member and not necessarily the views of the board as a whole. In the discussion, the planning Board member indicated that, in general, the approach of the Planning Board is to maintain agricultural use of the land along the river except at the river's edge where passive and active recreation facilities would be appropriate. However, he noted that the Planning Board has no funds for acquisition in the flood plain area and, further, he feels the Conservation Commission is the appropriate group to manage the flood plain. He believes the Conservation Commission and the Recreation Commission should be responsible for land acquisition. The Planning Board member thinks that although little pressure for development currently exists along the Mill River, the Connecticut River needs the protection of the SC district to preserve the agricultural uses of the land that lie within the flood plain. He believes the SC district and the overlay district on the Mill River limit development because of the added costs of construction above the 100 year flood level and the problems associated with the lack of adequate water and sewer service. Besides preservation for agricultural use, the Planning Board member thinks the edge of the Connecticut River is suitable for both pib.lic and private recreation activities, although sewerage would probably have to be provided to accommodate structured recreation activities. The Planning Board.member.saw the possibility of housing developing as a result of this sewer provision although it would be contrary to the Planning Board's desired policy. On the Mill River, however, the board member noted that landowners are withholding their land from development because of the problems associated with flooding. He said the only exception is. the possible development of the meadow land in Florence which has been purchased by the Pyramid Company. 5 -22 L L r L �J The major flood plain management concerns of the Planning Board currently are the expansion of the Three- County Fair Grounds and the Tri -City Container Corporation. The Planning Board member believes that flood plain management should take industrial expansion into account by not adopting polices which would force firms out of the area. He noted that the planning Board would like to encourage industry to locate in the industrial park outside the flood plain area. Planning Department Staff Member CRG has had numerous conversations with a member of the Planning Department staff. This staff member provided us with much useful information about development pressures on the flood plain and agency responsibilities for flood plain management. The Planning Department member believes that there is little development pressure for housing in Northampton. There has been no major subdivision in Northampton for over five years. .There is a market for townhouses and expensive single family units in the part of the city. Multifamily housing development, on the other hand, is more likely to occur in the eastern part of the city. However, little development activity is currently taking place, and as a result there is little development pressure on the undeveloped sections of the flood plain. Even large sites under single ownership, such as Country Club, are not found to be suitable housing sites because of physical site constraints. The Planning Department staff member stated that the Watershed Overlay District along the Mill River is administered by the Zoning Board of Appeals, but that they usually defer to the recommendations of the Conservation Commission. Initiaily,.the Watershed Protection District extended only 100 feet from the streambed. Recently, the city has approved extending this district to include approximately the same area as the 100 year flood stage. Within the Connecticut River flood plain, Northampton planners have created a.Special Conservancy zone. The zone has been established to allow only "compatible" flood plain uses; namely, agriculture, certain recreation types and, by permit only (requiring special construction techniques), single family housing. Thus far, the Zoning Board of Appeals has been fairly strict in the enforcement of the SC Zone. Presently, little public activity, including passive recreation is planned for the Connecticut River flood plain since it is primarily under private ownership. In addition, the HUD insurance program poses additional restrictions on development within the flood plain. Although water based recreation requires close proximity to water features, and is thereby presumably within the flood plain, all structures must conform to. standard 5 -23 insurance construction criteria if facilities are to be insured under the HUD program. These standards have forced some property owners to request wet floodproofing alternatives for certain uses.. In addition to land use management of the flood plain, the Planning Department staff member noted two possible structural changes that might affect flood plain management. First, the city is investigating the possibility of using existing dams for hydropower production and has received a grant to pursue that study. Since this investigation is at a preliminary stage, the implications for flood plain management are unclear. A second structural alteration that could affect flood plain management is the renovation or relocation of the Mill River bridge on Clement Street. Changes to this bridge could reduce the restriction in the river at that point and would alter the flood pattern somewhat. According to our interview, this staff member thought that certain management techniques would be unacceptable. Water impoundment, for example, probably could not be justified in the eyes of Northampton residents and public officials. They do not believe the hazard would warrant such a drastic solution. In general, structural solutions are not locally supported.. Acquisition of flood plain lands for Conservation is assisted by the Connecticut River Watershed Council - this group acts as a land purchase and holding mechanism until a city or town can arrange funding for acquisition of the parcel. The Council makes acquisition of prime conservation sites possible even though municipalities maybe at low points in their funding cycles. Conservation Commission Representative CRG learned in this interview that the Conservation Commission must approve any development activity within 100 feet of the 100 year flood plain. Any application for development within that area must be referred to the Commission for review and comment. The interviewee believes that this procedure binds a number of city agencies into a close working relationship, facilitating flood plain management systems. This efficiency is clearly recognized in the relationship between the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission; the acquisition of Maines Field is an example of this collaboration. The Conservation Commission member believes that the highest priority Commission issue is protection of the Mill River green belt. Although the Commission does not intend to acquire land that is not under development pressure, the Commission would not hesitate to acquire land in the flood plain in order to prevent development. In any event, the interviewee does not see significant development pressure along the Mill River, with the possible exception of the Meadow Street property owned by the Pyramid Company. Although he thinks that a sewer line extension along the Mill River could enhance development potential, he also believes that there would be signficant local opposition to any development in the flood plain. r LJ With regard to existing, large commercial structures in the flood plain, the Commission member favors a policy of non - replacement rather than mandating relocation. The Commission member thinks passive recreation is an appropriate activity along the edge of the Connecticut River. For more active recreation, he described the decision to locate a marina in the Oxbow as a good compromise between forces opposing development in the flood plain and the need'to locate a marina by the water; locating the marina in the Oxbow allows it to be on the water, but because signi- ficant water velocity does not develop in the Oxbow during floods, the marina is not susceptible to serious flood damage. In general, the Conservation Commission member opposes structural techniques to manage flooding. He prefers the clearance of structures from the floodway, as recommended by the New England River Basin Commis- sion in the River's Reach. He also thinks that homes in the Island Road area should eventually be relocated. The Conservation Commission is presently wrestling with the question of whether to the Three County Fair to expand. The Commission member reported that some members believe that the fairgrounds are high, and that the structures would be designed in a way that would present few flooding problems. He reported, however, that other members feel that expansion of the fairgrounds should not take place in the flood plain area. At the moment, the majority of the Commission leans toward allowing the expansion. Department of Public Works Representative CRG learned that the Department of Public Works (DPW) has two main flood plain management functions. First, the DPW maintains the Northampton flood control system, keeping flood gates, dams and dikes in good repair. Second, the DPW maintains existing Recreation Department facilities and constructs new facilities planned by the Recreation Department. In addition, at the request of the Conservation Commission or the School Department, the DPW will provide maintenance services for open spaces under Conservation or School Department jurisdiction. The DPW member noted that before the DPW does any work inside the flood plain, they must file a letter of intent with the Conservation Commission and have the letter approved. The DPW member noted that in accordance with the Conservation Commission and recreation department, the DPW promotes the concept of an open space greenbelt along the Mill River - the DPW, though, is interested in the - open space primarily for purposes of passive recreation and not flood plain management. He noted, however, that the DPW does not perform any land acquisition functions. He said the Recreation Department is in charge of land acquisition as well as recreation planning and program development. 5 -25 When asked about the proposed sewer line along the Mill River to Leeds, he said he does not think the sewer line will jeopardize the open space along the river by inducing development. He believes that the overlay district requirement mandating structures to be built above the 100 year flood stage will force development into more easily developed sites. He noted that the Mill River and the Connecticut River flood in different ways. The Mill River is subject to flash floods and ice dams which cause the river to rise and drop quickly; little damage is likely to occur as a result of most flooding, except in Leeds. The 100 year flood, however, is likely to cause significant damage along the river. The Connecticut River floods more slowly, but flooding lasts for a much longer time than on the Mill River. Residences in the Island Road and Ferry Avenue area are particularly susceptible to damage. However, he does not believe that the general public is particularly_ concerned about flood plain management, regardless of this flood damage potential. Recreation Department Representative In a conversation with a member of the Recreation Department, we learned that the department feels that their role in recreation has been limited by the City Council to deal only with recreation programming, i.e., little league, basketball, etc. No planning, acquisition or maintenance is allowed under the current definition of the department's responsibilities. Therefore, the role of the Recreation Department at this point has very little to do with flood plain management issues. Currently, there is a proposal to consolidate the Recreation Department with the Parks Maintenance component of the DPW which would create a Parks and Recreation Department. The specific functions of this department are yet to be defined (assuming the notion receives approval from City Council, which is questionable). Should this merger be approved, the Recreation Department could become involved in all the aspects of parks and recreation management and development. Until then, the Recreation Department will continue to limit its activity to program development; the DPW will handle all mAntenance functions, and state and federal recreation grant proposals will be developed and submitted by the Planning Department to the Mayor's Office. According to this recreation department member, park land acquistions are currently the responsibility of the DPW. The planning function behind these acquisitions is not the responsibility of the Recreation Department although, on one occasion, the recreation department hired a landscape architect through the CETA program to produce the development plan of Maines Field (a recreation site located on the Mill River flood plain). 5-26 The Recreation Department and the Recreation. Commission currently have no adopted policies for future recreation planning in Northampton, although these agencies unofficially use the plans and programs described in a .1974 recreation. commission report entitled "Recreational Facilities in Northampton." This report looks at recreation from a very broad vantage point. Many of the recommendations require the cooperation of various city officials, hut the past record indicates that the Recreation Department and Ommission have not found working with other city officials very productive. The recreation department staff member indicated, for example, that the difficulty in working with the Conservation Commission is that they are concerned only with conservation lands and passive recreation and thus have little interest and /or understanding of programs for active recreation. In this case, cooperation toward a single Goal (regardless of whether it is recreation planning or flood plain management) is extremely awkward. Many believe that the Mil River green belt concept is a specific example where good flood plain management practices could be incorporated with a viable active and passive recreation system. Again, the staff member pointed out that a rack of communication and cooperation among the necessary boards and commissions has cast realization of the Green Belt concept into doubt. Until these communication problems are resolved and until the recreation department's status is clarified, it will be very difficult to develop a comprehensive strategy for the management and development of the city's recreation lands. Look Park Administrative Representative Although not controlled by the city, Look Park occupies an important place in the Mill River flood plain. CRG interviewed a member of the Look Park administration and learned that he perceived the park as the terminus of the proposed Mild River green belt. The interviewee noted that Look Park is acquiring the railroad right -of -way which will act as a buffer between Route 9 ma the park. This right -of -way could also be developed as a bike path. The only other property Look Park might possibly acquire for the greenbelt would be the Lesko property but Mrs. Lesko appears unwilling to sell. As a result, the Park's acquisition program is presently in a passive stage. In general, the person with whom we spoke believes the Look Park administration favors flood Main management in the form of using the flood plain for passive recreation. He believes the Look Park philosophy should be to minnize the impact of people on the park. For the flood - plain as a whole, he thinks that dams do not. preserve the natural state of the river car the flood plain. He would favor a combined Northampton Parks, Recreation and. Conservation Department, although he recognized the need to maintain a separate Conservation Commission to perform the land acquisition function. With regard to the proposed 5 -27 combining of the Parks and Recreation Departments, the Look Park administration member sees the maintenance function remaining with the DPW. Northampton Redevelopment Authority Representative CRG learned that the major concern of the Redevelopment Authority is to attract industry to the Northampton Industrial Park. In an earlier interview with a Planning Board member, CRG learned that there had been discussion in that agency to consider asking the Redevelopment Authority to actively try to relocate industry from the flood plain into the industrial park. This information, upon presentation by CRG to a representative of the Redevelopment Authority, was received with surprise, since the representative had no prior knowledge of this request by the Planning Board. At this point, the Redevelopment Authority is making no special effort to relocate existing flood plain industrial operations. Summary Observations Regarding the perceived, if not formally adopted, policies, and respon- sibilities regarding flood plain management in the City, various offi- cials made the following comments: 1. The Planning Board has no comprehensive flood plain manage- ment policy. It has created, however, two zoning tools to deal with land use management in the flood plain, the SC zone and the Watershed Overlay District. The Board has no land acquisition funds. 2. The Conservation Commissioner must approve any development activity within 100 feet of the 100 year flood plain. The Commissioner will act to acquire land in the Mill River flood plain to prevent future development. 3. The Department of Public Works maintains the flood control system in Northampton. Second, the DPW maintains existing Recreation Department facilities and will maintain open spaces under Conservation Commission jurisdiction. 4. The Recreation Department has little responsibility with flood management issues, being limited to recreation pro- gramming. 5. The Redevelopment Authority is attempting to attract industry to the industrial park site but is not specifically attempting to induce existing businesses in the flood plain to relocate there. I fl In short, members of the different agencies perceived the roles and responsibilities of each other agency different from what either actually were or what that agency took them to be. Communication and coordination appear to be lacking around a comprehensive approach to flood plain management; thus, there are no formally adopted policies and procedures spelled out or implemented in this regard. CHAPTER 6 COSTS AND BENEFITS: DESCRIPTION In every community there are roads which need repairs, culverts which need cleaning, and roofs at a schoolhouse or a fire station which let in water when it rains too hard. The pumping station at the sewage treatment plant probably needs more maintenance, and several departments need better equipment in order to perform their jobs. In the midst of constant and competing demands for municipal resources, what community has time to think about something which hasn't even happened yet - a flood? Time and nature combine to cause dozens of types of damage. They cause machines to rust, roofs to leak, and blacktop roads to crack and break. A flood is one such natural event, one which occurs rarely with great severity, but more often yearly causing less severe, but measurable damage like that just described. Rather than patching and repairing, what can a community do to reduce these kinds of damage or to prevent them? Flood damage reduction and prevention are the subject of this report. The community, Northampton, Massachusetts, has done more than many to reduce or prevent flood damage. It has enacted flood plain zoning ordinances, which it is trying to administer fairly. It is com- pleting a careful plan for coping with the effects of natural disaster, including floods. Insuring the wise use of flood plains and protecting the activities already there, are complex tasks which require the participation of many levels of government including local, state, regional and federal. Northampton has begun its work. This report suggests other beneficial areas for municipal action. Other levels of government must continue their work on cost - sharing formulas and administrative issues, so that the policies in this report can begin to reduce flood damage. In addition, some entity must refine the recommendations in this report concerning the feasibility of the six flood plain management policies, using the best available engineering, architectural, economic, social and environmental data. THE RIVERS AND THE POTENTIAL FOR DAMAGE Two rivers flow through Northampton posing flood hazards. The Mill River, originating in the Berkshire hills, flows southeasterly through the city. According to data furnished by the Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, there are eight residential, four industrial and three public uses which will suffer damage from the 100 year flood. This is the "design flood," the flood for which the various measures analyzed in this report are designed to give protection. The Army has estimated total industrial damage from a 100 year flood on the Mill River to be $7,900. Estimated damage to the public institutions is $188,000 , and $91,400 for residences. The Mill River valley contains a limited amount of land prone to flooding and suitable for development; most of the valley consists of steep, wooded banks. The river floods relatively quickly. Flash floods can occur in twelve hours or less. Estimated damage is limited except for the most severe floods (e.g., the design flood). However, certain of the homes and other structures along the Mill River are the most susceptible to flooding in the Northampton area. Public uses are located in the 2 -, 3 -, and 4 year flood plains; industrial uses are in the 2- and 4 year flood plains; and homes are.in the 2 -, 4 -, 10 -, and 20 year flood plains. Only a few of these structures will incur significant damage (relative to the structures' fair market value) due to flooding at low elevations (e.g., the 2.year flood). Because the Mill River flood plain contains fewer structures, the impact of a 100 year flood will not be as severe as in the Connecticut River plain. The bulk of damage potential from a Northampton flood is in the Connecticut River flood plain. In the Connecticut River plain lie several thousand acres of land, almost all in agricultural use. There are 75 residential structures,one industrial structure, and nine commercial establishments. A portion of the State Highway 5 frequently suffers flood damage and the outfall from the municipal sewage treatment plant, at 112 feet above sea level, must be closed annually to prevent damage and health problems. The downtown area of Northampton is protected against flood damage by two separate dikes. One dike, of about 5,000 feet in length and a maximum height of 23 feet, runs along the high ground on the eastern edge of the downtown area.- The second dike is actually made up of two sections totaling. about 1,900 feet and a floodwall of about 450 feet long. This dike is located along the Mill River and was designed to punt floodwaters from entering the downtown from the west. A representative voiced some concern about the poss- ibility of a flood of significant magnitude backing up the 'Mill River from the Connecticut River and overtopping the western dike. However, the adequacy of structural .protection in the city is outside the scope of this report. At the Corp's request, we will deal only with the non - structural techniques. We present estimates of economic damage or losses to existing struc- tures and enterprises from the design flood in Table "1 " - . The figures indi- cate the orders of magnitude of damage in the two flood plains. Clearly, as previously expressed, the bulk of damage occurs in the Connecticut River flood plain. 86% of all dollar damage is estimated to occur along the Connecticut River. Most of the damage will be to industrial and commercial properties (77%). Of all residential damage 94% is estimated to occur along the Connecticut River. Table "1" Estimated Total Losses From the Design Flood Connecticut and Mill Rivers Conn. River Mill River $ $ % Residential 1,404,220 94 91,400 6 Commercial 2,506,520 100 Industrial 7,269,400 99 7,900 1 Institutional/ Public - 338,000 100 Farms 1,011,280 100 Total Losses 12,191,420 96 487,300 4 1 Residential losses include damages to the Northampton Hospital. 1 THE NATURE OF FLOOD DAMAGE In discussing flood damage, we recognize that this damage is probabil- istic. No one can predict when it will occur, though engineers can predict how often it can be expected to occur.' Furthermore, the damage obviously depends on the severity of the flood. Lower levels of water occur more frequently than higher ones. They generate less damage, though they generate it more often. In develop- ing comprehensive damage estimates, this knowledge is essential. It is the likelihood of repeated flood episodes to dozens of Northampton residents, employers and employees, and taxpayers, within the lifetime of each and every individual, that has led to this study and the recommendations it contains. The nation has spent billions of dollars on flood damage reduction, yet the adverse effects of floods are 'constantly increasing... Furthermore, they begin with the onset of flood waters, and they persist for weeks, months, and even years after flood waters recede. Ample evidence of this is visible to any sensitive eye in the vicinity of Wilkes- Barre, Pennsylvania, today, five years after flood waters have receded there. .Before we can describe the impacts of a flood, and the beneficial or adverse effects which result from policies to reduce flood damage; it is useful to take a broad look at the needs of an individual - -any individual. It is pos- sible to talk about a.hierarchy,'or at least a variety, of needs which any person will likely perceive as his or her own. They include at least the following: 1. .Material comfort, ranging from freedom from hunger and cold, to affluent luxury. This is the category with which economic utility and economic welfare functions are largely concerned. 2. Stability and safety. Reasonable continuity between present and future. The absence of threat of violence or of violation to person and personal property. 3. Physical and mental health. Enjoyment of physical sense experience, play, vitality and euphoria. 4. Well -being of spirit and mind. Enlightenment and exercise of of the intellect. Aesthetic enjoyment (including the enjoyment of nature). Religious experience, reverence and idealism, benevolence and rectitude. 5. Intimacy and family relationships, including affection ranging from liking to loving. 6. Societal belonging and participation. The perception of self and groups to which one "belongs." Equitable participation in society, including leadership, sharing of responsibility, trust. 6 -4 7. Competence and mastery and developing the skils necessary thereto. 8. Self - elevation and influence (in the extreme, power over others). 9. Freedom to choose. The wish to make and carry out one's own decisions about what to do, think, believe and say. When we think of how floods affect people, we cannot afford to think of these effects in less than a comprehensive fashion. We must think of the effects on a person's spirits as well as the pocketbook. 7e -must think of effects on relations with family, neighbors, and fellow workers, effects on health, as well as on human life, itself. We must consider not only walls but, also, life, which goes on behind them. We can group these many effects into three general categories: o economic impacts ® environmental impacts o societal impacts Examples of economic impacts occur largely in categories 1 and 2, of the nine listed above. Environmental impacts include, but are not limited to the physical, aesthetic and recreational dimensions in categories 3 and 4. Examples of impacts occurred in virtually all the categories of needs but are especially clear in categories 5 and 6. In measuring the positive and negative impacts associated with a policy, the Water Resources Council, in its Principles and Standards for Planning, suggest that impacts should be measured, insofar as possible, in dollar values. Yet it is difficult, and we believe ultimately impossible, to measure social and psychological impacts in dollar terms. These are often termed "intangibles." Other things, for example, a destroyed automobile, or waterlogged inventory, accept dollar measurement easily. When some things.can be neatly quantified and others can't, it is tempting to underplay the elements which defy measurement. This is especially true when identifying these elements (that is, the specific impacts of a flood) is such a difficult task. To avoid this pitfall and to gain needed insight, CRG prepared a questionnaire which was used as part of a larger survey of residents within the Connecticut and Mill River flood plain. About 18 of the survey questions were relevant to this study. This yielded a great deal of useful information. We were concerned not only with the effects of past floods, but resident reaction to the threat of flood as well. It allowed the study team to make judgements about the social impli- cations and impacts of various flood control measures, and therefore per- mitted social variables to be considered in the benefit /cost equation. The following discussion reviews types of non - structural flood control measures (FCM), and how they may be used in the Connecticut and Mill River flood plains. No recommendations for implementation will be made at this point. Here we are simply trying to acquaint the reader with the variety of techniques available. Chapter 7 includes benefit /cost analyses and specific recommendations. 6 -5 The remainder of this chapter is divided into two subsections. First, we describe the more "passive" types of non - structural flood control measures. Included are flood warning and evacuation, flood plain zoning, and purchase of development rights or easements. These are no more or less effective, but they are characterized. as not requiring any physical changes, unlike other types of non - structural measures. The other type to which we are'referring can..be called "active," non - sturctural flood control measures. They include purchase of property and relocation of the occupants, moving a home out of the flood plain and floodproofing, which includes such things as closure, raising structures, and building walls and levees. PASSIVE FCM FLOOD WARNING AND EVACUATION A floodwarning and evacuation system is intended to prevent property damage, but, more importantly, to prevent loss of life. A study flood warning. benefits and costs in the Susquehanna River Basin has demonstrated that 2 reduction from the system exceeds program costs by three to seven times. In another study, a similar range of costs to benefits was estimated for a comprehensive system in the Connecticut River Valley. This Connecticut River Valley study based its analysis on a report by the National Weather Service, which concluded that improved river forecasting and use of fore - casts on the Connecticut River and its tributaries on an annual basis could cost nearly $500,000 and generate $1,500,000 in benefits. The estimate for benefits assumes warning and evacuation programs will be used by all flood plain communities in the basin. The cost of an improved. National Weather Service forecasting capability would be $125,000 annually or an increase from $75,000 to about $200,000. In addition, local increased warning and evacuation measures would cost states and municipalities around $300,000. Taken together, an improved flood warning and evacuation system would cost approximately $425,000. However, it is not appropriate to compare this cost to a $1.5 million benefit. This $425,000 increment will increase bene- fits; however, the existing warning and evacuation system will account for some part of that $1:5 million benefit. An exact benefit /cost ratio for the improved capability is not possible. The existing National Disaster Plan does not make an estimate of the benefits attributable to the local plan or the dollar cost. General costs and benefits of such a plan are summarized in Table 12 An improved flood warning system would produce an excellent data base for use in future river forecasts and plans. Such a system can begin to reduce potential damages in a matter of months, rather than the years or decades required for most structural techniques as well as non - structural ones. These benefits are substantial and important.' Another matter of crucial importance is that an optimally developed and staffed Flood Episode Command Center or ECC in Northampton can reduce the likelihood of specified kinds of extreme damage, thereby providing time for Other kinds of non- structural methods of flood damage reduction to be developed and implemented. Table 1?. FLOOD EPISODE WARNING AND MANAGEMENT. BENEFITS COSTS reduced potential social and emotional losses . reduced potential losses to portable property . better ability to plan (resulting from better data on river flow) • early potential damage reduction, relative to other structural or non - structural techniques • administration ▪ equipment J J L7 These important benefits generate few economic costs and even fewer' social costs. Our survey of floodplain residents showed that warning and evacuation plans impose virtually no social or emotional costs on residents. The administrative and capital costs are modest. Northampton can reduce these costs through cooperative planning and management with adjacent flood prone towns. In Chapter 3 we discussed the essential components of a flood episode management system. In Chapter 7, we discuss these and more specific needs and compare them to the Northampton Plan. FLOOD PLAIN. ZONING Flood plain zoning is a legal method of controlling new developments within flood prone areas. The principal benefits of floodplain zoning are . a reduction of losses and misery due to floods, an ability to preserve certain land areas, and the enhancement of the beneficial effects of natural river flow. These effects increase over time insofar as zoning helps to limit further development along the river. Furthermore, because development in one town along a river often stimulates development in adjoining towns (e.g., road construction), zoning in one place can influence flood damage reduction in other places. In addition, Flood plain zoning allows development to be controlled and /or limited. This will reduce flooding down river by reducing interference with flood storage capacity up river. Possible costs of flood plain zoning are 1. Loss of tax revenues. Because flood plain zoning often has the effect of limiting development, local governments will not gain increased property tax revenues that would occur as a result of development. Developed land is taxed at a higher rate than undeveloped land. 2. Lost appreciation. Flood plain zoning will disadvantage some much more than others. Property owners in the flood plain who hope to reap large profits by selling to developers will be greatly hindered by such an ordinance. 3. Administration. Any new ordinance must have adequate staff to be implemented effectively. Purchase of Vacant Land, Easements, and Development Rights Techniques to limit or eliminate development are normally used in areas subject to strong development pressures, where the alternative (no growth) is the desired land use. There are few places in the Connecticut and Mill River flood plains where use of these techniques would be worthwhile. Table.l3identifies costs and benefits associated with land purchase. Of the three types of costs shown, land cost represents over 90% of pro- gram cost. When considering the land purchase FCM, future use of that property is essential to consider F ;iture »ses can be a de termining factor in the benefit /cost equation. Maintaining flood storage capacity is another and primary goal to be achieved by limiting new development in the Connecticut River basin. 5 6 -8 Table13. FLOOD PLAIN ZONING REGULATIONS BENEFITS . increased hopes for profit to land owners outside the flood plain • reduced future economic and social costs of flooding . increased tax revenues from property outside the flood plain maintenance of flood storage capacity COSTS . reduction in hoped for profits to some land owners reduction in potential tax revenues to municipality from flood plain property administrative costs LI P Li BENEFITS • reduction of potential flood damage • flood storage • recreation/open space uses • potential public improvements & expenditures no longer required • scenic/ecological values Tablel4. LAND ACQUISITION 6-10 COSTS • purchase price and associated' interest, if any • administration . potential taxes lost to city Scenic and ecological benefits include the preservation of prime farmland. CRG interviewed realtors, assessors, appraisers and others knowledgeable about land prices and derived a series of estimated values for land in and around Northampton with various characteristics. We have summarized the information in Table 15._ It shows a vast range in land values. According to our data, individual residential lots with required utilities, size and frontage in Northampton sell for $5,000 to $9,000. These lots vary in flood hazard areas from one acre to as little as 10,000 square feet. (For a full explanation of existing zoning in the flood plain, see "Flood Plain Zoning. ") Commercially zoned land, such as that found in the Highway Business zone at the intersection of Route 5 and Interstate 91 in the flood plain, may be worth upwards of $10,000 per acre. These values apply to land at one end of the development continuum. The same land, under different circumstances, may be worth $200 to $500 per acre, if it lacks commercial or residential zoning, appropriate utilities, or the prospects of any of these. The further a parcel has traveled along the speculative road, the higher the cost associated with flood damage protection. The largest single jump in value of unimproved land occurs as a result of its subdivision into individual lots. The second largest value increase results from public improvements such as roads or utilities. If a community is to use a program of land acquisition to reduce flood damage, it must be capable of identifying and purchasing appropriate flood prone lands prior to public improvement or private subdivision. Northampton's strict development controls governing the use of flood prone land have probably kept the value of almost all flood prone land at prices near agricultural land values. This has kept prices low enough to help make purchase of land for flood damage reduction purposes more feasible. 6 -11 - 1 J 1 _J L r L 1; w 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 $ /Acre 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 LAND VALUES IN /NEAR NORTHAMPTON (1978 DOLLARS) _Woodland, no development potential Farmland, cleared, for horticulture 20 to 100 zoned residential, some utilities 6 - 12 20 to 10eacres, zoned residential, with water, sewers, electricity and substantial frontage Residential building lots with all utilities, and required frontage Couunercial lots or acreage, with all utilities, properly zoned, and with required frontage With a few exceptions, flood plain land in Northampton has little or no development potential today. Thus, a large program of land purchase does not seem justified. Several parcels however, do require special consideration, to be discussed below. While land purchase in fee simple may be justified in specific cases, the purchase of development rights has more potential as a means of reducing flood damage. Most flood plain land (in the Special Conservation zone) has limited development potential, as noted. The controversy and expense involved in purchasing rights is not justified given this zoning. But land zoned for business or industry does have development value. In at least two cases, the Meadow Street property and the property owned by Tenneco (Packaging Corp. of America), the land is being farmed today, and it lies partly within the 20 year flood plain. It would be possible to purchase development rights there, since the land has value in agricultural use. Such a policy offers several benefits which purchase in fee simple does not. The unique benefits of development rights purchase include the following: (1) less dollar costs than purchase in fee simple (explained below); (2) no public maintenance costs, since the farmer -owner actively cultivates the soil; (3) other scenic and aesthetic benefits. Given the sale price on Meadow Street, it appears the value of the development rights on these 100 acres of Mill River farm land is in the range of $1,200 to $1,400 per acre? with $600 to $800 /acre being its value in agricultural use. This estimate could apply to other Mill River farm land, as well as land surrounding the Northampton fairgrounds, similarly subject to the URA zoning requirements, and also farmed actively today. These figures are obviously approximate. Before the City of Northampton gives serious consideration to purchasing land or interests in land, a professional appraiser ought to evaluate the parcels under consideration. Another form of purchase, the easement, can be used to preclude develop - ment,,and thereby reduce flood damage potential. An easement is a "right of access" to land which may or may not involve outright purchase. Generally, the easement leaves the owner control over the land but permits public access to the land. An easement offers scenic and ecological benefits to the public, but at a relatively high price. The experience of the neighboring town of Amherst suggests that scenic or conservation easements cost nearly as much as the price of full purchase. In the Connecticut River plain, they have no advantage over the purchase of development rights as a means of precluding development, and they cost more. In the Mill River, however, where sloping riverbanks are suitable to passive recreation, the easement; if it included public access to the land, could prove appropriate as a means of increasing recreation opportunity where the land is not farmed. However, for a slightly higher price, the City would purchase the land in fee simple. While the City would then be required to maintain the land, it 'could also impro -7e it for hikers, bicyclists, and fishermen, and thereby substantially.increase ` the social benefits. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM Although flood insurance is not a method of reducing flood damage, it does help absorb flood damage cost for policy holders. It is included with the passive types of non - structural FCM because it requires no physical changes. Flood insurance protects purchasers against losses to the building they own and its contents. In theory, its dollar costs (the premiums) equal the benefits it offers (payments made in the event of flood damage), except for the incremental costs to the purchaser which represents a profit to the companies involved in the National Flood Insurers Association.(FIA). This parity between benefits.and costs is expected to occur in the long run. In a given year or decade, payment of claims can exceed premiums if flooding has been severe or vice versa. Generalized costs and benefits associated with the flood insurance program are illustrated in Table 16. In more specific terms, costs of the first "layer" of coverage are fixed by Congress at the rates described in Tablel7; these rates are available under, the Emergency Program. The prices apply to insurance up to the amount listed in. the table. Owners. of existing residential structures also benefit from a rate ceiling of .50/$100 of coverage for any insurance above the first Layer, up to the limits described in Tablel8. For some homes, this rate offers homeowners in the flood plain the opportunity to fully insure - their structures and contents at below- actuarial rates if they live within the more flood prone zones. Outside these zones, actuarial . rates which are in effect are lower than .50/$100, and no subsidy is required. All existing flood plain structures in Northampton . qualify for insurance at the subsidized rates because they all predate 1974, when Northampton joined the "regular" flood insurance program. Existing structure owners may pay the lesser of the actuarial and the subsidized rate. Any new structures, or substantial renovations of existing structures require that the actuarial rates be paid. Within each flood plain, the FIA establishes zones for setting actuarial rates. The subsidized rate does not vary, whereas the.actuarial rate changes'. depending on the type of structure (e.g.,.with or without a basement), and the elevation of the first floor relative to the base floor elevation. Figures are not available for.the Northampton area to compare premiums paid to claims reimbursed. However, the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) has provided such a comparison for the national flood insurance program since the program began. Through 1977,premiums exceeded reimbursements. For the first time, in 1978, cumulative reimbursements exceeded cumulative premiums. Coincidentally, the shift was caused in large part by flooding in New Orleans and Massachusetts. 8 At present,premiums paid equal $385,000,000 and reimbursements equal $415,000,000. • BENEFITS e payments made on claims increased feeling of security e determent of some future development because of the price of flood insurance Table 16 BENEFITS AND COSTS OF FLOOD INSURANCE 6 -15 COSTS e premiums paid ® potential damage which may result from the continued presence of existing homes in a hazard area o deductibles I Contents Structures- Table 1 Insurance Data for First Layer Coverage of Existing Structures in Northampton Rate ceiling, First "layer" of coverage ($ /$100) Maximum amount available at this rate single family $ .25 $ 35,000 other .25 100,000 non - residential .25 100,000 residential .35 10,000 non - residential .75 100,000 Source: Flood Insurance Manual, National Flood Insurers Association. Insurance Coverage Available to Northampton Structures (in $) Structures single family other residential small business churchs and other properties Contents residential small business churches and other properties First "layer" (under the emergency program) $ 35,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 10,000 100,000 100,000 TABLE 18 Second "layer" TOTAL (regular program) $ 150,000 150,000 150,000 100,000 Source: Flood Insurance Manual, National Flood Insurers Association. 50,000 200,0000 100,000 $ 185,000 250,000 250,000 200,000 60,000 300,000 200,000 Insurance for owners of existing flood plain structures is not required unless the owner seeks to use the structure as collateral for a new loan,or, the home sold, or if the structure benefits from any direct federal assistance such as funds for renovation or disaster relief. However, insur- ance is not a precondition for disaster relief in the event of a flood. Instead, it becomes a condition upon the receipt of such aid. Owners must immediately purchase the insurance before accepting.federal financial aid in any form. If and when an owner borrows against his or her property through any federally insured lending institution, the institution will require insur- ance - in an amount equal to the outstanding principal balance. ACTIVE FLOOD CONTROL MEASURES (FCM) RELOCATION . Active, non - structural FCM are often very costly. The most costly activities involving homes are: acquisition, family relocation, and demolition; and physical movement of a home out of the flood plain to another site. Various studies have attempted to make generalizations about the cost effectiveness of such moves. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a study entitled Physical and Economic Feasibility of Non - Structural Flood Plain Management Measures, that among other things, relates the two types of relocation to certain probabilities of flooding. Conclusions of the Corps study include: .Moving a two -story structure with a basement could be eco- nomically feasible within the 12 year flood plain, and for a similar structure, purchase and assisting a family to relocate could be economically feasible within the 5- to 7 year flood plain. Our study yields no such threshold where these actions are or are not cost effective. However, in Chapter 7 we do carefully analyze the relocation alternatives by developing a benefit/ cost analysis for each residential property. Before discussing other active measures it is appropriate to identify "intangible" costs often associated with these two most drastic of the non - structural FCM.. To .start with, even where relocation is desirable based entirely on economic grounds, there may be instances where intangibles alter that conclusion. As an example, fifteen of twenty homes in the 20.year flood plain are located in the Oxbow area (Ferry Street and Island Road). This enclave of 26 homes, approximately 50 years old,is a well established, extremely stable residential neighborhood, almost totally owner - occupied. There is little turnover in homeownership. Only one home has changed hands in the last six years, and to the best of our knowledge, several residents have lived at the same address for decades. Furthermore, the area is closely knit physically as well as socially. Lots of 4,000 to 7,000 square feet are common. If • relocation' appeared cost effective in this area (b /c> 1), the community structure and well established social network may make relocation untenable. In areas like this and others compulsory relocation is sometimes neces- sary. In those_instance.s_resi dents — are — for_ ce _d— tohe_ar considerable— social and emotional costs as no new home or home site can replace present circumstance. In Northampton such compulsory measures are not viewed favorably. The Carlozzi study indicates resident dissatisfaction with forced methods of relocation. We summarize the response in. Table 19. In conclusion, relocation can succeed•onty where government, to the best of its ability, makes relocation attractive. This requires under- standing, fair negotiation, and expeditious handling of the process. Benefits and cost are summarized in Table20. FLOODPROOFING Floodproofing reduces the adverse economic and social effects of floods in ways already discussed in this report. Major costs associated with flood - proofing techinques are the materials and labor required to perform the work. These costs vary with the type of floodproofing. Floodproofing techniques can cause "externalities" or costs not directly associated with its application to individual structures. For example, if individual walls and /or levees were used extensively in flood prone areas, or large areas within the flood plain were filled for building sites, flood storage capacity would be decreased. A substantial decrease in storage capacity in Northampton would mean the rise in flood elevation elsewhere. Granted, an individual . who chooses to buy a house lot in the flood plain, fill the total to the 100 year flood stage and construct a home will have as an individual, very little impact on the flood elevation. But as a matter of City policy, if a large number of individuals were considering such an alternative for a home site, the impact would no longer be inconsequential and the City would be responsible in one sense for not preventing such a situation. So the issue is not simply to take actions to protect your own flood prone property, but rather to take protective action which does not inflict additional damage on someone else. Another problem relates to the process of implementing FCM. By making it feasible for some structures to remian in the flood plain (using flood - proofing techniques), it may be more difficult to convince those more prone to floods to move. Floodproofing may also induce a false sense of security among the owners and occupants of flood prone structures. We have seen how one type of flood - proofing increases the risk of failure or buckling of walls, floors or foundations, all of which result in much more damage than the house would suffer if flood waters were allowed to enter freely. Floodproofing alterations can create inconvenience to home occupants. On the other hand, the major advantage to floodproofing techniques is that physical changes do not require permanent relocation of the occupants to another site, although temporary relocation may be required. 6 +19 _ Table 19 "If the government is willing to pay a fair market price for property in the flood•plain, and to pay the expenses for moving the people who live there, do you think it's right for people to be required to sell their property and move ?" Asked of 53 flood plain residents. Yes No Depends Don't Know Blank TOTAL 7 40 0 1 53 r Source: Carlozzi, Sinton &.Vilkitis; of`Attitudes'Toward.Flood Plain Management in Northampton, Massachusetts, A Case Study, November, J \; r 1978. 0 POSITIVE IMPACTS (BENEFITS) © cessation of premimum for flood insurance © reduced damage and trauma for community as a whole • reduced possibility of injury of death Table 20 POSSIBLE IMPACTS OF REMOVING STRUCTURES IN THE FLOOD PLAIN • prevention of economic, sentimental and irreplaceable losses due to floods 6 -21 NEGATIVE IMPACTS (COSTS) • labor required to move O expense of moving e social and sentimental losses resulting from move We summarize the types of floodproofing techniques below. A general description of benefits and costs is in Table 21; Closure or Dryproofing. Closure involves sealing windows and doors and the installation of sewer gate valves. Waterproofing foundations is also sometimes necessary. Raising. Raising a structure is costly because of necessary jacks and braces, and changes to utility systems (i.e., mainly furnace, hot water heater). Because all Northampton flood plain homes have basements, additional economic and social costs are anticipated. For example, utility systems are usually located in basements, and these systems would have to be moved, in all likelihood, to within the elevated structure or into a new structure altogether. Social costs would include a change in occupants' life style because basements are often eliminated. Walls and Levees. This particular technique works by simply preventing flood water from reaching the structure and /or flood prone land. Individual walls and levees have many of the same characteristics as the larger ones, and generate similar costs and benefits as raising a structure. Walls are free standing structures that must bear hydraulic loading with little or no assistance from earth loading on the opposite side. Flood walls are normally used when space is restructured and foundation conditions are suit- able. Levees are massive berms,normally constructed of earthen material, that resist hydraulic pressure through shear mass. This technique is employed when space is not restricted and material'is available. Depending on the particular situation, walls and levees can be constructed to completely surround a structure and property or simply buffer a low section of the property. Table 21 FLOODPROOFING BENEFITS COSTS o reduction in damage © materials, labor to contents • possible loss of flood o reduction in adverse social storage capacity effects to flooding (to the extent it reduces damage and allows for quick return to o possible false sense of the home) security in floodproofed homes o inconvenience and altera- tions to life style 7 FOOTNOTES 1 This discussion borrows freely from Ruth P. Mack, Assessment of Flood Management Alternatives Against Social Performance Criteria, Phase III Report, Institute of Public Administration, November, 1975, Chapters 1 and 2. 2 Day, Harold J., "Flood Warning Benefit Evaluation - Susquehanna Paver Basin (Urban Residences),." Environmental Science Services Administration, U.S.D.O.C., Technical Memorandum WBTM HYDRO 10, March, 1970. 3 Mack, Ruth P., Evaluation of and Recommendations for.. Legal, Institutional, and Financial Methods for Implementing Purposes and Plans for Flood Plain Management in.the Connecticut River Basin, Institute of Public Administration, March, 1976, Chapter 5. 4 New England River Basins Commission, The River's Reach, p. 101. 5 Northampton, Massachusetts, Policies and Plans for Open Space - Conservation - Recreation, adopted July 10, 1975. 6 This use contrasts with land around the Colonial Hilton, zoned for business, which is wooded today with virtually no current economic value. The other important piece of land, near the fairgrounds, is farmed but is flood prone. Thus it does not meet attribute #1 above, and it suitable candidate for these types of purchase. 7 If the same ration (land -to- rights) prevails in Northampton as in Amherst, the rights are worth approximately $1300 /acre. 8 Information provided by the Federal Insurance Administration, Washington, D.C., 1979. 6 -24 not highly is not a • CHAPTER 7 NON- STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter provides recommendations for the use of the non - structural FCM discussed in Chapter 6. Passive measures are reviewed and analyzed in general terms. Active measures have undergone a more detailed structure - by structure analysis, allowing findings to be more definitive. An alter- native land use management strategy is presented in Chapter 8, based in part on the recommendations of this chapter. While reviewing the following materials, it is essential that the reader carefully consider all data and take into account all of the explicit assumptions presented. Recommendations in Chapter 7 are based on detailed data provided by the Corps on -site interviewing and inspection,and months of data evaluation and analysis. We therefore believe the recommendations are sound. PASSIVE FCM RECOMMENDATIONS Flood Warning and Evacuation An effective local warning and evacuation system requires a workable plan. The City of Northampton has such a plan and is well prepared to handle disaster situations. It includes procedures for early warning, liaison with federal and state agencies, establishing a control or command center, coor- dinating personnel, equipment and supplies, and identifies responsibilities and authority in the event of a natural disaster (flood). Below we list some of the procedures included in the local Disaster Plan: e if the Connecticut River reaches 105 feet, a flood watch begins • at 107 feet, two streets are closed o at 112 feet, precautionary measures are taken to protect the sewage treatment facility a as flood waters rise even higher, the command center or ECC is set up o at 127 feet, a state of emergency is declared by the mayor. As previously stated, Northampton has a well planned and workable sy:.tem. However, because the primary objective of warning and evacuation is to protect the health and safety of residents, we recommend even further action. In particular we recommend expenditure of funds to improve National Weather Service forecasting capabilities. The public entity to fund this effort is yet to be .created,-", Flood Plain Zoning As a result of existing ordinances and policies, flood plain land in Northampton is carefully regulated. The ordinances substantially reduce potential for social, emotional and economic costs associated with flood damage, although they create administrative costs. All new development must be elevated above the 100 year flood. The current lengthy debate over the application of the Fairgrounds to build seasonal structures at the edge of the flood plain shows that all flood plain construction in Northampton is controversial and for that reason, if no other, somewhat more costly. 71 The ratio of costs to benefits associated with a Northampton flood plain ordinance is determined largely by the existing patterns of land use and development trends both in Northampton and in adjacent municipalities. As discussed - in - Chapter 3, it would appear that prospective residential, commercial and industrial development could find ample, suitable land outside the flood plain. However, we must note that expansion of existing industry does pose special flood plain management problems. As many as three industrial firms, with plants and equipment now in flood hazard areas, might find expansion attractive on flood prone land that is adjacent to their existing facilities. The likely expansion sites are zoned for industry, but City laws require that the structures be flood proofed. The costs and benefits of on -site expansion are complex. The outcome of the Cost-benefit analysis will turn largely on the following questions: 1) What additional costs result to the firm from expansion occurring off -site, but within the immediate area? 2) Will such expansion occur within Northampton, or elsewhere? 3) How much damage will occur if the plant expands in the flood plain? Can the structure be built in such a way (on piles, for example) that there would be little adverse effect on flood storage capacity? Can it be built so that there is no danger to others posed by,contents or equipment floating free in a flood? Can all dangerous or portable contents be removed in as little time as twelve hours. 4) What benefits and costs accrue to the City, its residents, and: others as a result of expansion? How much do these depend on expansion occurring on -site? ' It appears that Northampton flood plain land is not prone to extensive commercial, residential or industrial development pressure for the next five or ten years. Zoning designed to restrict development in the flood plain will not result in substantial economic loss to the city or to flood plain land 'owners. Where development pressures remain, there is a set of public actions Northampton can employ. Northampton can control construction of infra- structure that serves new development to control development. We recognize that new development served by new infrastructure will not be prone to the 100 year flood, however, lands surrounding these new structures will be flooded. This will increase public cost. New development will only marginally increase the costs of flood warning and evacuation systems, however._ Where new roads and other utilities are flooded, additional repair cost may be required. Therefore we recommend careful consideration of all potential long -term costs when deciding whether to provide utilities to serve new development in the flood plain. Purchase of Easements and Development Rights Although public purchase of easements nearly as costly as fee simple acquisition than similar, less costly, FCM. .I_t is -not new development throughout a flood plain as 7 -2 does preclude new development, it is and provides no more benefit an effective method o. preventing large as the one in Northampton. Transfer of development rights (TDR) is one zoning technqiue which Northampton has not employed. It differs from "purchase of development rights." While purchase of development rights has government buying away all future rights to develop, transfer of development rights allows one owner to buy another's right to develop so that the buyer can develop land at a higher density. Other municipalities have adopted or are considering ordinances which allow the transfer of development rights from one area to another. In Northampton, as elsewhere, TDR is a cost - effective means of reducing flood damage and preserving agricultural or scenic lands. In principle, it involves even fewer costs than zoning since land owners need not be denied the benefits of their right to develop. Rather, they can either develop or sell some or all of these rights to owners who want to develop their own land more densely. If development pressure increases else- where in the city, or the cost of land increases to the point where develop- ment under existing zoning is not sufficiently profitable, a municipal program of TDR could help the city, its developers, and the flood plain land owners, while preserving the flood plain for agriculture and flood storage. If this technique were used, zoning changes would also be required to permit higher density development. We do not believe TDR is an appropriate solution.at this time given the lack of development pressure that now exists in the flood plain. However, if significant future development pressures occur in the vast farmland of the Connecticut River flood_plain . we suggest that TDR be seriously considered. Such an area may be the Meadow Street farm. Both the recent sale price and the zoning suggest that in the long run it has a high potential for development. Given its size and present agricultural use, this parcel is an appropriate property to look at for public purchase of development rights. Purchase of vacant land zoned residential is not economically justified because current development pressures are not substantial, and fee simple purchase is so costly. Some industrially and commercially zoned parcels (mentioned in Chapter 6) are more prone to development and must be given greater scrutiny; however, purchase of development rights would appear the most appropriate action, when compared to outright purchase. Finally, it must be remembered that other non - economic objectives (e.g., from locally adopted plans) may be cause for fee simple purchase. National Flood Insurance Program Since flood insurance is based on actuarial rates, and in many cases, is offered at below - acturial rates, we recommend that owners of all existing flood_plain structures fully insure both structure and contents. Further justification is that actuarial rates vary by the type, location and elevation of the structure and the ability of owners of existing homes to purchase the lesser of the actuarial and subsidized rates. Thus, for the same home, but different elevation (one in the 50 year plain and one in the 20 year plain), it may be possible for one to pay the subsidized rate, while the other pays the actuarial rate. As for new homes, local regulation already requires all types of new construction to be elevated above the 100 year flood. The cost of flood insurance is based on actuarial rates, reflecting the type of structure and elevation. Because new development must be above the 100 year flood, the actuarial rates will be adjusted accordingly, and will be relatively inexpensive. Regardless, any federally insured mortgage will require that flood insurance be purchased, and we believe most, if not all, private lending institutions will require purchase of flood insurance to cover at •lea8t the amount of the mortgage. 7 -3 We recommend the purchase of insurance for any structure in the flood plain, - existing - or - future, regardless of elevation; means of floodproofing or of financing used. History has shown that increased urbanization does effect flood plain storage capacity, and that the 30 year flood stage elevation . a decade ago may very well be the 20 year flood stage elevation today. Many studies evaluate the effects'of urbanization on'flood plains.. A Texas study, Urban Storm Water Runoff: Determination of Volumes and Flow Rates , addresses urbanization effects. "As a consequence of urbanization, the percentage of pervious land in developing areas decreases with the construction of roads, parking areas, roofs, and other impervious surfaces. This enormous increase in the amount of impervious area results in greater quantities of flow.... ".and run -off. In short, development tends to increase flood stage elevations over time. Our recommendations apply equally to non - residential structures of all kinds. Three commercial concerns have already perceived the benefits of insurance, especially at subsidized rates. For the others, insurance is appropriate unless the structures are floodproofed or otherwise immune to damage to contents and structure from a 100 year flood. Data furnished us by the Corps of Engineers give no indication that businesses have this level of protection. In the event that an owner floodproofs a structure already in the flood plain Flood Insurance Administration regulations allow insurance rates to be revised to reflect the reduced risk of damage. However, the process is lengthy, and does not work well on a structure -by - structure basis. The city must submit a request to FIA for an exemption to the rate requirements. The request must include and identify plans for flood - proofing in the community. After any home is floodproofed, the city must inspect it and certify its floodproof condition to FIA. An FIA spokesperson counseled against individual requests for rate changes, because individual exceptions to established rates are even more difficult than a community-wide exception. After local inspection and, certification, FIA will revise the rates based on the buildings' being floodproof to an elevation one foot lower than is actually the case. Thus, if the home is raised, or made watertight to the elevation of the 100 year flood, FIA will approve insurance as if the home were protected to one foot below that flood. In conclusion, flood insurance is a fair policy, which places the cost of flood damage on the owners of flood plain property. In Northampton, where the more flood structures receive ample insurance at subsidized rates, the federal government has ironically'increased its potential liability for flood damage rather than decreased it. Instead of incurring costs solely for major natural disasters, the government now also offers to share the cost of minor floods. Northampton flood_plain residents ought to buy insurance in any event. However, residents must recognize that flood insurance does not reduce damage, it only indemnifies property owners from dollar losses. It is a supplement, rather than an essential element of a comprehensive flood plain management program. Benefit /Cost Analysis of Active FCM The most basic of methods to determine the cost effectiveness of flood control measures (FCM) requires a comparison between economic costs of an FCM and the economic benefit produced by that same FCM. To this analysis "intangible" or social cost and benefits must be added to make a final determination whether or not an FCM should be undertaken. The purely economic analysis is often difficult to accomplish because of data deficiencies. With information provided by on -site Corps investigation and a subsequent computer analysis,benefits and costs can be compared for residential properties along the Connecticut and Mill Rivers. Our analysis of active, non- structural FCM compares the expected average annual damages to the annual capital recovery cost of the non - structural techniques. This comparison was made for each residential property separately to provide the most accurate benefit /cost analysis available. A general comparison was not appropriate as each property is at a different location and elevation, and, therefore, more or less prone to flooding. We are aware that Department of Army ER 1105 -2 -353 requires a careful analysis of land use after relocation in.order that benefits without the FCM b accurately assessed. We anticipate relocation will be economically feasible only in areas prone to severe flooding. Therefore any action to remove homes will be accomplished under the assumption that no new development will occur. As a result, benefits derived from last use after relocation will not be significant enough to alter the result of one benefit /cost equation. From property-by-property analysis, we identified the structures that will incur the greatest estimated damage in the event of the 100 year flood. These structures represent greatest potential damage and, therefore, the greatest potential saving if adequate FCM are implemented. In only one instance, in the Mill River flood plain, were all measurable FCM cost - effective (based solely on an economic analysis). Under no circumstance that is measurable is the third most costly measure (raising an existing structure) cost - effective, when based only on the economic analysis. However, five structures have a benefit /cost ratio of greater than .5 where raising is being considered. All of these structures are within the 20 year flood plain, and are, therefore, more prone to flooding than most other structures in the Northampton flood plain. Due to this increased probability of flooding, psychological problems associated with flood damage are often more severe. In certain instances, these problems (although not readily measurable in dollar terms) may be great enough to support raising as an effective measure. The order of magnitude (most costly to least costly) of the FCM con- sidered is generally as follows: acquisition of a home and relocating the family; moving a home out of the flood plain; raising a structure to 5'4" or 3' 4 ", and floodproofing. In some instances, where the fair market value of a large structure is low, moving a home can be more costly than acquisition and relocation. Table 22 identifies expected annual damages for the most damaged properties (described above) and the annual capital recovery cost for each of the FCM alternatives. Residences shown are,only those where one of the FCM will be cost effective. 7 -5 LC) L0 4 • N \ N Z O N O N CV N V d' m co Ln tut z N `:1 z z 0 N 0 N Z Z N • Z d' CI Z z z z z z in KC FC o 0 o rn 4 4 OO rt L in cd \ \ co in co in z z co z N lfl Z Z Z N $4 t o r-i . II) r-1 a 3 co td \ rts \ \ \ \ \ \ \ r-1 R7 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z g 4j U ° � 0 to \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O C 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W zA 0 / � co co co co co $ \o \0 \0 x, \0 4 4 \ ° O r�C 0 d O N O N O N O N O N \ \ O N \ 4- '4 r I > Ld C1 at N N N N Z Z C•1 Z 0 d al o. a m s z Z N N C' N N N ti? cn r - i - Ng•rlO a7 it 4 (d 4 4 4 FIC 4 4 4 14 Z c z z z z z z Z Z z I, 0 a) N D Ca l r •,. •� b N N N N N N N N N co XI U W rl ' M co co co - CO c0 co 00 00 w co 1- cd P+ \ Ln \ in \Ln \Ln \Ln \Ln \Ln \ Ln \ Ln \cn \ko E - + ' a) O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N Or-1 LH 0 'd U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■S) •r-1 0 O 0 r-1 r-1 r•1 H r--I H H r-1 H r-1 N . O 4 0 r-i Z N N N N N N N N N N 0 N G �-I a) co M co m m co m fn co Cr) N 0 "-I S I d Ol 00 CO O O O l0 0. r-I Ol U U) 0 N • N t0 • d' N to 0 - , in Ln Ol t0 0 P4 , • H O N N N LC) co dl N CO N O N CO N CO N N N O N M N � + 0 a) Q> 00 N d' 0 O O co Ln r-) CO M TS U Pi' O r-'1 Cr) d' CO O CO Ol N N r-1 to a) H a' 0 cr) in d' N N N N N H ri Q) to r-I C) M Cr) CO CO �,� co M Cr) M Cr) CO to Z r-I a 0 co al • r d' 00 O in 0 co O 4- . d' tn RI U) r ° . M Ln Ln Ln d' d' l0 in . M l0 . .p r., 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • ro r-1 U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W td 0) 0 d' O CO %CI 0 c0 t0 0 00 t0 4) rn co in 00 N ` N 0 N r - I d d' co 0 U) E-i O co H 0 O O Ln N d' d' N N 1l H d' CV d' d' M d' co M �' N O 0 0 O O O 0 0 O O 0 H DI cd a) Lfl CO r ; H M N ' d' Ln 0) N r0 U) d+ t` co N H t0 d' ri 0 N to g to v> 0 0 r CO O N N. H Ln 10. d' in tn H H H di Cr) en d{ Ln CO 01 00 .. �' \o \ o o CO co 01 o CO _i 0 N N N O N \ O NN O O N O 4) • V in 0) 0 Z Rf 01 O N O N \ \ ▪ 01 O N N N N Z Z N O N N U •r-1 Ul 0 CAS a I \ 01 N. V N. V PI co 2 2 2 0 z z z o o ra Z t7 N N N M H ▪ \ COO \ N CO N CO co p O O N O H O N O r-1 O N O N O CO 0(.0 O COO O CO O CO N O 0 N 0 l0 0 0 0 0 O 10 N H O 10 O in O 10 r---1 0 �' H N rl N H r-1 r-I N 0 4 N N N N N N N N N '.4' M N CO N M M M N M co co r-1 to '0 � � \ N \ O N < O N p N O N O N Ili N N N N Z M Z V N N N N N N Q O N U) M M ro co co Z •:1 N .cti Q) > M N a CO co • 11: \ H 01 \ o co z z z `° ✓ z z z z c H z N N i[it/? \01 \ \01 \ � \N \1n • \I.n CO N - -. 0 N. (d CO 0 N i.n CO in CO in \ co in U) co M Z M M m M z co r-I N N N N rd S N M in- Z z \ '' M z \ • \ N. M • I.0 CO V \ in 0 z z Z in z 0 1n 0 U z z z z z z \ \ \ \ \ Z z z z z co O w ld CO H N N + 4 \N \ r-1 \01 ▪ \ Ln \ l0 \H • \N \l0 \CO \N \ O O M H N 01 N CO N l0 N N H CO O CO N I.O O N O Ol r - { N M l0 M N N N 01 co c-- Ol N < 0 0 H co M N O N O N N N O r1 M M co H co M l0 M in ) V N M co r--1 O • t:31 (V N 0 r-1 co 01 N O W x i 11) -' N mot' M co co I N 1 1 1 1 �1 U] H Q} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rd U1 CO N 0 0 0 N 0 l0 N V CO 4- ( • p^ 1) 0 0 al 0) r - 1 M CO In l0 N In in- H 1-! �i O O to l0 Ol 0) N N In M N V , mil' M co N r - 1 N N H r-1 N 0 0 O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ((5 0 in v.1 M M 0 . O r-I 0) N CO r-1 U: in ' CO n LC) I.11 N in O N N ,-.-1 l0 0 CO I3 In C51 V d' M M CO co N M H N r-1 r I rl H 7-7 H (q N in U- Z Z - Z Z Z Z .Z Z Z Z a) a) a) a \ \co \ \ \ \co \co \ao \oo \co o co o 01 . o _co .,. o co o oo •o -01 O 01 0 dl - - O of O Ol l4 01 10 r-I lO d> 0 01 t0 01 lfl r1 ■0 H 0 r4 ' 0 H t0 r-I M L) d'' rI d' d' rl d' 1-1 d' r-I d' d' d' d' d' N N N N N N N N N N ..O 10 t/)' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (J) Z Z Z . Z Z Z Z Z Z Z r-1 10 3. \ N \ \ N _ . \ \ N \ ■ \ N \ N \ N d' M d' N d' M d' N d' M d' N d' N d' M d' M d' M tO d' tO CO t0 d' l0 M tO d' lO M t0 M tO d' t0 d' t0 d' M• {/} M M d' m M d' M M d' M d' M m M 10 10 10 10 in 10 10 . to in 10 in a) 0 m 4 r4 4. a 4 4 a 4 a 4. Z Z . Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z d' 1 \ \ \ '\ \ \ N. \ \ \ S IT L 11 z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z -1 z -H d' d' \ \ \ d' \ d' \ d' O ra d' \ d' \ d' \_d'. .. \. al.. \ d_.__ ..O_O� O d' O dt-- O tO 0 tO o - C4 --- 0 - c.0 - to _ o d' o d' o d' t0 d' o d' O lO o H 0 r1 I V' O H O H 0 l0 lO tO O lO d' lO d' tO d'. r1 d' d' d' d': d' H d' H d' H O H O r1 0 •0 0 N co O O 0... O 0 •N N N' . N N N N N N N N N N M \ \ co \ \ M \ N \ N \ 00 \ co \ N O N \ - O N O N O N 0 CO 0 CO 0 10 0 in ✓ O 0 O CO or- O lO . o co tO l0 O 1n O 10 O N O N O (1) 0 10 r1 in 0 00 N r1 r1 in N r1 H N rI N H • H H E H N N N rl 1.11 .- 0 N N 0 N N • N N a)' 0 /- N M N N N M N co M M M P4 M co rn N N • \ 01 _ _ .--I _ \ -10 . \ . .\ r- 1_..._ _ \_r - \ N \ M_�. \ N '' L0 `" _•+ U - -- 0 O • O 0 to N N 0 d' L0 N lO 01 01 O N 0 00 0 01 • 0 d' O ' 00 rl d' N d' 01 01 ■0 l0 N ' t0 r 1 CO N L(1 tO rl to 0 rl M M'.. d' ' M t0 M rl 10 CO N. , N N d' M ri M N N N O '0 N CO O N N N d' d' r1 M N F=C M •M'.; d+. :_: M M M N N M co • • O 4- r x 01 0 in (0 d' N (0 d' d' 01 Ga H H 0 ' H. -1 N N rl ri H I . 1 1 1 I I. 1 1 I I N__ _ H ar ' O 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1d CO N 0 0 0 0 t0 d' ■0 00 CO dJ (,) t? N l0 00 H co 01 (0 01 N t0 O 0 H 14 10 CO co N CO 01 co . 0l N H N H .rl N H r-i -1 H N r1 yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l4 N dl. M O O1 00 N O 10 -I rl rl r-1 0 0 CO lfl ' d' M O (0 M M N N N N N 7 -8 0 0 M N O CO 0 Ol N rl 3 Physically moving the home from the existing site elsewhere - Costs for relocation are from a study by the U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources, Cost Report on Non - structural Flood Damage Reduction Measures For Residential Buildings Within the Baltimore District and updated to December 31, 1978,costs by the Corps. Because a number of cost estimates were provided for one -and two -story structures with basements,an average was taken of the one and separately for the two -story homes. This avoided the problem of trying to match the description of a structure from the visual survey sheets to a particular estimate from the study, where insufficient information was available to make an accurate comparison. These average relocation costs are used in the table above. 4 VOTES to Table 22: Throughout the table where two costs are given x /y; x = total cost, and y = annual capital recovery cost 1 1st floor elevation subtracted from the 100 year flood elevation = water above first floor numbers are in feet. 2 Purchase of property and structure(s) at fair market value(FMV), and relocation of occupants and contents; based on the Johnson study total costs consist of FMV, 14% demolition which includes contractor bond, overhead, profit and engineering, $1000 for replacement housing relocation benefits (which may be low), $600.00 for moving expenses, and $400 to convey property to the government - FMV are 1978 figures based on 100% assessed value Costs for raising also come from the Engineer Institute study and are updated to the December 31, 1978,costs by the Corps. Again, average raising costs were developed from a number of one -and two -story estimates. Average costs used in the table are for raising homes 3'4" and 5'4 ". Where raising a structure to either of these heights would not make the first floor elevation exceed the 100 year flood elevation, the FCM was deemed inappropriate, and an N/A is indicated. In all instances where raising was a viable alternative, basement damage ( "residual damage ") remains. As a result, that proportion of total damage attributed to the basement (taken from the visual surveys) was subtracted from the total damage, or potential savings. 5 Closure is not an effective FCM for homes with basements; we indicate this by an N/A in the table. 6 Costs for construction of a 3 and 5 foot dam and levee are Corps updated costs to December 31, 1978, from figures in the Johnson study. The costs are more clearly identified in Table 24. The dam and levee alternatives are not considered feasible unless the 3 or 5 foot structure will exceed the 100 year flood elevation. An N/A indicates where this is an inappropriate solution. 7 A11 FCM expenditures are amortized at 6 7/8% over 30 years for comparative purposes. a An accurate first floor elevation was not available from the Corps Visual Survey. 7 -9 4) \ N \ N \ r... \ 01 \ s \ Ol \ r. 0 , Q 0 ,Q ,.Q N N N ,Q ,Q CO N Q N H ,Q LO N LO H O 1.0 N 1 N H dl 01 I� N d' H rl rl r -l. • Ln 10 Ln N co N 1f) rd ' 0 Q 0 ,Q A \rn \rn A A N, c)) ,.Q \M ,Q \rn \M 0 \rn '$ l0 Ln d' Ln CO Ln a> •M In d' In d' 10 to rn N N N l0 N l0 19 01 .U) N rl at 01 N N d' U) ri H +� O XI › g 0 fi.4 0r..5 a ..ni m -3 o p O U U) O rI Cl •rl 0 a) a N 16 +) bi N O W Id 1 r. H Z U) ' 0) 0 0 W RS r-' S-1 0 al w rI .1.1 U) o � .I 0 .41 I 4-I O O z Ow _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,— _ _ _ _ _ _ _ gcl 0 Q' co l0 0 O N r 'CP N Ln CO CO 00 l0 l0 d' O d-I 0 L0 in Ln t,n d' 'Cr d' M M . M N co N M N U) H N — ... ... — L. �. ... ..-.. ....-• 0 0 �. .,� ... .i .. U P4 . d' 01 CO co O O 0 l0 O1 H 01 M 0 1.0 1.0 CO r-1 CV 1.0 d' N Ln O1 Ln Ln O1 l0 O N N In In CO H • \d' \ l0 \0D \N \l0 \ 01 \ 19 \1.0 \01 \ in \L0 ' \N \r1 \01 \N \ \ r=1 bi Ln N C` N co N N N rI N lO N. 'CI' N ri N O N CO N in N 01 M d' N 1.0 N u1 N N N lfl H 0 O1 O H CO CO . N N ri l0 lfl d' N N l0 lfl M 01 a In 10 •• M M N H ri 0 01 01 01 N N N II) d' in rI rI H H r-I H r-1 H m 0 U 0 U) CO t) • 0 O r4 rl z z z z z z z z z z z z z 0 z z d l0 d' l0 If1 In • ID ID CO • ID U 0 O\ O\ O ri N O N .10 N N N CO CO N 0) ri H r-1 r l4 H 00 Ln M M Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln d' d 0 N d' Ln r-1 0l d' N t.f) l0 CO 00 00 di di_ co d' N M rl 1.0 N M Ln 0) N 0 01 l0 . rl N N M co N r - I r I fV rl r l Ln ID 10 co M • RS rd 0 0 O co O d' O \ O \ O \ O N. O\ l0 0\ O in N l0 N CO N 01 N N r - 1 in N 01 co N 0 ri Ln CO 00 C` I� N d' 0 N N ' N N N N N N N N co N _M N M N N 0 c0 r-I \ Ln \10 \Ln \ 1.0 . \10 \10 \Ln \10 \If) \Ln \l0 \Ln \l0 \In \. l0 \ \Ln 0 in N I- N (Y) . N N N H N l0 N d' N r-I N O N CO N Ln r-1 0l N d' H Ln N in r•I N. N l4 N I) al O H OD O N N rl l0 l0 d' N N l0 l0 M 01 1.0 in d' M co N rl rl . 0 01 O1 01 r- r- I� in d Ln rI ri rl r H H • ri H O U CO Co CO l0 M N N r-I l0 r-•I r-i r-1 r-1 r-1 r-I ED l0 l0 co ED co r- r- N rn N cr) N N N N r1 N rI > 0 CO N N lD 0 a v lD k n ill L l N N d M M M M m N I) rn rI In ro 0 ED cr a) a co O H M • U N O Co M 1-1 \ \N 4 l N l r d' M N • 10 cr) \ to co 111 N ED to M M N 0 to 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O z z z z z z z z z z 0 00 r-I r I l0 dl Ol N rI N N r r i r I ri - I H r I O O d' d' co d' cr cr 01 d' Ol U) O cr d' O d' cr d' di di d .ri O Ol l0 l0 O l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 It \ N \M \r \r \N \H \rI s \ r-I \ri \rI \N r4 0 CO O N N l0 0 CO l0 0 l0 r 1 CO l0 N En in N N 0 0 CO l0 d' d' co co M M m M M N N N U O En En N H r H r a' lfl co o 0 0 co N N 01 En cr M M 0 10 N to N N N N N N \ cr • \ In \ d' \ d' \ di \ di \ d' N. d N l0 0 CO l0 0 l0 r-1 to N N 0 0 CO l0 d' M M m M M N N N O •1 • - H r ri H rl r4 r I r 1 N N N N N N M N M \ En \En \ inn \ \ 10 \10 N. l N. \ l . 0 N N N N l0 N 0 N Co N CO N 0 r4 l0 N r- r-I to in N N O O 00 l0 cr M M m M m M N N N 0 N N 10 M to d r 1 r I LCl N l0 • 10 N r-1 0 0 • l0 r-I 0 01 CO M CO CO N N 0 0 M M co co 7 -1 0 a 0o 0o 0o csE cn rn - \ 0 l0 r CO iD d' N N CV O 0 N CO N -4 d' N d' M N • r1 i-1 N • e o CO 01 O rI N M Cr En ED N 00 CO r-I r-I N N N N N N N N N L_ +J 0 O. N N CO CO CO a �� ' -� O c0H a' . co 0 O . Ol N N . N r-1 b ri ci r 1 d' O Cr OJ Cr $ M O o dl N N N rl N N rI r-1 � Ll a a H N U1 Cr '-I N r-4 d CN : . ' Cr Cr Cr Cl' Cl' vi' ■ r-I ■ r \ r \ 1. .r-1 H 0 M O 0 Ol N • N N r1 co 0 N N s co co CO \ N \ N \ N O 0 Ol N • N rl 0 0 H N r4 N co N in N N CO dl \ .Ol ■ N ■ .lO ' \ L V r-•l _4 1--1 -4 O N . CO N O M 0 0 Ol r4 N N N. Notes to Table 23: 1 For costs X/ y in Table, x = estimated annual 100 year flood damage and y = annual capital recovery costs for the FCM; numbers in parentheses are the benefit /cost ratio. 2 Sequence numbers are the same as Table 22 and therefore relate -to the same residential property. a Properties where raising will not be great enough to make first floor exceed 100 year flood elevation. b Dam or levee will not be high enough to withhold 100 year flood. c First floor elevation information from Corps Visual Surveys was not accurate. fl Item Table 24.- Estimated Cost To Protect A Structure With A Small Wall Or'Levee' Total First Cost $5,364 $7,380 $2,460 $3,420 Annual Cost $432 $595 $198 $276 1 Estimated for 1600 square foot, $30,000 structure with br without basement. Protection assumed along backside of lot - -140 feet for a wall and 216 feet for a levee. Costs include 25 percent for contractor's bonds, overhead, profit, and engineering. 2 1978 updated figures provided by Corps -- includes cost for constructing wall or levee, sump pump, and installation of sewer gate valve. 3 Amortized at 6 7/8 percent for 30 years for comparative purposes. Source: Johnson, Ibid., pg. 33, .updates by Corps 7 -12 Estimated Cost Wall Levee ACTIVE FCM Relocation Recommendations In general, acquisition of property is the most costly non - structural FCM government can implement. Only in one instance does our economic benefit/ cost analysis indicate (B /C >1) a property could be economically acquired and the family assisted with relocation. The residential property had a benefit cost ratio of 2.3 for acquisition (including family relocation), and 2.16 for moving the home. We found no other residential property where the benefit cost ratio was greater than 58. Although other residential properties in the 10- and 20 -year flood plain are expected to incur substantial damage in the event of a 100 -year flood, it is not economical to permanently relocate the house or the residents. Social benefits residents gain through relocation (by eliminating the flood hazard) are insufficient in the short and long term to change our conclusion. We do have a preference where the cost of home relocation is at or near the cost of acquisition and family relocation assistance, and the B/C for both is greater than 1. In such an instance we recommend the property be acquired. This will provide "a fresh new start" for a family that may have moved involuntarily, perhaps allowing them to find a structure more to their liking (within regulatory restrictions). Furthermore, placing a home on a new foundation sometimes causes problems (associated with settling) that will happen long after the government has provided assistance. Opting for purchase and relocation assistance will avoid ' :he danger of this happening. This discussion is applicable to the Mill River flood plain home recommended for acquisition. Where moving a structure is the cost effective FCM to be implemented, residences should be moved out of the 100 -year flood plain altogether. We see no merit in going to the expense of relocating the home where it remains susceptible to 100 -year flooding. Raising Recommendations Raising homes poses special problems. First there are social costs of elevating a home more than a few feet. Oftentimes basements must be partially filled. Other problems relate to areas around the home. A second group of costs are purely economic. The higher a structure is raised, the higher the cost. Because Northampton flood plain homes have basements, costs are even greater. Finally, where raising requires that a basement be filled, the market value of the property may drop due to decreased interior floor area. In many instances, raising a structure is as costly as relocating a home. The averages used in our analysis for a 2 -story structure with a basement are $1,418 and $1,749 annually for a 3' -4" and 5' -4" raise, respectively. 7 -13 J I IJ Wall and Levee Recommendations Changing Contents In no instance . (Other than property recommended for relocation) is it cost effective to raise eisting structures. However, nearly all of the homes in the Oxbow area show an economic benefit /cost around .5 for the raising FCM alternative. Because the area is cohesive, which we believe is desirable, we recommend raising be seriously considered. However, we do recognize the potential for disruption raising may cause in this neighborhood. Prior to a final decision Oxbow residents must be consulted to determine if the threat of flooding has a significant deleterious effect on them and if .raising structures would be satisfactory to them. (Some indication may come from the Carlozzi If responses are favorable, we recommend government action to .assist - raising homes. Closure Recommendations The closure alternative is not appropriate for Connecticut and Mill River flood plain residential structures. :Assuming a structure can be made to exclude water, the next consideration must be the structural adequacy of the home to withstand the flood water pressure. When water is prevented from entering a structure, the.walls become subject to f hydrostatic forces that can cause failure, bending or buckling. Most structures are not designed to withstand these forces. In particular, structures with basements generally cannot withstand the hydrostatic and uplift pressure of a 100 -year flood. Given the Connecticut Rivers Flood Hazard Factor of 065 .(that is, a difference in elevation between the 10 year and the 100 year flood is 6.5 feet) and the 100 -year flood will bring at least 3 feet of water to every Northampton structure within the 40 and 50 year plain, closure is not considered a viable FCM. Corps analysis indicate, in general a 3 foot head will collapse foundation walls. Table 25 indicates. the number of flood plain homes where dam or levee construction will be cost effective (B /C > 1). Table27 indicates the - location (flood plain) of structures that can be assisted by. these FCM. The number of homes in this group does not allow defining a line or threshold within which dam and levee construction is appropriate. Rather we can only describe the data and where patterns seem to exist. The 3 -foot levee, 5 -foot wall, and the 5 -foot levee alternatives all have a clearly defined mode (average); the 30 year flood plain for the 3 -foot levee, the 20 year flood plain for the 5 -foot wall, and the 20 year flood plain for the 5 -foot levee. A problem with'walls and levees is they reduce damage while acting contrary to a City floodplain objective; that is, walls and levees reduce flood plain storage capacity. Re- arranging contents of floodplain homes is highly recommended. It costs little and will help protect . property contents from lower elevations of flooding. 7 -14 Table 25 Number Of Homes With Benefit /Cost Ratio (B /C) 1 For Wall and Levee FCM In The Connecticut River Flood Plain 1 3 foot levee and 3 foot wall 3 foot levee, no 3 foot wall 1 12 5 foot levee and 5 foot wall 5 foot levee, no 5 foot wall 4 1 Mill River first floor elevations from the Corps visuals were not accurate enough to include Mill River homes in this table. 7 -15 # of Homes L # of Homes U Distribution By Floodplain Location of Homes - Where - -Benefit /Cost (B /C) for Wails or LeJees'is Cost Effective -- 3 Foot Wall Flood plain Location (years) 5 Foot Wall Table 26 Flood plain Location (years) # of Homes 7 -16 _._ 3 Foot Levee Flood plain Location (years) 5 Foot Levee 10 20 30 40 50 Flood plain Location (years) Finally, we recommend that non - structural, active FCM be implemented in the following order of priority where analysis of a home indicates more than one FCM is cost effective: 1. acquisition and family relocation assistance 2. home relocation 3. raising Appropriate Techniques for Commercial or Industrial Properties So far we have discussed floodproofing for residential structures primarily, Floodproofing commercial and industrial structures is much different than for homes. First, many of the large commercial and industrial buildings are so constructed that much greater stress from water pressure can be withstood before damage occurs. Second, the contents of most commercial and industrial structures (e.g., inventory) is far more valuable than the contents of homes in the area. Finally, some of the smaller commercial and industrial buildings have first floor elevations so far below the 100 year flood elevation that 6 to 10 foot walls would be required to eliminate 100 year flood damage. Briefly, we discuss some of the non- structural FCM that are appropriate for commercial and industrial structures in the flood plain. Greater detail will be available from a study of non - structural floodproofing of industrial and commercial structures, now in preliminary draft form. Many of the industrial and commercial structures have first floor elevations above the design flood elevation, requiring that no floodproofing FCM be implemented. Other structures will incur losses to stored materials primarily, which can be eliminated by elevating storage areas within the structures. Costs to elevate these storage areas is considered small. Still other structures (including many of the small businesses) will incur substantial damage from the 100 year flood. One hundred year flood elevations are so high that floodproofing measures(eg. walls)would be too costly to construct. A solution offered is to move stored materials out of the area during flooding. This will require early warning and may prove extremely costly Lver time. For these properties further study is needed to determine methods of encouraging businesses to relocate where the business is not dependent on their present site. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION Relocation We were unable to define an area where relocation is cost effective (e.g.,within the 5•.year flood,plain. Our sample of homes in the 2, 3, 4, and 5 year flood plains was much too small. We recommend an analysis similar to ours be done for another flood plain area, attempting to find more con- clusive evidence of a definite line of demarcation. However, we do leave open the possibility that such a line cannot be identified and a:structure by structure analysis is the only appropriate method of identifying homes appropriate for relocation (B /C> 1). A final relocation alternative worth exploring concerns.the.best solution for homes damaged by the 100 year flood. Because (in instances) replacement cost would far exceed the fair market value (FMV) „of a home, insurance claims as a result of the 100 year flood may be, greater' than FMV of some homes. For instance, there is a household in the Connecticut River flood plain valued at $33,000, including the land. Estimated damage from the 100 year flood will be $24,300 (physical only) and $35,100 (physical and non - physical). If some mechanism can be worked out where the insurance reimbursement is combined with governments power of eminent domain, severely damaged properties may be better acquired; and the residents may be given a chance to start anew. Section 1362 of the Flood Insurance Administration Act addresses this issue in part. At face value, this appears.a simple solution. However, it is not. Because federal relocation must be done in accordance with the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and its amendments, acquisition is a lengthy and complicated process._ Due process must be followed. This includes appraisals from qual'i'fied appraisers (sometimes two are performed and a review appraisal); owners must be officially notified of governments intent to purchase the property, and owners must be apprised of relocation benefits available to them. The applicable;:;. Massachusetts state law requires procedures similar to the federal legislation. Finally, we are concerned that acquisition of properties on an indi- vidualized basis may not follow a rational or planned process, and may cause depreciation of remaining homes. With this discussion in mind, we believe a more in depth analysis of, this alternative is appropriate. Dams and Levees More study is required to determine the merits of using walls and levees to surround more than one home. This may be more effective than constructing levees and dams for a single home; from an economic standpoint only. Perhaps the Oxbow area could be looked at to determine if a larger levee or dam, surrounding more than one home would work more efficiently. Because the Oxbow is geographically compact, isolated, and a cohesive neighborhood, this FCM alternative may be socially as well as economically acceptable. Land Purchase The Tenneco Corporation property is partly developed industrially and partly vacant. The vacant portion is not sufficiently large to be a working farm, (though it is surrounded by other agricultural land). Because of its size, and the industrial use designation, the land may be prone to development. 7 -18 A more careful and thorough review of development potential and pressure is required. If agricultural use is desirable and potential for short term development is'great, development rights purchase appears most appropriate. It will preclude development and allow the agricultural use to continue. If development is onlya.long term possibility no action toward development rights purchase need be made at this time. This type of in depth analysis should occur wherever development potential appears great. Only then should some type of purchase technique be seriously considered. 1 _j _J r 1 u FOOTNOTES 1 Gibson, Mark et.al. Urban Storm Water Runoff: Determination of Volumes and Flow Rates .Lubbock, Texas ;December,.1975. 2 Table indicating ion- structural flood control Measure constraints provided by Corps, 1979; and Johnson, William K., Physical and Economic Feasibility of Non - structural Flood Plain Management Measures, Chapter 3. 7 -20 CHAPTER 8 ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Land use planning is a multi - dimensional process. Planners must be able to clearly perceive physical issues and problems while simultaneously assessing local social and economic objectives. Circumspection and sensitivity are critical attributes for a planner. Flood plain management involves a variety,of factors, many of which are completely out of human control. Although it is typically practiced on the local level, it is fundamentally a regional issue. management is concerned with basic issues of human health and welfare, and often compels solutions which require substantial expenditures of funds. All factors considered, the demands placed on floodplain planners necessitate decisive yet careful action. Currently, Northampton has a variety of flood plain management techniques which are operating in a most effective manner. The substance and effects of these techniques have been discussed earlier in this report. At this time, the research team has been called upon to define an optimal management program which reflects the latest thinking on non - structural techniques. The purpose here is not to critique the existing management approach in Northampton. Instead, the choice has been made to build management strategies onto the substantial regulatory base already developed by local planners. This method has been selected not so much out of deference to Northampton officials, but simply because the currently applied regulations are so inherently sound. Our analysis and recommendation,of management strategies closely aligns with required Corps procedure. The planning process we followed is like that identified in Department of the Army ER 1105 -2 -210, 220, 230, and 240 of 13 July 1978. First, we identified the range of planning objectives we were attempting to satisfy. These included federal objectives(e.g. reduction of flood damage), local objectives as identified in adopted plans (e.g. conservation of open space), and those resident objectives we could clearly identify or infer. Next, we considered a variety of techniques ( "a broad range of...means ") to achieve stated objectives. One part of identifying these techniques was the benefit /cost analysis discussed in Chapters 6 and 7. In Chapter 8 we look at all types of benefits that may occur from meeting our objectives. These benefits concern flood control, fish and wildlife, water supply, recreation, and conservation or preservation of agricultural lands. Finally, to come up with recommended management strategies we had to establish trade- offs, based on our professional judgement, of what was feasible and what could best accomplish the range of sometimes competing and sometimes compatible planning objectives. From this, two alternative floodplain management strategies are recommended and described in this chapter. It is important to note that these strategies are not a "pre- packaged" set of management techniques. Quite to the contrary, the strategies suggested herein are based on what the research team has learned about the particular nature of flooding and flood damage in Northampton. Alternative Management Strategy "A" is concerned solely with the reduction of flood damage to existing and future properties ;other planning objectives were not taken into account. on the other.hand, Alternative Management Strategy "B" takes a more comprehensive look at the Northampton land -use planning picture, by recommending techniques which meet local planning goals (as defined in local policy statements and identified in project related interviewsand surveys of local boards;. commissions, residents and businesses) while reducing flood damage potential now and in the future. It cannot be said that either approach is "best" for Northampton. Certainly; there are elements of each strategy which could be beneficial to the public in a variety of ways - but the presumption that either strategy, taken as a whole, is clearly superior to the other is simply .not intended. The ultimate rationale for this dualistic approach is to illustrate the range and consequences of distinct management strategies which are available to the local planner. The method of organizing the following alternative management strategies requires some introduction. Each strategy, "A" and "B ", is . comprised of a set of non - structural management techniques which have been developed for specific areas or sites within the Northampton flood plain. In order to facilitate the discussion, the flood plain has been divided. into discrete land areas. These areas are called Planning Districts. In most_ cases these districts have clearly defined physical boundaries (i.e. Major highway, Connecticut River, drastic change in elevation, etc.) The intent of this designation is that these districts represent distinct areas where overall planning policies can be applied without the threat of being arbitrary in the policy's coverage. Within each Planning District exists land areas exhibiting a variety of characterists'in terms of existing land use, flooding potential, development /redevelopment potential and resources potential (opportunities. for future use as a City resource). These "sub- area's" within the Planning Districts are called Management Zones. Each zone has a certain set of characteristics and thus requires a set of management technique that respond accordingly. The entire Connecticut River and Mill River flood plains have been treated this way, yielding thirteen. Planning Districts and thirty -nine Management Zones. .Each Management Zone •has'two.sets of techniques which are intended to be applied specifically to that zone. One set is for Alternative "A" and the other set is for Alternative "B ". This system is illustrated.in tables to follow which are keyed to the.accompanying Alternative Management Strategies Map: "Planning Districts and Management 'Zones." As an example of our.management strategy analyses, we briefly describe the rationale in designating strategies for planning area 7 b. The area is adjacent to the Oxbow, prone to 1 to 20 year flood elevations, currently in agricultural use, and zoned for agricultural use. Some of the factors considered and our analysis follow: • B/C - it is not cost effective to purchase properties or to relocate homes • Development Pressures - the area is not served by adequate infrastructure; it does not have good access to the central city or to major thoroughfares •, Intrinsic Suitability - land is flat and consists of alluvial soils; the area is well suited to agricultural uses • Local Objectives - local objectives that apply are: - to provide for the continued functioning of the river flood plain /wetlands as a natural system - preserve significant areas of land for agricultural use - the multiple functioning of open spaces should be achieved to the fullest extent possible where appropriate in terms of the nature of the land Before reviewing each strategy, it is important to identify the primary local objectives found in local planning documents. The objectives listed below had a significant bearing on our alternative "B" management strategy.recommendations: • Conservation of Prime Agricultural Lands • Preservation of Wetlands • Preservation of Open Space • Maintenance of Water Storage Capacity 7 • Alternative Management Strategies Planning District 1 Location: Connecticut River 'flood -. To the north of Route 9, and to the east I -91.. Extending as far north as the Northampton /Hatfield town line. Management Zone - "a" Description: Area is: comprised entirely of Elwell Island, and is within the 10 -year flood plain. The area has poor vehicular access and high flood damage potential. As a result, development pressures are low. The current agricultural use is desirable to meet open space and agricultural land use objectives. Management strategies A and B are the same; control will be achieved through the existing SC ordinance. which covers this area. Management Zone "b" Description: Cropland adjacent to the river,` within the 20 -year flood plain. Development will be limited because of access and the . frequency of flooding. In addition, steep grades limit access. This is prime agricultural land and should be preserved. Management strategies A and B rely on the existing zoning to maintain present agricultural use. Management Zone - "c" Description: An area not in the flood plain but with potential influence on the flood plain included are the asphalt plant, other commercial development and some vacant land. Sole vehicular access is along Damon Road. Existing development is encroaching on the flood plain by.filling. The area must be closely monitored to assure fill occurs only where proper authorization has been obtained. Management Zone - "d" Description: A narrow, wooded area between the river and I -91, which is bisected by the Boston and Main Railroad. Most of this area is not in the flood plain but some low -lying areas are within the 10 -year flood plain. Lack of current access limits development potential. In fact, if better access was provided the areas size is not suitable for most types of Existing zoning.permits industrial, commercial and residential development. Management Strategies A and B allow existing Watershed Protection District regulations to control the area. Planning District 2 Location: Connecticut River Flood Plain. All lands south of Route 9, and each of I -91 or the B&M R.R. Management Zone - "a" Description: Wetlands adjacent to the Old Mill River channel, east of the B&M tracks, within the 10._'year flood plain. The area has no development potential because it is a wetland. Both management strategies support local objectives to maintain wetland areas. The SC Zone Wetland's Act, and special construction costs will discourage development. Management Zone - "b" Description: Extensive agricultural lands, mostly within the 20 year floodplain but with areas of more frequent flooding. This area is a major agriculture resource in Northampton. The area has limited access and would require great expense to provide infrastructure necessary for development. Management strategies A and B support local objectives to maintain prime agricultural land. Management Zone - "c" Description: The Rainbow Beach area, within the 10 year flood plain with some areas of annual flooding. The area has little development potential due to flood hazard and poor road access; however, public improvements (road and sewer) could induce structured recreational development. Alternative "A" recommends retaining the area as open space/ un- structured water -based recreation. Existing SC zoning is the appropriate management technique, with flood warning and evacuation for boater /users. No public improvements should be made. Alternative "B" suggests purchase of land adjacent to Rainbow Beach for additional water -based public recreation, -(consistant with recreation objectives). This recognizes the Meadows Testing Area (Rainbow Beach) as a unique asset that should be protected and, if possible, expanded. A minimum number of structural improvements should be allowed for recreation purposes. SC zoning, flood warning and evacuation, and flood insurance should be applied to effectively manage the area. - 1 J 7 L. Li r, Management Zone - "d" Description: LaFleur Airport, within the 50 100 year flood plain. Planning District 3 The area has low development potential, other than possible expansion of the airport. Alternative "A" and "B" are the same. Both suggest that warning and evaduation, flood insurance and rearrangment of contents (including the moving of planes) to help prevent damage. Furthermore, both strategies rely on current zoning and permit process to try and discourage airport development. Although any new development must be above the 100 year flood elevation, local objectives suggest limiting development. First, SCS data indicates . lands in this area are prime farmland and local objectives required that this be preserved. Second, airport expansion would require substantial fill and violates the local objectives. relating • .to the maintenance of storage capacity in the flood plain. Management Zone - "e" Description: Residential development northeast of - mostly out of the flood plain, but with some land just within the 100 year flood plain. The area has little additional development potential; it is pretty much developed. Both alternatives recommend protecting existing development through flood warning and evacuation. Management Zone - "f" Description: The agricultural land between the airport and residential development in management zone "e ". Some of area is within the 50 year flood plain. • The area has low development potential due to lack of public road frontage. Alternatives "A" and "B" recommend continued agricultural use in support of local objectives to preserve prime agricultural land. Application of existing SC zoning, which requires a special permit for filling to the 100 -year flood elevation,should be used to limit development. Location: Connecticut River flood plain. Bounded by the rear lot - lines of the development along Bridge Street and Pomeroy Terrace on the west, and I -91 on the east. Management Zone - "a" Description: Existing agricultural /residential area to the south and south east of the fairgrounds; includes recreation fields behind Pomeroy Terrace. Most of the area is within the 10 - 20 year flood plain. The area has moderate residential development potential because in- filling among scattered existing houses is likely, but no substantial subdivision will occur without municipal sewer extension. Alternative "A" will reduce damage by utilizing flood warning and evacuation, floodproofing (re arrangement), and flood insurance. Alternative "B" would control new development by a zoning change from URA to SC. Alternative "B" also includes all of the Alternative "A" techniques. In this way, "B" permits managed extension of the existing development pattern while trying to maintain prime open space and agricultural lands. Management Zone - "b" Description: The fairgrounds and houses on the south side of Ferry Street, within the 10 - 20 year floodl plain The area has high development potential due to likely expansion of fairgrounds. - Alternative "A" would protect existing development through flood warning and evacuation, flood insurance, floodproofing (re arrangement, and wet - floodproofing of fairgrounds outbuildings). Alternative "B" recommends a zoning change from URA to SC to better control new development. Management Zone - "c" Description: Recreation fields and cropland north of Ferry Street, bounded by the rear lot -lines along Bridge Street, and by I -91 to the east and within the 20 - 50 year flood plain; The area has moderate residential development potential. The objective of Alternatives "A!' and "B" are to retain the area for recreational use and as prime agricultural land consistent with local objectives.for recreation and agriculture protection. A zoning change from URA to SC would help dis- courage development. This change is recommended in Alternative "B ". The SC permit process and required elevation of new development will discourage new development. The existing Watershed Protection overlay will be the extent of restrictio.a =in Alternative "A." Planning District 4 Location: Connecticut River flood' plain. Bounded by the I -91 interchange near the Colonial Hilton, the Oxbow, Route 5 to the east, and I -91 to the west. Management Zone - "a" Description: The existing Colonial Hilton site, within the 50 - 100 year flood plain. The area has low development potential, except for recreation use related to the Hilton. Alternatives "A" and "B" BEI r Li 1 recommend retaining existing colLunercial development without structural expansion through application of the Watershed Protection District criteria. Flood damage reduction measures should include flood warning and evacuation, flood. insurance, and floodproofing (closure, waterproofing and re arrangement). Management Zone - "b" Description: Cropland bounded by Atwood Drive, I -91, Route 5, and the Oxbow, within the 20 -year flood plain. The area has high development potential due to good access and proximity to existing commercial development. Under Alternative "A ", the existing SC zoning is effective, In Alternative "B" - existing zoning is sufficient to protect development by mandating elevation above the 100 year flood elevation. Management Zone - "c" Description: The wetland to the south of management zone 4 "b ", bounded by.the Oxbow to the south and Route 5 to the east. This area is within the 10 -year flood plain. Flood frequency makes this area have low development potential. Current SC zoning is adequate to protect this wetland because' the special permit procedure would mandate approximately 20 feet of fill for residential development - thus, development is es- sentially unrealistic. Planning District 5 Location: Connecticut River flood'•plain. sected by Island Road. The Oxbow area east of I -91, bi- Management Zone - "a" Description: Includes the Island Road residential area and cropland north of this development. Most of the cropland is within the 20 year flood plain. Most of the houses are within the 30 40 year flood plain. with some houses in the 20 year flood plain. Development potential is low because little frontage is available along public roads. Alternative "A" is committed to reducing flood damage by utilizing flood warning and evacuation, flood in- surance, floodproofing (re arrangement), and dams and levees (for some houses). In Alternative "B ", all the abDve.mentioned techniques apply. These actions will reduce damage to residences, and help to maintain prime agricultural lands. Management Zone - "b" Description: The area surrounding the Tri -City Container Corp., including some cropland the 1 - 50 -year flood plain. Alternative "A" recommends flood warning and evacuation, flood - proofing (re- arrangement and-flood-insurance-to-reduce-damage. Alternative "B" relates.to local objectives of maintaining prime agricultural land and most importantly maintaining flood plain • storage capacity. 8- 8 as consistent with local objectives. The cropland area should be rezoned from GI to SC, with the permit process controlling development. Planning District 6 Location: Connecticut River flood plain. The remaining Oxbow lands, west of I -91. Management Zone - "a" Description: Area adjacent to the Oxbow Marina, within the 10 year flood plain although the building has been elevated on fill above the 100 year flood plain ... The area has high development po- tential for additional water - related recreation. Alternatives "A" and "B" recognize that structured water -based recreation is an appropriate use in this area, which is legitimized by the existing SC zoning. Thus, the recommended techniques call for a continuation of the SC Zone with the special permit cri- teria for elevating structures, warning and evacuation, flood - proofing (rearrange), and flood insurance. This will take ad- vantage of a unique recreational asset. Management Zone - "b" Description: Cropland adjacent to the Oxbow Marina property, within the 10 year flood plain... The Area has high development potential due to proximity to the marina. Alternative "A" will rely on application of the existing SC zoning. Alternative "B "would allow some structured water -based recreation controlled by the SC criteria, warning and evacuation, flood insurance and floodproofing (rearrangement). In addition, purchase of development rights is recommended to maintain existing agricultural uses, as con- sistent with community objectives. Planning District 7 Location: Connecticut River and Mill River flood plain.. Bounded by the Oxbow and I -91 to the southeast, the town limits to the south, the New York and New Haven Railroad to the west, and the 100 year flood plain limits to the north. Management Zone - "a" Description: Wetlands throughout Planning District 7. Both Alternatives recommend maintaining the wetlands. They are adequately protected by the existing SC zoning ordinance. Management Zone - "b" Description: Agricultural lands in the Pynchon and Manhan Meadows, within the 1 - 20-year flood plain. The area has low development potential due to flooding and poor road access. In both Alternatives these lands Description: Management Zone - "c" Description: Undeveloped agricultural land in the northern portion of the planning district, within the 20 year floodplain... The area generally has low development potential, but there is a small section with moderate development potential due to proximity to Route 5. Both Alternatives would retain these lands in agricultural use (consistent with community objectives) by enforcing the existing SC zoning. Management Zone - "e" Description: Cropland in the southern portion of the planning district which is within the 10 year flood plain... The area has low development potential due to its wetness and poor road access. Both Alternatives would retain the agricultural use '(consistent With community objectives) by applying the existing SC Zone criteria. Planning District 8 Location: Planning District 9 should remain in agricultural use by applying the criteria of the existing SC Zone (would require about 10 feet of fill for a residence)', and the usual group of techniques for the scattered exist- ing residences (warning and evacuation, flood insurance and rearrangement:) The S.C. zone will protect prime agricultural lands,as consistent with community objectives. Management Zone - "d" Arcadia Sanctuary, with variable flooding protential from 1-year flood plain to land outside the 100 year flood plain. The area has a low development potential, with the possibility of some structured uses to augment the existing conservation /education program. Both Alternatives favor retaining the existing non- structured land -based recreation by enforcing the criteria of the SC Zone. Mill River floodplain. The Mill River Diversion, defined by steep embankments along both sides. We defined only one Management Zone because the entire area has high flood poten- tial within the steep- walled flood plain. with no development potential because of the steepness. It should be retained as an open -space flood channel and is adequately managed through the existing Watershed Protection District criteria. Location: Mill River floodplain. Potential Mill River Greenway, comprised of the river channel with pockets of open space and agriculture. Extending from the Smith College athletic fields to Maines Field. Description: Smith College athletic fields; the area is affected by the 50 - 100-year storm, with some lands not in the flood plain. Management —Zone "a" Development potential is low, with some possibility of structured recreation in the future. Both Alternatives support contin- uation of existing uses through application of Watershed Pro- tection District criteria, floodproofing and flood insurance. Management Zone - "b" Description: A group of wooded parcels along both sides of the Mill River within Planning District 9. Flooding varies, from the 1 -year to the 100•year flood plain -,The area has a few sites in agricultural use. All parcels have no or low development po- tential, because of access problems. Alternative "A" favors retention of open space through existing Watershed Protection District criteria. Alternative "B" favors use of the land for non - structured recreation purposes and open space. These lands could be connectors in a Greenway concept, a high priority local objective. Thus, Alternative "B" recommends purchasing conservation easements for streambank access, as well as apply- ing the WPD criteria. All lands in this management zone are at the bottom of steep embankments. Management Zone - "c" Description: Steep -sides river channel below Maines Field, within the 1 year to the 100 yearflood plain. The area has no development poten- tial due to excessive slopes and high erosion potential. Both alternatives favor retaining the channel as woodland open space. The appropriate management technique is application of the exist- ing Watershed Protection District criteria. Management Zone - "d" Description: Maines Field recreation area which is publically owned. Flood potential varies across the site from the 1 year to the 100 year flood plain. The site has low development potential, except for future structured recreation uses. Both alternatives favor re- taining the structured /non - structured recreation use through the WPD criteria, floodproofing structures and facilities, (by rear- ranging and properly anchoring materials) and flood insurance. This area is a possible northern terminus for the Greenway. Planning District 10 Location: Mill River flood plain, Industrialized river -edge from Maines Field to the foot bridge above the Pine street bridge. Management Zone - "a" Description: Existing industrial development; flood potential varies from 1 year to 100 year flood plain. Redevelopment potential is low, and expansion of existing facilities minimal. Both alternatives favor maintaining existing industry through floodproofing (rear- rangement and closure), warning and evacuation, constructing a protective wall, and flood insurance. n _J J L J Management Zone - "b" Description: An area along..the west side of the Mill River in Florence with mixed land uses: industrial, residential, and vacant land. Flooding varies, with lands in the 50 year to the 100 year flood plain. Planning District 11 Location: Mill River flood_plain. Agricultural land'accessible from Meadow Street and Spring Street; extends to the Country Club on both sides of the river. Management Zone - "a" Description: Cropland on the eastern side of the river, within the 10 - 20- year flood plain. Commercial development potential is low due to poor access and low visibility from public roads. Alternative "A" will reduce damage by flood warning and evacuation, floodproofing (rearrange- ment), and flood insurance. Alternative "B" recommends a zoning change to SC to help maintain prime agricultural lands. Management Zone - " b " Description: Cropland on the western side of the Mill River with some exist- ing residences. Flooding varies throughout the site from the 1 yearflood plain to lands not in the flood plain. There is moderate development potential throughout this area. Both Alternatives favor protecting the existing structures, while Alternative "B" supports strict control of development. Alternative "A" would apply the Watershed Protection District criteria, floodproofing (various techniques, depending on the structure involved), warning and evacuation, and flood insurance. Alternative "B" recommends changing cur- rent zoning of undeveloped lands to SC. Development potential is high because of good access and visi- bility from public roads. In addition, a new sewer line runs through the area further enhancing development. Alternative "A" includes the typical group of management techniques: WPD criteria, warning and evacuation, floodproofing, and flood insurance for existing residences. Alternative "B" supports the same set of techniques, but would also consider rezoning the area to SC to , help development. 8 -12 Planning District 12 Location: Mill Riverfloodplain. Includes Look Park and the Northampton Country Club. Management Zone - "a" Description: Look Park flooding varies across the site, with lands in the 1 year to the 100 year flood plain; a majority of the site is not in the flood plain. Only one building in the park gets flooded. Development po- tential is low, but there is some possibility of future recrea- tion development. Both Alternatives favor continuation of the structured /non - structured recreation land use. Flood damage would be minimized through floodproofing (wet and dry), flood insurance, warning and evacuation, and the WPD criteria for new development. Management Zone "b" Description: The Northampton Country Club. Flooding varies across the site, with land in the 1 year to the 100 year flood plain. Most of the site is not in the flood plain. Planning District 13 Location: Development potential is low in the current use. Development potential would increase if the Country Club sold all or a por- tion of the land. Both Alternatives support continuation of the current use, with flood insurance and the WPD criteria as the appropriate management techniques. Mill River flood plain. The river channel above the Country Club to the Williamsburg town line. Includes several flood prone pockets. Management Zone - "a" Description: All of the steep -sided embankment along the stream in Planning District 13; it is within the 100 year flood plain. This area has no development potential because the steep sides prevent access and constrain construction. Both alternatives support maintaining the area as open space with application of WPD criteria. Management Zone - "b" Description: A residential pocket - Main St., Leeds, within the 50 - 100 year flood plain. The area has low redevelopment potential in the forseeable future. Both Alternatives favor damage reduction through flood- 8 -13 _J proofing (rearrangement), flood insurance, warning and evac- uation, and enforcement of WPD criteria for new development. Management Zone - "c" Description: An office development along River Road in Leeds, within the 50 - 100 year flood plain. The area has low development potential due to lack of signi- ficant expansion space. Both Alternatives support reduction of flood damage for this commercial facility through flood - proofing (rearrangement), flood insurance, flood warning and evacuation, and enforcement of WPD criteria for new develop- ment. LAN C7 H zU H H z a Z a H P-1 CI 1 a USE STUDY Summary of Alternatives a b c • OP ni -H o 4 '--+ o N 1 -10 y ang 100 yr. 1 - 20 yr. 1 -10 yr. 50 -100yr 4J E • ni 04 O -4J Qa ° none mod. low none low none low ALTERNATIVE "A" management use / technique OPEN SPACE ® existing zoning low AGRICULTURE �J ® existing zoning EXISTING RESIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL- INDUSTRY a existing zoning MIXED USE in areas out of the flood plain OPEN SPACE in flood prone areas o existing zoning WETLAND o existing zoning AGRICULTURE o floodproofing o warning and evacuation o insurance o existing zoning EXISTING NON STRUCTURAL WATER BASED RECREATION - OPEN SPACE o warning and evacuation o existing zoning EXISTING AIRPORT o warning and evacuation o flood proofing o insurance o existing zoning ALTERNATIVE "B" use / management technique same s ame s ame s ame s ame same ADDITIONAL NON STRUCTURAL WATER BASED RECREATION o land purchase o warning and evacuation o existing zoning same H r1 n l L L. CD H -, W to.rtS ZU Z •� H H W •r-I .}J Z a CD rd 4 (I) Z.Z o) a Ho r o 4:14 (Z) N Wa. 2 e a C 10 -20yr. 10 -20yr, 20 -50yr. low low mod. high mod. ALTERNATIVE "A ”' use /management technique EXISTING RESIDENTIAL o warning and evacuation AGRICULTURE o existing zoning AGRICULTURE- EXISTING NON STRUCTURAL LAND BASED RECREATION - EXTSTING RESIDENTIAL ®warning and evacuation • - loodproofing . C real range • • insurance •existing zoning FAIRGROUNDS - AGRICULTURE o warning and evacuation o floodproofing (rearrange) • insurance e existing zoning AGRICULTURE - EXISTING NON STRUCTURAL LAND BASED RECREATION • existing zoning 8 -16 ALTERNATIVE "B" use / management technique same same wrziormassimmommemaam AGRICULTURE- EXISTING NON STRUCTURAL LAND BASED RECREATION- EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 'warning and evacuation • floodproofing (rearrange) •insurance. ozoning change Copen space and agriculture to . S FAIRGROUNDS -. AGRICULTURE - o warning and evacuation o floodproofiniv • insurance • zoning change .(open space and . agric. to S.C.) AGRICULTURE- EXISTING NON STRUCTURAL LAND BASED RECREATION o zoning change (change URA to S.C.) C7 H U H H zx KC En a4 z a a a 50 -100yr 1 -10 yr. 1 -10 yr. 1 - 50 yr. 1 -50 yr. 1 - 100yr low high low low mod. high 8 - 17 ALTERNATIVE "A" use management technique EXISTING COMMERCIAL o warning and evacuation o floodproofing o insurance o existing zoning AGRICULTURE o existing zoning WETLAND o existing zoning RESIDENTIAL- AGRICULTURE-OPEN SPACE o warning and evacuation o floodproofing ® insurance EXISTING STRUCTURAL WATER BASED RECREATION • warning and evacuation • floodproofing • insurance o existing zoning ALTERNATIVE "B" management use technique same same same same EXISTING INDUSTRY AGRICULTURE - OPEN SPACE o warning and evacuation ® floodproofing o insurance o existing zoning o warning & evacuation O floodproofing o insurance O zoning change (cropland from G.I. to S.C.) same E+ .z r--4 a) r Z Z •r ., avd W -,-I -P O -P C r r z z o a -'. a °' -u ON w a)a b e a 1 -10 yr. high AGRICULTURE 0-100 yr low 1 -100 yr none - low ALTERNATIVE "A". use / management technique • e existing zoning 1 -10 yr. none WETLAND e existing zoning 1 -20 yr. low AGRICULTURE o existing zoning 1 -20 yr. low AGRICULTURE e existing zoning 1 -100 yr low EXISTING NON STRUCTURAL LAND BASED RECREATION e existing zoning 1 -10 yr. low AGRICULTURE i existing zoning 1- 1OO•yr none OPEN SPACE e existing zoning EXISTING STRUCTURAL NON STRUCTURAL _ RECREATION o floodproofing o insurance e existing zoning AGRICULTURE -OPEN SPACE � existing zoning 8 -18 ALTERNATIVE "B" use / management technique STRUCTURAL WATER BASED RECREATION • warning and evacuation • floodproofing e insurance e existing zoning, e purchase dev. rights same same same same same same • same NON STRUCTURAL LAND BASED RECREATION -OPEN SPACE AGRICULTURE o conservation easementl o existing- zoning d a b 1- 100yr. 0 -100+y low low mod. low EXISTING INDUSTRY o warning and evacuation o floodproofing . o insurance o existing zoning EXISTING INDUSTRY -OPEN SPACE - RESIDENTIAL e warning and evacuation € floodproofing e insurance existin. zonin 1- 100yr. 10 -20yr. EXISTING STRUCTURAL - NON STRUCTURAL LAND BASED RECREATION c floodproofing o insurance o existing zoning AGRICULTURE © existing zoning a 1- 100yr. none OPEN SPACE o existing zoning 11 H +' Z r tn� E M W W -r-1 � 0.1 -H z Z 0 0 4 > 0 # H o N o w Qa 10 -100y high •ALTERNATIVE "A" management use technique AGRICULTURE e existing zoning 8 -19 ALTERNATIVE "B" use management technique same same same EXISTING INDUSTRY -OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL o zoning change (undeveloped lands to S.0 AGRICULTURE zoning change(agric. to s.( AGRICULTURE G warning and evacuation ® floodproofiny • insurance o zoning change to S.C. 4-) Z t 0:1 E co b ° O 0 a) � ALTERNATIVE; "A" o p p u s e / management P-1 w Q w t echnique 1-100 yr 50 -100yr 50 -100yr low EXISTING STRUCTURAL - NON- STRUCTURAL LAND BASED RECREATION o warning and • evacuation o flood proofing o insurance I o existing zoning low EXISTING STRUCTURAL - NON STRUCTURAL LAND BASED RECREATION o• insurance o existing zoning none OPEN SPACE o existing zoning. low EXISTING RESIDENTIAL e warning and evacuation ® flood proofing o insurance o existing zoning low EXISTING COMMERCIAL o warning and evacuation ® floodproofing o insurance e existing zoning 8 -20 ALTERNATIVE "B" management use / t echnique • same same same same same APPENDIX A EXISTING LAND USE MAPS C D IV— ,o S 0 Sca_v■ cl _J . APPENDIX B ALTERNATIVE FLOODPLAIN STRATEGIES MAP Management Zone a anagement Zone b Planning District . 9 0 . t . ; y ; . j - \ LAND USE STUDY:I Planning DistriCts & Connecticut River and Management Zones Mill River Flood Plains Northampton, Mass, . — June 1979 Prepared by The Community . Resources Group for Dept. of the Army. Now England Division. 1 Corps of Engineers. Waltham. Mesaachusetts. . SCALE 124000 - - IOW 0 MOO 2600 3020 4330 5020 6000 CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 7040 46E7 "ME Management Zone a anagement Zone b Planning District 9 APPENDIX C LOCAL ATTITUDES SURVEY INSTRUMENTS 0 Q * ** (ASK OF FLOODPLAIN SAMPLE ONLY) Questionnaire ID /1 / / Card Number 2 • 4' 52. When people think about the effects of the kinds of flood management techniques we've been talking about, they think of these effects in . several ways. Some of the effects are social and emotional. For example, increases or decreases in personal safety, confidence and security, inconvenience, disruption of style of life, freedom of action, and pleasure from the environment. These are just examples and I'm sure you can think of others. On balance, when you think of the social and emotional effects of dams on ou, do you think of them as mostly positive or mostly negative? 1. [ ] Positive 7. [ ] Neutral 2. [ ] Negative 8. [ ] Don't know 53. Other effects are thought of as "economic." For example, the costs of building alterations, gains or losses in property value, increases or decreases in taxes, damage to property, and compensation for damages. What about the economic effects of dams on you? Are they mostly positive or mostly negative? 1. [ ] Positive 2. [ ] Negative 7. [ ] Neutral 8. [ ] Don't know 54. What about dikes? Do the social and emotional effects such as safety, confi- dence, inconvenience, life style, freedom of action and enjoyment of the environment seem to you mostly positive or mostly negative? 1. [ ] Positive 7. [ ] Neutral 2. [ ] Negative 8. [ ] Don't know 7 m * * * (ASK OF FL00DPLAfl SAMPLE ONLY). 55 What about the economic effects like property values, taxes ind damages. Do you think the econOmic effects on you of dikes are mostly positive or mostly negative? 1. [ j Positive 2. [3 Negative • 7. j Neutral.. 8. [ 3 Don't know 56. How about floodplain zoning? Are your feelings about the social and • emotional effects on you mostly positive or mostly negative? • 1. [ 3' Positive 2. [ ] Negative 7.. [ 3 Neutral 8. [3 Don't know 57. What would you consider the economic' effects of floodplain zoning on you to be? Mostly positive or mostly negative? 1. [ 3 Positive 7. [ 3 Neutral 1. [ ] Positive 7. [ 3 Neutral =.(!) mostly positive or mostly negative? 1. [3 Positive 7• [ 3 Neutral 7 • 2. [ j Negative . 8.1 1 Don't know 58. Flood proofing of buildings is another technique we talked about before. Do you think of the social and emotional effects on you as mostly positive or mostly negative? 1. [ Positive 2. [ ] Negative 7.. [ 1 Neutral 8. [ 3 Don't know 59. Flow about the economic effects of flood proofing on you? 2. [ 3 Negative 8. [ ].Don't know 60. What about the flood insurance program? Are your feelings about the • social and emotional effects such as safety and security 2. [ 3 Negative 8. [ 3 Don't know ;..0 9 1 0 11 12 13 *** (ASK OF FLOODPLAIN SAMPLE ONLY) 61. And the economic effects of flood insurance -- property value,` damage costs, compensation or others. Are your feelings mostly positive or mostly negative? 1. L ] Positive 2. [ ] Negative 7. [ ] Neutral 8. [ ] Don't know 62. What about the social and emotional effects on you of outright purchase of floodplain property to reduce flood damage? Are they mostly positive or mostly negative? 1. [ ] Positive 2. [ ] Negative 7. [ ]'Neutral 8. [ ] Don't know 63. And your feelings about the economic effects of outright purchase. Positive? Negative? 1. [ ] Positive .2. [ ] Negative 7. [ ] Neutral 8. [ ] Don't know 64. You remember we talked about ways of transferring some aspects of property rights, such as development rights or conservation easements, without having the owner actually sell his property. From your own point of view, would the social and emotional effects on 221, be mostly positive or mostly negative? 1. [ ] Positive 2. [ ] Negative 7. [ ] Neutral 8. [ ] Don't know 65. What about the economic effects? 1. [ ] Positive 7. [ ] Neutral 2. [ ] Negative 8. [ ] Don't know lb 17 18 14 1F • * * * (ASK OF FLOODPLAIN SAMPLE ONLY) 66. What.about the social and emotional effects on you of flood warning and evacuation programs? 1. [ ] Positive 2. ['] Negative 7. [ ] Neutral .8. [ ]Don't know 67. And the economic effects? 1. [ ] Positive 7. [ ] Neutral 68. Now about your feelings about the social and emotional effects of disaster relief programs on you? If you recall, this included such things as temporary shelter and low interest loans to businesses and residents recover from serious flood damage, 1. [ .] Positive 7. [ ] Neutral 69. What are your thoughts on the economic effects for you of disaster relief programs? Positive? -Negative? 1. [ ] Positive 7. [ ] Neutral 2. [ ] Negative 8. [ ] Don't know 2. [ ] Negative 8. [ ] Don't know 2. [ _] NNlegati ve 8. [ ] Don't know !7 19 20 21 22 APPENDIX D LOCAL AGENCIES SURVEY INSTRUMENT THE COMMUNITY RESOURCES GROUP Current: Proposed: 2. Please describe your board' •s/ commission 's /department's.policies that apply to flood plain management. Current: Proposed: PLANNERS ' ARCHITECTS 16 GARDEN STREET CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138 617 - 876 -5900 Please describe your bo /commission's /department's role •in flood plain management for the Connecticut and Mill Rivers_ 3. Please describe your board's /commission's /department's recommendations for site specific management programs. (Example) Channelization of the Mill River in the Leeds area where the river occasionally exceeds its banks. (Example) Houses along Island Road should be relocated out of the flood plain. 4. Is flood plain management a major planning. issue in Northampton? 'yes no Please explain. 5. What are particular flood plain problem areas as defined by' your board /commission /department. 6. Is the board /commission /department satisfied with the accuracy and usefulness of the following: Special Conservancy District. yes no Please explain. Watershed Protection District. yes no Please 7. Are the plans for the extension of the municipal sewer consistent with the board's /commission's /department's objectives for.flood plain management? yes no • Please explain. 8. Are the following management techniques realistic for Northampton? a. Acquisition of flood hazard areas - yes no Please explain. b. Acquisition and development of potential recreation lands in the flood plain - yes no Please explain. c. Impoundment along the Mill River - yes no Please explain. d. No extension of minicipal services into the flood plain - yes no e. Transfer of development rights to selected development zones - yes no Please explain. f. Develop ordinances which treat the flood hazard zone more stringently than the floodway fringe - yes no Please explain. g. Relocate vulnerable structures in flood hazard area with some form of municipal assistance 7 yes no Please explain. 9. Should additional technical flood plain analysis be conducted? If so, which studies are needed? s APPENDIX E A HISTORY OF FLOODING IN NORTHAMPTON Introduction The purpose of this report is to describe the historical use of land that has played a role in the Connecticut River and Mill River floodplains. As we look for appropriate methods for managing and living with the floodplain in. Northampton, it is often useful to examine historical responses to the flooding rivers - in this way we can familiarize ourselves with the local realities of flooding while assessing the utility of alternative management strategies. Land Use Overview Mill River: Like many other early settlements in the Connecticut River Valley, this tributary played a greater role in the development of Northampton than did the Connecticut River itself. The land surrounding the Mill River was first settled in 1654 by settlers who called the area Nonatuck - later, Northampton. Rich agricultural soils along the river permitted the abundant production of corn, wheat, hay and apples - staple crops for these early residents. This agricultural base ensured the survival of the early settlement, but the primary reason for expansion of the community came from the motive power of the Mill River. The first mill in Northampton was built on the'Mill Rider in 1658. • The owners of this gristmill immediately built a dam to control their energy source. Many other mills and dams followed shortly thereafter,.and a rather diverse mill economy began to grow. By the end of the first century of settlement Northampton witnessed the construction of fulling mills, tanning mills, flax mills, duck mills, paper mills and silk mills in addition to the growing number of grist and sawmills. power. The diminution of agriculture and the rise of industry in Northampton coincided with the Revolution. By this time, agricultural practices had stripped the soil of available nutrients and crop production dropped off significantly. At the same time, industrial development of the area was accelerated by the elimination of British manufactured goods from the colonial market. As a result, factories that produced machine parts, clothing and household supplies emerged rapidly. The dependence of factories on Mill River power peaked in the mid- 1800's In 1850, there were 74 factories along the Mill River, all dependent on water At this time steam power was being introduced to - the area. Although -few of the existing mills. converted to steam, boilers were incorporated into • new mills and factories, freeing owners to locate their new industries wherever they deemed appropriate. This and the great flood of 1874, which swept away . numerous dams, mills and homes, - hastened the conversion from water power to steam. Factory owners were not only reluctant to, locate along the Mill River- because of flooding potential, but the economic superiority of steam had been clearly demonstrated.' Industrial migration away from the Mill River was accelerated further by the development of the electric motor and by the industrial decline following the First World War. From the earliest days of settlement, structural - solutions to Mill River flooding have been pursued. In 1699, settlers raised embankments along lower stretches of the Mill River in order to contain flood waters. This attempt proved ineffectual as flood waters breached and overtopped the embankments flooding adjacent meadows. In 1720, the river was diverted by cutting a channel across the Great Swamp into the Connecticut River, just north of the Oxbow. The river followed this diversion for more than 200 years, although the meadows were still susceptible to flooding as the river tried to shift back to its old course. Construction of the railroad in the 1850's resulted in another alteration - a dike was built below Maple Street to pre\Lnt water from inundating railroad yards and residences in the lower portion of the city. The flood of 1936, however, breached the dike and flooded the Maple Street /Hampton Avenue area. After the flood of 1936 and the hurricane of 1938,.the Flood Control and Division Project was initiated which rediverted the Mill River back to its pre -1720 channel. The project also erected a dike between Paradise Pone and West Street to protect residential and industrial buildings in that area. According to the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service, flood damage potential is still great. The one hundred year floodplain includes 124 residences, 24 businesses, at least one industrial building, five recreation areas and some agricultural lands and buildings - the total Mill River floodplain would inundate about 700 acres. Total damage as a result of the one hundred year storm is projected at $1.1 million. Property has been somewhat protected against.more frequent flooding owing to the protection project in Northampton and the floodwalls in Florence and Look Park. Connecticut River: The lands adjacent to the Connecticut River have always been essentially agricultural, in contrast to the industrial character of the Mill River. Connecticut River meadowlands were extremely fertile and much sought after ' from the time of the earliest settlements. Furthermore, the banks of the river were important resources to the settlers for salmon and shad fishing. At the time, there was a'surplus of almost all agricultural products in this region of the Connecticut. River Valley,. permitting crops and farm products to be floated down the river in rafts and barges for foreign markets. The character of the agricultural economy of the area changed consid- erably over the years. At first, corn, wheat and other grains were the major crops. By the 1980's,due to exhausted -soil nutrients and market competition from the western states, grain production was no longer profitable. In hopes of remaining a viable agricultural area, tobacco was introduced as an adaptation to changing conditions and market demands. Tobacco, and the introduction of onions in the 1870's, has permitted agriculture to remain an important part of the regional economy up to the present. Connecticut River flooding has been an ongoing problem since the settlement of Northampton. In the early days flood damage to crops and live - stock was the major issue, and to this day most of the 3,300 acres in the one hundred year floodplain have remained in agricultural uses. But as Northampton grew, more residential and industrial buildings were located in the flood - plain due to the availability and relatively low cost of land. Efforts to protect these buildings were largely ineffective until a dike was built to the east of Williams Street after the Hurricane of 1938. Currently, however, there are several residential, commercial and industrial developments which are susceptible to flood damage. These properties include: (1) an asphalt plant and portions of a garden apartment development . off Damon Road. (2) the Tri- County Fairgrounds and LaFleur Airport. (3) portions of the Colonial Hilton Inn, and the Tri -City Container Plant near the Oxbow. (4) some residences in the area of the fairgrounds and along Island Road. Flooding would still cause widespread damage to crops, farm houses and agricultural buildings and equipment in the Connecticut River meadows. Some residents have expressed their concern that the dike could be circum- vented if flood waters found'their way into the old Mill River channel, which could inundate the Hampton Avenue /Conz Street area. History of Flooding Floods have been a common occurence in the Connecticut River Valley 'since the time of the first recorded, flood in 1635. Three factors have been identified as primary causes of flooding: (1) spring thaw - this is the most frequent cause of flooding. Typically, these floods occur when warm weather or persistent spring rains melt an unusually large amount of snowfall. Flooding has also been caused by premature thawing in winter; (2) ice dams the Mill River is very susceptible to this condition. Ice dams occur when large pieces of floating ice are deposited at a narrow or shallow section of the river until the jam is massive enough to back -up large amounts of 7 meltwater. The Oxbow as formed in. 1840., when an ice dam forced that section of the meadow to flood and then prevented the inundation from draining back into the river; c3) torrential rains - these can result in the most devastating floods, such as the flood of 1927. Occasionally, some of these conditions occur at the same time. The record flood of 1936, was caused when an ice dam flood was followed by heavy rains - in Northampton, the river was backed up for ten days. Some of the major floods warrant individual description in order to • chronicle the variability of flood conditions in Northampton: May, 1874 - A survey of Northampton history shows that the first well - 'recorded heavy flood. occured'in the spring of 1874 on the Mill River. Nine years earlier, the Williamsburg and Mill River Reservoir Company was formed for the purpose of constructing a large dame in Williamsburg to provide a reserve of water for the mills and factories along the river. Placed at the head of a narrow gorge, 300 feet above Northampton, the earthen dam created a reservoir that covered 111 acres and stored one billion gallons of water when,filled. The spring of 1874 was unusually wet, forceing the gates of the dame to remain shut for almost two weeks. On the 18th of May, several fissures appeared in the dam wall the the dam quickly disintegrated, unleashing a 20 foot wall of water down the valley. Extensive areas of Williamsburg, Stunneville, Haydenville, and Leeds that border the Mill River were destroyed: Flood debris was deposited in heaps almost 20 feet high in the broad floodplain which is now part of the Northampton Country Club. In this flood, 144 lives were lost and over a million dollars of property was destroyed. November, 1927 - Although many communities in northern New England were hard hit by this storm, the city of Northampton escaped heavy damage. The Connecticut River rose at a rate of eight inches per hour until it topped the banks in Hockanum Meadows and washed into The Meadows. Familes had to be rescued by boat. There was serious flooding off South Street, and over a foot of water along Bridge Street, Park Street and Forbes Avenue. The Mill River rose four and a half feet very quickly, but the only property damage was a flooded engine room at the William A. Rodgers, Ltd., cutlery plant. Two small washouts occured on the High Street hill and Robert's Hill in Leeds, but there was no bridge damage. Total damage due to the storm has been 'estimated at $100,000, a great deal of which was damage to crops and loss of livestock in the Connecticut River meadows. March, 1936 - This is the Connecticut River Basin Flood of Record, and was the worst natural disaster in area history. On March 13, heavy rains and an ice jam forced Connecticut River meltwater into the meadows and residential sections of the Mt. To area. Roads'were closed and all available police were used to rescue the marooned residents. Flooding was especially 'bad off Hockanum Road and the meadows off'Bridge Street were under water. Families in the Williams Street and lower Pleasant Street sections were evacuated and relocated. The Army tried blasting the ice in the Connecticut, but thick ice resting on the river bottom made this exercise useless. By the 16th, the water began to reside, depositing large blocks of ice on roadways, railroad tracks and fields. Damage at this point was estimated at $75,000. The respite caused by the receding waters was shortlived. Two days later, on the 18th, torrential rains.forced the closing of schools, businesses, • and curtailment of municipal services. as roads . to the north and west were inundated and impassable. Residents Northampton was virtually isolated • were evacuated from the south end of West Street, and the Connecticut River was rising at a rate of one foot per hour. The Mill River was rising quickly as well, forcing several departments in the Pro -Brush factory in Florence to close due to flooded cellars. The West Street bridge was endangered by high velocity waters. By the next day, both rivers had flooded large areas of the city and were causing widespread destruction. The Connecti- \ cut had risen close to the center of town, reaching beyond the corner of Bridge and Hawley Streets up to Old South Street. The Maple Street /Hampton Avenue section was evacuated as the old dike was breached, sending water three feet above first floor elevation into that area. The river was a raging current as far as the corner of Maple and Fruit Streets, carrying large blocks of ice which made navigation E azardous. By the end of the day there were 2000 Northampton refugees. Sewer had clogged and backed -up, threatening outbreaks of disease. The Smith Ferry area was completely inundated with water covering entire buildings. By the With, water reached as far into the center of Northampton as the Noble & Flynn drugstore on Lower Main Street, and to the Plaza Theater on Pleasant Street. The Connecticut River had inundated as far as Paradise Pond, and the Mt.. Tom junction'was under 20 feet of.water. The river had risen to the record 129 foot level. By the end of the storm, losses were measured in the millions of .dollars with incalculable human suffering and inconvenience.. September, 1938- Two years after the Flood of Record, the Northampton area was:victim to a great hurricane on the'22nd. High winds and torrential rains were the problem this time with fallen trees and damaged roofs added to the flood damage. The Connecticut River rose at a rate of one foot per hour, flooding the Hockanum and Mt. Tom areas, and inundating up to the Maple. Street dike. La Fleur airport was underwater, the airplanes having been moved to high ground on Bridge street. The Mill River rose very quickly, and had exceded the flood stage of the 1936 storm by 18 inches. The cellar of the McCallum hosiery plant was flooded. But the major evacuation effort was in the Hockanum Road section where families had to be removed by rowboat. Water was over the Maple Street bridge where sandbags were in place to protect the adjacent homes. Pleasant Street was under water. Crop losses in the Connecticut River meadows were great as flood waters inundated as far as the fairgrounds. Municipal costs along, due to wind and water damage, was estimated at $81,500. The greatest residential damage , aas in the Williams Street neighborhood where flood waters had inundated up to the second floor of many homes. August, 1955 - Hurricane Diane descended on Northampton on the 18th, bringing winds and heavy rains. Unlike many previous floods, the greatest threat was posed by the Mill River, as the reservoir in Leeds began to fail. Water levels were already high in the reservoir as a result of record rainfall in August. Hurricaro rains added enough additional water to place severe stresses on the dam, causing substantial leakage into the Mill River. Rains continued • into the 19th, and by the end of that day, West, Milton and Gothic Streets were underwater and many factories were flooded on Reservoir, Water and Main Streets in. Florence and Leeds. Residents on Spring and South Main Streets were evacuated. All. low -lying Connecticut River meadows were inundated. April, 1960 - On April 5, heavy rains and spring meltwater pushed the Conn- ecticut River up to a 119.9 foot elevation, causing substantial flooding in the HoCkanum Road section and the meadows off Bridge Street. The fair- grounds were flooded, as was La Fleur airport where many planes had to be moved to Sheldon Field.' Farmers had enough advance warning to move their farm equipment to the high ground above Bridge Street. March, 1968 - This flood was similar to the 1960 flood, and was caused chiefly by heavy rain and meltwater. Roads through the meadows were closed and Route 5 south of the city was impassable. Cellars were flooded in the Island Road section. This was the first test of the engineering design of Route 91, which some residents feared would not withstand flood pressures. June, 1973 - Heavy rains raised the Connecticut River to the 114.9 foot level (115 foot level is not uncommon in spring thaws). The floods came at a very bad time for the farmer, devastating crops in the Connecticut River fields. The Pynchon and Northampton Meadows were inundated, and Route 5 was covered near Oxbow. Island Road was flooded, isolating the Oxbow Marina. Campers had to be evacuated from the Oxbow Marina. There was some temporary street flooding in various sections of town. Croplands sustained most of the damage. Summary • removed - the Connecticut River will continue to overspill its banks and By analyzing flood history in Northampton it becomes clear that much private and municipal property remains. subject to flood damage. Although flood control projects throughout the Connecticut River basin have effectively H reduced flood stages in Northampton, the threat of .flood damage has not been C Mill River flooding has not been controlled in any way save for the downstream dike. Furthermore, it is not sufficient to rely entirely on flood forecasting, as some of the heaviest floods have been essentially impossible to predict. Flooding is also regional in nature - Northampton has had the good fortune of being spared heavy damage at times when neighboring towns were much harder hit; this situation may be reversed at any time. Flooding is variable in nature - rivers are dynamic systems, their behavior is difficult to predict. All of this argues in favor of taking a conservative approach to fioodplain management within Northampton. • BIBLIOGRAPHY 1- Carlozzi, Sinton & Vilkitis, Inc., Attitildes,TOward Flood Management in Northampton, Massachusetts: A Case Study'. 'Amherst, . Massachusetts, August, 1978.. • 2... Institute of Public Administration, Ruth P. Mack, author, Criteria for Evaluation of Social Impacts of Flood Management • Alternatives: Phase I Report. New York, May, 1974. Assessment of Flood Management Alternatives .Against Social Performance Criteria. November, , 1975. • Evaluation of and Recommendations for Legal ,Institutional, and Financial Methods for Implementing Purposes and Plana'f04.. Flood Plain Management in the Connecticut River.Basin. March, 1976. 10. United States Water Resources Council. Establishment of Principles and Standards for Planning.. Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 174, Washington, D.C., Sept. 10, 1974. Regional Economic Activity 1977. 4.. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Summary of the Comprehensive Plan for Northampton, MaSsachuSetts, June, 1972. • 5. National. Flood Insurers Association, National Flood Insurance Program: Flood Insurance. Manual, Arlington, Virginia, .February. 1975. 6. New England River Basins Commission, The River's Reach December, 1976. 7. Technical Planning Associates, Recreation Facilites in Northampton: A Plan and Program for the Next 10 Years, 1974. 8. United States Army, Corpsof Engineers, Physical and Economic Feasibility of NonStrudtural Flood Plain Management,Measures. Institute for Water Resources, Ft. Belvoir , Virginia, 'March, 1978. . 9. United States Department ofOommerce J,:Day, author, Flood Warning Benefit Evaluation - Susquehanna River .Basin(Urban Residences) Environmental Sciences Services Administration, Technical Memorandum WBTM 10, March 1970. -. 3. Lower Pioneer Valley. Regional Planning CoMmission, Base Data June, 1977: .